During the 20th century, fascism was a topic of interest for scholars worldwide as it emerged in different countries and took on various forms. Although Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini are well-known examples, it is important to acknowledge that fascism also existed in other parts of the world.
Throughout history, various countries have experienced periods of fascism. In the Second World War, Spain, Austria, and Portugal all went through such periods. The United Kingdom also had failed fascist movements during this time. Similarly, France and the Benelux region encountered fascism as a result of Nazi occupation in World War II. Additionally, the Balkans witnessed fascist dictatorships during the wars of the 1990s.
According to Hagtvet and Rokkan, five nations (Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, and Portugal) underwent a similar outcome of monolithic control after the collapse of mass democracy during World War II^1. The authors suggest that historical, economic, and political factors in these countries made them susceptible to adopting fascist styles of governance.
Regrettably, the constraints of this essay prevent a comprehensive examination of this audacious claim that encompasses multiple countries and factors. However, the focus will be on Germany and Italy as prominent examples of fascism in Europe. Merkl argues that both the NSDAP and the PNF surpassed other fascist movements in their impact on domestic politics and global affairs. Additionally, they exhibited greater devastation and ruthlessness compared to similar movements.
According to Conan Fischer’s book, The Rise of the Nazis, the establishment of a fascist state like Nazi Germany was not a straightforward or predetermined process.
When examining Germany’s history between the 1920s and 1940s, it is vital to acknowledge a crucial point: Hitler’s ascent to power was shaped by multiple factors. These factors encompassed the economic state and political consequences following World War I, alongside the utilization of force and dependence on luck. The Treaty of Versailles had a significant impact on the rise of fascism in Germany.
The Social Democrats, the main party in the post-war government, faced criticism for agreeing to a peace treaty that both financially crippled Germany and morally condemned them for World War I. Despite President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” issued in January 1918, Germany was excluded from participating in the negotiations by the Allied powers. The Allies only allowed limited written comments on a draft version of the treaty and presented harsher terms than expected. As a result, Germany experienced territorial losses and was burdened with open-ended reparations. Article 231 of the treaty forced Germany to accept moral responsibility for starting WWI, which was difficult for the public to accept. In the Weimar Republic, there was widespread belief that republicans weakly surrendered to false accusations and demands by signing the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.
Although the Social Democrats were not held accountable for the armistice and Treaty of Versailles, their governments and coalitions were always viewed with suspicion due to perceived ‘betrayal’. The criticism surrounding Versailles failures resurfaced during Weimar Republic challenges, intensifying mistrust towards the party. As a result, the public perception of their responsibility in 1919 hindered the Social Democrats from fully reclaiming power.
It didn’t take long for the fascists to take advantage of and manipulate the public and political unease surrounding the Social Democrats. They presented Adolf Hitler as a leader who would provide a powerful form of government and actively campaigned for the benefit of the nation. Ian Kershaw suggests that Germans, due to their experience under the Kaiser, were inclined towards authoritarian rule and were unfamiliar with Western models of governance.
Hitler embodied the idea of a leader with complete control, especially when compared to the unstable political systems, parties, and individuals in authority during the Weimar Republic. The economic challenges experienced by the Weimar Republic were also influential in the emergence of fascism in Germany, particularly because of the effects of the Great Depression. The economy was left in ruins after extensive spending, borrowing, and utilization of all accessible resources during World War I. The reparations imposed after the war were enormous; about 80% of non-borrowed revenues in 1922 went towards these reparation payments.
The Weimar government heavily borrowed from the Reichsbank and the US private sector due to insufficient tax revenue for reparations expenditure and bridging the revenue gap. This borrowing became even more critical in 1923 when the French invasion of the Ruhr caused an economic crisis characterized by disastrous hyper-inflation. The impact on people was devastating, with French occupation forces exerting pressure and resorting to arbitrary brutality against resistance. There were widespread food shortages, rampant epidemics particularly among the working classes, and German reliance on borrowing persisted throughout the 1920s, especially from the USA. However, this dependence on America ended with a shift in US monetary policy in 1928 and most significantly with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Fischer argues that this deteriorating economic situation ultimately paved the way for some form of authoritarian government.
Estimates indicate that unemployment drastically increased during the winters of 1931-2 and 1932-3, resulting in half of the economically active population being without work8. Consequently, smaller farms and businesses faced bankruptcy, salaries were reduced for those still employed, and diseases like tuberculosis and pneumonia started to spread among the impoverished population, reminding them of the severe hardships experienced during World War I.
Amidst widespread public and political discontent, the Constitution’s Article 48 was invoked in 1930, granting the President unprecedented decree powers that were originally intended for emergency use only. The government seized this opportunity to marginalize the SPD, frequently bypassing parliament and imposing conservative laws. Meanwhile, the economic crisis between 1929 and 1933 bolstered the Nazi Party’s popularity. When Hitler assumed the role of Chancellor in 1933, he swiftly initiated his campaign for a one-party regime. Consequently, fascism took hold in Germany.
