Italian and German Fascism - Report Example

Italian and German Fascism Introduction Both the first and second World Wars had one thing in common, the fact that they resulted into massive loss of lives and destruction of property. Similarly, the two wars have received acknowledgment for strengthening global diplomatic ties, notably due to the formation of several universal organizations such as the United Nations. In Europe, the period from 1920 brought forth the practice of fascism in both Italy and Germany, two nations that had a critical role to play in terms of ascertaining the stability of the region. This implied that the then leaders of the two nations were dictatorial, and had complete control of the lives of their citizenry1. They forcibly ascended to leadership and became centers of authority, suppressed any attempts by the opposition to have a say in the running of the two economies and punished their critic’s severely. The leadership in both nations made decisions regarding all the industries and matters commerce, thereby being answerable to no one. This essay aims to provide more insight on the how fascism both Italian and German leaders practiced fascism as soon as WW1 ended. It examines how some of the social, cultural, economic and political impacts of WW1 led to the emergence of fascism in both Italy and Germany. Similarly, this essay explores some of the similarities as well as differences on how the two nations practiced fascism. Another factor that the essay looks into is the reason why the global population should be concerned about the practice of fascism and their masterminds. Paxton’s Perspective Robert Paxton argues that before 1919, no one had any notions on the practice of fascism. Nevertheless, the world began to understand the trend once Benito Mussolini and his allies formed a political group, which seized power by forming alliances and with the help of unlawful militia2. In as much as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were the first leaders to practice fascism, the trend spread across various parts of the world. In all the nations where it was practiced, the leaders had a similar style of leadership, which laid emphasis on historical grievances, repressed democracy and at the same time used violence as a tool. How World War One Impacted Fascism In as much as World War One ended in November 1918, a section of scholars and the global population have always maintained that its effects are still evident. This is majorly because it brought about the death of empires that had been quite strong before it began and the emergence of solid nations. Due to continuous suspicion, various spheres of influence redrew their boundaries. For some people the war provided them with the opportunity to embrace new cultural beliefs and for others, their literature was affected. Some economies became prosperous while others went through tough times due to economic depression. For nations such as Italy and Germany, the war provided a breathing space, which leaders such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler exploited and introduced fascism with the assistance of their loyalists3. Political Impacts World War One resulted into political instability within most of the European nations. Most of the rulers who had taken their people into war faced internal rebellion based on the extent of their participation. In Italy for example, five different governments ruled for a three-year period between 1919 and 19224. They lacked the ability to arrive at solid verdicts and the fact that Mussolini’s fascist party clinched the highest number of seats in the 1921 Italian elections made it easier for him to ascend to power. In Germany, the great German revolution began once the war had ended; it weakened the power that the then central government had, and led to the formation of the Weimer Republic, which remained solid until such a time that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party were taking over the leadership of Germany5. Overtime, historians have always held firm the opinion that the event that Germany lost during WW1 as well as the extremely unfavorable conditions which were laid out by the Versailles Treaty, directly laid the foundation for Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party to assume control of Germany. Economic Impacts Both Germany and Italy underwent economic depression after WW1 majorly due to the massive destruction of their economic infrastructure6. This made it difficult for governments that came after the war to run smoothly as they could not provide their citizenry with basic services as is always the case. Moreover, the German condition fell out of place for the fact that it was required to provide monetary payments to its allies for the losses that they suffered in the course of the war. Similarly, the poor method of leadership practiced by the Weimer rule, made it untenable for the German economy to pick up7. This is majorly due to facts such as too much inflation and the high rate of unemployment, as close to six million job seekers were not provided with the opportunity to put their skills into practice. The fact that the German currency lost its value made the situation worse, as people were required to use wheelbarrows full of the German currency to purchase necessities such as bread8. In as much as the German economy regained ground mid 1920’s, the crash of the American stock during the great depression of 1929 made it register much slump, and it is then that the Nazi Party, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler took control. Social Impacts The major social theme, which runs throughout WW1, was that of liberation. All the parties, which took part in the war, shared the dream of providing people with equal opportunities irrespective of their social class. The perceived freedom nevertheless was short lived as a section of the governments that took over immediately after the war only rewarded their loyalists, hence preventing a considerable section of people from utilizing their portion of the national cake. This was the situation in both Italy and Germany9. Though Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini both took control of their nations with the prospect of turning things around for their citizens, their system of leadership was much worse. This is because several people lost their lives, notably their critics. They took control of the lives of their citizens, tilting important decisions in their favor and seemingly forgot all to do with the liberation dream as their tenures have gone down as the worst in history10. Though both leaders thought that their administrations would ensure that their nations have a unity of purpose, they became a disgrace to the human kind by making their