Samuel Damren
In President Trump’s second term, as discussed in the previous commentary, a new brand of fascism appears to be taking shape in America. It accompanied the ICE occupation of Minneapolis in December and is set to spread across the country through ICE offensives in the spring and summer.
The analysis of fascism’s rise to power and ultimate fall was the subject of voluminous works and focus in the decades immediately following World War II. Nevertheless, concern that fascism might reassert itself in the Western world later faded. The Third Reich came to be viewed as an aberration, a horrible aberration, but not something that might recur.
At the close of the 20th century, historians re-examined the political underpinnings of fascist movements and regimes in Europe 1919 -45. They did so for two reasons.
First, in seeking to define its component parts, scholars realized that fascism is not an “ism.” Unlike socialism, capitalism, and communism, it does not espouse a uniform and specific political ideology applicable across borders.
Second, to fully understand fascist movements, they realized that the analysis must be individualized to each country.
Fascism is inherently “nationalistic” in that it relies upon an idealized identity of a single “people” for its political fuel and
cohesion. It only expands beyond borders as a result of conquest and the subjugation of other countries.
Other than to note that ideologies of fascist movements could vary dramatically, academics ceased trying to identify a distinct ideological foundation for fascism. Instead, they first examined the conditions necessary to birth a fascist movement and then moved to examine fascism as a process involving various stages of development ultimately leading to dictatorship.
The European perspective and context of WW I and the period leading up to WW II differed significantly from the American experience.
America entered WW I in the late stages of the conflict. Millions had already died in consequence of protracted trench warfare.
Europe was both deeply traumatized and disillusioned to a degree that America was not by the so-called “Great War.”
In “Fascism in Europe, 1919–1945,” historian Philip Morgan notes that in response to this despondence and as popular support for the war effort eroded, political leaders in Britain, France and their allies began to portray it as a “war for democracy against the autocracies of Europe … in the promise and reward of a better post-war society.”
In the later peace settlement, the map of Europe dramatically changed placing new ethnic groups together, separating portions of ethnic populations from one another, and establishing new governments. “The outcome was a Europe,” according to Morgan, “more politically united around similar democratic parliamentary systems than at any time before.”
It did not last. The threat of the Communist Bolshevik Revolution to capitalist economies in transformed Europe together with ethnic tensions in newly national borders spawned a “first wave” of reactionary fascist movements. Outside of Italy, none took root.
The “second wave” of fascist movements occurred in response to the worldwide Depression originating in the United States. Coupled with the unsustainable post-war debt imposed by the peace settlement, the “second wave” took root in Germany.
Significant populations in Italy and Germany enthusiastically embraced fascist appeal to the glorious past of Roman times in Italy and a mythologized past of Aryan superiority in Germany. For many, fascism was the only viable option for future governance remaining after the failures of autocracy, communism, and capitalism to provide much needed stability.
Every other fascist movement in Europe failed to root. The reason was a combination of factors. Before the late 1800s, Italy and Germany did not exist as distinct states. Consequently, the more established government institutions in other European countries were better able to withstand the challenge posed by “home grown” fascist groups.
Once the fascists secured elective positions in the governments of Italy and Germany, they moved to the next stage of development: expanding their base to include other political power centers.
They skillfully played capitalist and communist party interests against one another leading to collaboration with, and backing from, major financial interests. They made political deals with some opponents; and, alternatively, resorted to violence and threats to intimidate others.
Upon securing leadership positions in the government, fascist leaders monopolized power with little resistance.
In both Italy and Germany, fascist power was based on two political pillars. First, on a promise to restore the people to the position of prior glory. Second, by harnessing the anger of supporters to the political crisis resulting from wide-spread disillusion and rejection of prior norms and forms of government.
Making good on that promise and dismantling norms and existing government structures were the next stage in development for the newly empowered fascist regimes. How it occurred and lessons for present-day America will be the focus of the next commentaries in this series.
The analysis of fascism’s rise to power and ultimate fall was the subject of voluminous works and focus in the decades immediately following World War II. Nevertheless, concern that fascism might reassert itself in the Western world later faded. The Third Reich came to be viewed as an aberration, a horrible aberration, but not something that might recur.
At the close of the 20th century, historians re-examined the political underpinnings of fascist movements and regimes in Europe 1919 -45. They did so for two reasons.
First, in seeking to define its component parts, scholars realized that fascism is not an “ism.” Unlike socialism, capitalism, and communism, it does not espouse a uniform and specific political ideology applicable across borders.
Second, to fully understand fascist movements, they realized that the analysis must be individualized to each country.
Fascism is inherently “nationalistic” in that it relies upon an idealized identity of a single “people” for its political fuel and
cohesion. It only expands beyond borders as a result of conquest and the subjugation of other countries.
Other than to note that ideologies of fascist movements could vary dramatically, academics ceased trying to identify a distinct ideological foundation for fascism. Instead, they first examined the conditions necessary to birth a fascist movement and then moved to examine fascism as a process involving various stages of development ultimately leading to dictatorship.
The European perspective and context of WW I and the period leading up to WW II differed significantly from the American experience.
America entered WW I in the late stages of the conflict. Millions had already died in consequence of protracted trench warfare.
Europe was both deeply traumatized and disillusioned to a degree that America was not by the so-called “Great War.”
In “Fascism in Europe, 1919–1945,” historian Philip Morgan notes that in response to this despondence and as popular support for the war effort eroded, political leaders in Britain, France and their allies began to portray it as a “war for democracy against the autocracies of Europe … in the promise and reward of a better post-war society.”
In the later peace settlement, the map of Europe dramatically changed placing new ethnic groups together, separating portions of ethnic populations from one another, and establishing new governments. “The outcome was a Europe,” according to Morgan, “more politically united around similar democratic parliamentary systems than at any time before.”
It did not last. The threat of the Communist Bolshevik Revolution to capitalist economies in transformed Europe together with ethnic tensions in newly national borders spawned a “first wave” of reactionary fascist movements. Outside of Italy, none took root.
The “second wave” of fascist movements occurred in response to the worldwide Depression originating in the United States. Coupled with the unsustainable post-war debt imposed by the peace settlement, the “second wave” took root in Germany.
Significant populations in Italy and Germany enthusiastically embraced fascist appeal to the glorious past of Roman times in Italy and a mythologized past of Aryan superiority in Germany. For many, fascism was the only viable option for future governance remaining after the failures of autocracy, communism, and capitalism to provide much needed stability.
Every other fascist movement in Europe failed to root. The reason was a combination of factors. Before the late 1800s, Italy and Germany did not exist as distinct states. Consequently, the more established government institutions in other European countries were better able to withstand the challenge posed by “home grown” fascist groups.
Once the fascists secured elective positions in the governments of Italy and Germany, they moved to the next stage of development: expanding their base to include other political power centers.
They skillfully played capitalist and communist party interests against one another leading to collaboration with, and backing from, major financial interests. They made political deals with some opponents; and, alternatively, resorted to violence and threats to intimidate others.
Upon securing leadership positions in the government, fascist leaders monopolized power with little resistance.
In both Italy and Germany, fascist power was based on two political pillars. First, on a promise to restore the people to the position of prior glory. Second, by harnessing the anger of supporters to the political crisis resulting from wide-spread disillusion and rejection of prior norms and forms of government.
Making good on that promise and dismantling norms and existing government structures were the next stage in development for the newly empowered fascist regimes. How it occurred and lessons for present-day America will be the focus of the next commentaries in this series.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