The Treaty of Versailles and economic factors played a role in the rise of fascism in Italy. The treaty, also called the ‘Mutilated Victory,’ left Italians bitter as they believed Italy did not receive appropriate rewards for its significant contribution to the war. Although Italy gained some territory, it did not acquire any from Germany or Turkey during the peace settlement. Furthermore, there was public outrage when Fiume, a region where over half of the population was Italian, was given to Yugoslavia, a newly formed state.
The nationalists and fascists swiftly took advantage of this situation and condemned Orlando’s government for its perceived weakness. They also criticized the government for involving the country in a war that caused economic damage and disappointment during the peace settlement. Italy felt that it had not received adequate rewards for its involvement in the war, and Mussolini’s emerging fascist party gained popularity by echoing the public’s criticisms.
The support for fascism in Italy grew due to the economic and social issues that arose after World War I. Unemployment in Italy rose to 2 million by 1920, while inflation and the depreciation of the lira continued. Although the working class had some protection, the middle class faced poverty, with professionals and academics left jobless. The bourgeoisie and intelligentsia were also attracted to the Fascists. Demobilisation in Italy happened faster than other Allied nations, leaving many soldiers unprepared for civilian life. The population felt neglected by the government and sought hope in more extreme political movements.
Italy experienced a rise in the politicized working class after the War. The experience of trench warfare brought together individuals from different social backgrounds, including intellectuals and professionals interacting with the less educated for the first time. Consequently, the working class gained more political power compared to their pre-War status. This period, known as the ‘Red Two Years,’ was marked by numerous strikes. Simultaneously, support for fascism increased as the Socialist Party failed to capitalize on popular desires for revolution. In November 1919, even Avanti!, a Socialist newspaper, published a headline declaring ‘All we have to do is wait.’ This passive stance quickly disillusioned the working classes.
From 1918 to 1920, a series of strikes and protests took place; however, the Socialists were unable to capitalize on the situation and ignite a widespread revolt. As a result, many workers turned to alternative political parties for assistance in addressing their hardships, leading to a significant decline in popularity for the Socialist movement.
There is much debate surrounding the use of violence in the rise of fascism in Italy. Some argue that the tactics used by the squadrist resulted in compliance with fascist policies. However, it is important to note that during the October 1922 March on Rome, the violent takeover was relatively peaceful. Instead of personally taking power, Mussolini distanced himself from the march and remained in Milan, uncertain about its chances for success. Initially, both Facta and the King planned to respond forcefully and had confidence in the capabilities of the Italian army. Facta even prepared a decree for martial law to deploy the army. However, at the last minute, the King had a change of heart and ordered Mussolini to come to Rome where he formed a government.
Although the Fascist squads arrived in Rome after Mussolini was appointed by the King, it is clear that force played a role in his ascension to Prime Minister. Therefore, it can be contended that the King effectively granted power to Mussolini. As Cassels points out, “By 1922, nearly every sector of the Italian establishment was willing to collaborate with Fascism due to reasons associated with nationalism or opposition to Bolshevism, or both.”
Although Fascism in Italy developed a reputation for using brutal force through squadrist activity in the provinces, Mussolini’s ascent to power in the government was ultimately the result of fortunate circumstances rather than immediate violence. The King did not challenge the Fascists’ actions. In conclusion, it is evident that both prominent examples of European Fascism came to power through a combination of complex yet similar forces.
World War I, the following economic problems, and resentment towards the Treaty of Versailles all had an impact on the growing support and strength of the NSDAP and the PNF. However, this does not clarify why Fascist governments did not emerge in other European states. Sadly, there is not enough room here to delve deeper into these inquiries or explore other instances of Fascism in Europe, including Spain, Austria, Portugal, the Benelux countries, France, Eastern Europe, and Great Britain.
In the twentieth century, different countries had various fascist movements. Some of these movements, like Franco’s Falange, were successful in gaining power. However, this study did not explore these nations extensively. Nonetheless, it is clear from the examples of Germany and Italy that they had the most influential fascist movements in Europe at that time. Widespread dissatisfaction in social, economic, political, and nationalistic aspects played a significant role in fueling a desire for drastic governmental transformation (among numerous other factors contributing to the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany).
On a structural level, Hagtvet and Rokkan suggest that the five nations that fell to Fascism were those with a strong attachment to imperialism and rapid exposure to mass democracy. Alternatively, their article could be seen as academics’ attempt to justify and make sense of a horrific deviation from Western democracy and its principles, aiming to reassure us that such a departure from democratic norms will not occur again.
