Tyrone Schiff

His 270
Fascism and Nazism

Fascism and Nazism were two predominant political schools of thought during

the earlier part of the 20th century, specifically localized around Hitler’s Germany and

Mussolini’s Italy. Fascism and Nazism, though similar in many regards, have many

aspects to them that make them different from one another. These primarily include each

political ideology when it comes to society, economics, and gender issues. Furthermore,

an outlook on the status of the state and nation makes Fascism and Nazism slightly

different from one another. In order to gain a further understanding of these two political

ideologies, I will explain and compare the two using references from the course pack.

Following the tragedy of World War I, Germany came out of the mix tattered and

bruised on a World stage. Germany was blamed for the war and was ordered to pay

massive reparations to various countries, which terribly hurt their economy and

embarrassed their people. This created a perfect stage for Adolf Hitler to enter into the

political realm with his ideas of Nazism fueled by his book, Mein Kampf. The concept of

Nazism was broadened by The National Socialist German Workers’ Party. This party,

with whom Hitler associated and eventually came to lead, published a list of grievances

in response to the Versailles Treaty. This list, which was published originally in 1920,

became known as the Twenty-Five points. This was the beginning of the Nazism

mentality and political ideology. Many of the points touched on anti-Semitism, demanded

more land, and espoused superiority of the “German Race.”

From the beginning of Hitler’s control, he ruled over Germany like a watch dog.

For instance, “Hitler issued an Emergency Decree suspending civil liberties and
proceeded to arrest communists or alleged communists” (CP, 100). This speaks volumes

about the type of societal control that the Nazi regime commanded. It would ruthlessly

hunt you down and try to eradicate everything and everyone that did not agree with it.

Beyond this, the Nazis were also exceptional at using political propaganda to fuel their

cause against the enemy. One of the chief methods of propaganda use was the radio, and

according to Josef Goebbels, head of Nazi propaganda, “The radio must subordinate itself

to the goals which the Government of the national revolution has set itself” (CP, 101).

This is a scary thought to consider. If all media is pumping out information that furthers

the interest of the Government, then people are literally becoming brainwashed by

corruption and lies.

The Nazis were also staunchly against the Jews, and used them as a scapegoat for

many of their own failings post-World War I. In 1935, the Nazi party established Racial

Legislation, in which they established rules regarding marriage and divorce, extramarital

relations, employment, and display of Nazi symbols. Jews were treated especially harshly

in this legislation; most of their equitable rights to regular German citizens were taken

away.

Economically, the Nazis were able to hoist the German people out of the trenches

of their Great Depression, but it came at a significant price. “The Nazi economic

experiment proved that by sacrificing all political and civil liberty, destroying a free

trade-union movement, preventing the private exercise of capital, and ignoring consumer

satisfaction, full employment to prepare for war and aggression could be achieved” (CP,

104). All work was devoted towards the state and the development of the army as they

were soon to embark in war.

 For women, Nazism meant a place in the home taking care of children and

supporting the actions of her husband. Hitler believed that women and men belonged in

different worlds from one another. Women who tried to further their rights were

considered “symptoms of cultural decline” (CP, 105). One of the reasons that child

rearing was so important to the Nazi ideology was because they were attempting to create

an entire pure race of Aryans. Therefore, populating the nation was critical.

Fascism was the major political and national ideology that was accepted by the

Italians under the control of Mussolini. Fascism came about as an effort to stabilize both

the Italian social and economic life. Fascism was a move towards isolationism in a sense,

because during Mussolini’s efforts, he attempted to make Italy completely self-reliant,

where they wouldn’t have to seek help from outsiders in order for their own country to

thrive. One instance of this can be seen in the “battle of wheat” in which Mussolini

attempted to prevent foreign grain from entering the country. As a result, Italian farming

grew tremendously.

To further detail the economic endeavors of Fascism, we learn that fascists

engaged in a policy known as corporatism, which is a middle-ground between socialism

and a market system. Fascists established this plan because they assumed that, “class

conflict would be avoided if both labor and management looked to the greater goal of

productivity for the nation” (CP, 109). However, the corporatism system did not work as

ideally as the Fascists planned. It ended up creating more bureaucracy and corruption in

the system.

