Hereditary succession in surviving fascist states

Say the axis wins or World War 2 doesn't happen or whatever.

Would hereditary succession be likely in the various fascist states

Which countries would be most likely to have hereditary succession
 
Most likely the ones that were already monarchies. Although, that runs the risk of the monarchy itself becoming a vehicle for overthrowing the fascist state (as in Spain).
 

Dolan

Banned
Most likely the ones that were already monarchies. Although, that runs the risk of the monarchy itself becoming a vehicle for overthrowing the fascist state (as in Spain).
Franco, and fascism in general somehow managed to really impress the young Juan Carlos.

Franco still handed over the rule to King Juan Carlos, but ITTL Juan Carlos, instead of being champion of democracy, ended up following Fascist tenets and rule Spain as a Royal Dictator.

ITTL Spain would then become a country with both Fascist system and fully hereditary succession method with absolute monarchy as their government. People start to think Spain as the European version of Arab monarchs.
 

Deleted member 96212

I don't think most fascist states would survive that long. Even if we go with Axis victory, Germany runs Europe, the Nazi government was so fraught with infighting (which was the point - divide and conquer) that it would likely collapse within a few years of Hitler's death because everyone's trying to race to the top at once. I don't know the internal politics of other fascist states but I presume it would be similar.

Closest I can picture to your challenge is if there's no Iraq War, Saddam Hussein dies, and one of his kids takes the lead. Depending on your definition of fascism this is already the case for the Syrian and North Korean regimes.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
One of the core tenets of fascism is might makes right and kratocracy - rule by the strongest. Fascists don't believe in the divine right of kings; while they do believe in master races they don't believe in sacred bloodlines. A powerful and successful leader might be able to pass the throne down to his son but if that son proves unpopular (to the fascist elites) then he won't rule for long.
 
Last edited:
I don't think most fascist states would survive that long. Even if we go with Axis victory, Germany runs Europe, the Nazi government was so fraught with infighting (which was the point - divide and conquer) that it would likely collapse within a few years of Hitler's death because everyone's trying to race to the top at once. I don't know the internal politics of other fascist states but I presume it would be similar.

Closest I can picture to your challenge is if there's no Iraq War, Saddam Hussein dies, and one of his kids takes the lead. Depending on your definition of fascism this is already the case for the Syrian and North Korean regimes.

Spanish fascist state ran until the 70s, and that only ended because Francos heir wanted to dismantle the system.
 
Spanish fascist state ran until the 70s, and that only ended because Francos heir wanted to dismantle the system.

But even in that case, the regime basically only lasted for the life of a single leader. I wouldn't necessarily say that points to a system with a high degree of resilience.
 
But even in that case, the regime basically only lasted for the life of a single leader. I wouldn't necessarily say that points to a system with a high degree of resilience.
it's also important to remember that pretty much the only reason Francoist Spain lasted as long as it did was because it was convenient for the West to leave it alone for the sake of keeping it from becoming communist. take away the Cold War and Franco probably would have been deposed right quick.
 
Fascism is usually too destructive and self-destructive, that a fascist state survives long enough for this question to become relevant.
War and violence are essential to fascist ideology.
There are of course many different types of fascism, some more open towards a monarchy than others.
 
Say the axis wins or World War 2 doesn't happen or whatever.

Would hereditary succession be likely in the various fascist states

Which countries would be most likely to have hereditary succession

Evidently, not those that already were republics.

As to Italy, for instance, the royals weren't particularly well liked, but up until 1939 they were not at all unpopular. If anything, the fact that they were undoubtedly a counterweight to Mussolini, but very prudent in using that weight, made the regime more stable, not less.

As to the notion that Fascism is inherently non-durable, that may be true if it does meet significant setbacks and its economy can't feed on victims. If the assumption is that WWII is an Axis victory, then keep in mind that nothing is as successful as success. Italy would externalize its economy's shortcomings (an elegant way to say, "prey on neighbors"), and the dissenters would have been proven wrong.