spheres of influence uninhabitable for their citizens. Similarities between Fascism in Italy and Germany Adolf Hitler may have been the leader of the Nazi Party in Germany and Benito Mussolini the leader of the fascist party in Italy, but their system of leadership seemed to have been reading from a similar script11. For starters, the mechanism through which they rose to power was similar. As discussed in the section above, Hitler took advantage of the economic crisis that Germany was going through and brought up propaganda against the government, while at the same time providing Nazi solutions to the issues for which he blamed the government. It was then determined that he should be provided with the opportunity to fully implement some of the solutions he had raised earlier. The same situation took place in Italy where Benito Mussolini took advantage of both the economic and political weaknesses that the then leadership was going through. After his fascist led party won majority of the seats during the Italian elections, Mussolini organized the great march to Rome, where he encouraged people not to have faith in the left wing, which was trying to create another revolving pact. His ability to convince a considerable section of the Italian population prompted the king to invite him on board, and gave him the go ahead to put up together a government, which would lead Italy. The two leadership systems similarly shared the trait of being anti-communist, a practice that played to the favor of both Hitler and Mussolini12. This is because the entire Europe had not embraced the aspect of communism, and both leaders received great support from their larger citizenry by their virtue of being anti- communists. Both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini oversaw anti-democratic leadership systems. Their systems were rather totalitarian as they controlled all the aspects of commerce ranging from agriculture, industry, education as well as the kind of life that their citizens lived. In borrowing a leaf from his Italian colleague, Hitler introduced the forcible coordination policy, whereby it was dangerous to criticize and oppose the ideologies held by the Nazi party and Hitler’s loyalists at large13. In fact, Adolf Hitler banned all the political parties that existed in Germany, in the process making it a one party state, just as it was in Italy. Through their harsh civil system, the two structures of leadership did not welcome any individual form their enemy countries into their boundaries. This is majorly because they regarded that as laying a foundation for rebellion. In an attempt to ensure that even the upcoming children shared the Nazi ideologies, Adolf Hitler and his loyalists keenly shaped and monitored the education system. Even the holistic nature of churches and religious organizations did not appeal to them as they thought that the church would similarly act as a foundation to establish rebellion. Driven by his desire to eradicate the entire Jewish race, Hitler and his Nazi party introduced the anti-Jewish policy, thereby denying them German citizenship, and prohibiting the Germans from marrying the Jewish just as Mussolini too did not entertain his enemies14. Hitler thought that the Jewish were liable for most of the unfortunate events that Germans had gone through. Hitler always thought that the Jewish were responsible for communism, the German economic depression as well as the high incidence of unemployment witnessed in Germany. Differences In as much as the two systems of leadership had several similarities in common, one of the most notable differences that existed was the fact that the two leaders differed in terms of their constitutional position15. In as much as Adolf Hitler did not have any one else who could question his decisions, King Emmanuel of Rome always played an integral role in shaping the destiny of Italy in as much as Benito Mussolini often ignored him. Essentially, he ordered the dismissal and arrest of Mussolini, thereby playing a far-reaching role in overseeing his fall from power. It is similarly of importance to note that Benito Mussolini the Italian dictator failed in his attempt to create a totalitarian regime though his friend Adolf Hitler succeeded in doing so. Concern The major reason as to why the global population should care about the practices believed in by both the Nazi and Fascist practices is the fact that the masterminds feel that they can trample on human rights and subject them to manipulation as they please. In an ideal world, this should not be the case, as the society has a role of ensuring that it brings out the best out of all its citizens, and the practices of the Nazi and Fascists party do not maximize the output of an individual. Bibliography Besier, Gerhard, Fascism, communism and the consolidation of democracy: a comparison of European dictatorships, Berlin: Lit, 2006. This source explores the different mechanisms of leadership, which were practiced by rulers across various European nations including in Italy and Germany. Blamires, Cyprian, and Paul Jackson. World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2006. This source is relevant to the essay, as it not only sheds light on the history of Fascism in both Italy and Germany, but throughout all the other continents as well. De Grand, Alexander J. Italian fascism: its origins & development, Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press, 2000. The relevance of this source to the essay stems from the fact that it sheds more light on Italian Fascism, notably its origin, as well as how it developed after Benito Mussolini ascended to power. Knox, MacGregor. Common destiny: dictatorship, foreign policy, and war in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. The relevance of this source to the essay stems from the fact that it provides insight on some of the similarities and differences on how fascism was practiced in Italy and Germany. Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism, New York: Knopf, 2004. In this text, Robert Paxton aims to introduce a different ideology into how fascism is viewed. The source majorly provides further insight on how fascism emerged and spread throughout Europe Payne, Stanley G. A history of fascism, 1914-1945, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. This source is essential to the essay, as it takes us through the history of fascism, including the masterminds, how it originated, as well as how it developed in Italy and Germany. Wells, Mike. Unification and consolidation of Germany and Italy 1815-90, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. This source is relevant to the essay, as it provides insight on how united Germany was before, during, and after the Nazi Party practiced fascism. Read More