Above all else, Fascism was a nationalistic idea in which the nation was the most

essential component. Mussolini tried to infuse an idea of continual service and pride in
the nation. Fascism called for a devotion of oneself to the nation, in order to improve the

collective prior to the individual. Mussolini echoes these sentiment in a speech he made

in 1932, “The twentieth century will be the century of fascism, the century of Italian

power, the century during which Italy will become for the first time the leader of

mankind” (CP, 122). Clearly, Mussolini’s words indicate that he wanted to see the nation

of Italy rise to power.

Fascism was ultimately a collective outlook on the success of a country. It is

fueled by the individuals who populate the country, and depends a great deal on those

people buying into the ideas that the government sets forth.

Both Fascism and Nazism were important political ideologies early in the 20th

century. They gave rise to World War II, and worked to implement ideas and attitudes on

entire nations of people. The world is a significantly different place due to Mussolini’s

Italy and Hitler’s Germany.

Extreme Views: Political, Social, & Economic Conditions

I think that this is an interesting thought to consider. After major wars, people

typically start to look for other political trains of thought, because they usually aren’t very

satisfied with how the country handled the war. It is hard to handle a war, so it may not be

the fault of the political ideology in place at the time, but collectively, people will move

either towards the right or left in search of something else that may better satisfy their

needs.

I think that an interesting example to walk us through this scenario is the current

situation in the United States. I realize that the war between Iraq and the United States is
still ongoing, but the reaction of the US people, especially surrounding a presidential

election, is very indicative of a move to the extreme right and left political views.

Following the attacks of 11 September, 2001, the Republican, right wing conservative

branch of US politics, decided to engage in a war with Iraq to find and remove weapons

of mass destruction, as well as, dethrone their ruler, Saddam Hussein. Since 2003,

America has attacked and occupied areas of Iraq. After five years, over 4,000 American

soldiers have died in Iraq and countless more Iraqi civilians. As a result the American

public has become quite perturbed with the situation and is looking for alternatives and

ways to end this conflict.

This creates the perfect stage for a presidential election, in which Americans can

be offered different options. Over the years, America has become disheartened with the

performance and ability of the conservative right wing and has quickly and sharply

moved to the Democratic left wing. It started about a year and a half ago when Congress

switched over from a Republican to Democratic majority. Since then, there has been a

shift from largely conservative to liberal, and this has happened in a very short time,

which is quite remarkable.

There are a lot of reasons for this happening. One of the first that comes to mind

is the fact that people are generally becoming aggravated with the current situation in

Iraq. The Republicans have pumped billions of dollars over the past couple years to fuel

this war, which many people in America and around the world believe to be unwarranted.

As a result, a large portion of the American public has changed their political alignments

because of their frustration with the way the conservative right wing have handled the

war.
 Furthermore, the economic condition in America has been deteriorating over the

last couple years and currently America finds itself in a credit and housing crisis. This has

just further motivated the American public to seek something else out and some sort of

change.

In the current presidential election, America is staggeringly in favor of

Democratic president, but is having a hard time figuring out which contender to go with.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the frontrunners for the Democratic party, and it is

well accepted that whoever comes away from this bout as the victor will indeed be

president of the United States. At the same time, however, the Republicans have gone

with a very far right wing contender, perhaps to return to their core values.

I think that swinging too far in either direction isn’t healthy for a country. Many

issues need compromise and discourse in order to be properly resolved. If a political

attitude is too extreme then they won’t consider the alternatives. I think that this is

something that needs to be addressed in the current American political climate. People

have to remember that some things were in fact working during the time the right wing

was in power. To blindly follow a liberal political ideology doesn’t make much sense

unless it works better. That is the toughest part about any transition; being capable of

recognizing what works and what does not. I feel optimistically about the US situation

and I’m sure the outcome will be beneficial for all.