It is a real possibility, if Italy's won big and Fascism is very popular, that Mussolini will curb the royal house's prerogatives; and there is a thin chance he'll go for a republic. But at this point he'd be old and tired and probably satisfied enough not to want to rock the boat.

---

Unless, of course, the question was not about hereditary succession in the monarchy, but about hereditary succession in the new figure of the Leader.
 
Could one of his sons become the next Duce?

Don't think so; the most likely of them died in the war. But his son-in-law would have liked that, and if the war had not gone sideways (with his valiant contribution as to the Albanian-Greek fiasco) he might have had a shot at convincing the old man to appoint him as a designated successor.

Naturally he was sub-par even for the Fascist yes-men, and well-disliked, so he would have been disposed of in a free-for-all once old Benito died.
 
What about a Roman system where each Leader formally adopts their successor? There would be some degree of family nepotism I'm sure but the name will live on in a strictly legal/propaganda sense even if not necessarily through actual bloodline.
 
Metaxas might've influenced one of the heirs to the Greek throne if he'd managed to force the King to accept the transformation of Greece into a complete Monarcho-Fascist state, ensuring that said successor is thoroughly educated in the doctrine of Metaxist thought when he comes to power. It'd depend on how long he lives for something like this to succeed, although no Italian invasion of Greece would mean that Metaxas' centralization of power is complete and that pro-Axis officers are completely neutered in 1940-41.
 

Kaze

Banned
Japan. Succession easy. Crown Prince Succeeds Emperor.
Hawaii (if Japan takes it) Succession to Hawaiian monarchy (but a mere puppet, see Manchugo)
Manchugo. Succession easy - they have a crown prince in the wings.
Romania. Succession complicated.
Germany - civil war. Nazi Germany would collapse into factions within a week - to - a month of Hitler's death.
Italy. succession complicated, complicated more if Germany in civil war.
Vichy France - wait until German civil war, Republic re-established.
England (if the unmentionable sea-mammal succeeds). Succession easy but complicated by the war legacy - new king or queen on the throne.
India (there was an Indian nationalist that was pro-Fascist) . Complicated at best - I expect Republic of India will be established.
 
You might be looking for Subhas Chandra Bose and the RSS for examples of pro-Fascist/Indian Fascist/Fascistic figures and movements.
Subhas Chandra Bose was basically a militant nationalist who considered himself a socialist. He allied with the fascists as the only pragmatic policy at that time. He had never supported the racist policies of the Nazis and viewed it with distaste. He had admiration for the Soviet Union. He also held the view that some form of authoritarianism was required to change the feudal and conservative Indian society to a socialist republic.
The RSS as a militant nationalist organisation had watched in their initial period the rise of militant nationalism in Italy and Germany with admiration. The evening meetings of RSS branches held every day across the length and breadth of the country start with the prayer of salutation to the Motherland represented by the saffron flag.
 
Do we have any OTL examples of succession of a fascist state? North Korea, I guess?

Well, depending on how you'd define Argentina's regime, don't forget that it's still a family succession even if it's not father-to-son but husband-to-wife.
 
Subhas Chandra Bose was basically a militant nationalist who considered himself a socialist. He allied with the fascists as the only pragmatic policy at that time. He had never supported the racist policies of the Nazis and viewed it with distaste. He had admiration for the Soviet Union. He also held the view that some form of authoritarianism was required to change the feudal and conservative Indian society to a socialist republic.
The RSS as a militant nationalist organisation had watched in their initial period the rise of militant nationalism in Italy and Germany with admiration. The evening meetings of RSS branches held every day across the length and breadth of the country start with the prayer of salutation to the Motherland represented by the saffron flag.
Bose seemed to have been a lot closer to National Bolshevism than either National Socialism or Soviet-style Socialism/Communism, especially with his apparent desire to combine both ideologies to create the foundation for a new India.

Anyways, I mentioned both Bose and the RSS as recommendations, mostly because it seemed that they both harbored pro-Fascist sympathies and/or might have been Fascist themselves.
 
Top