Summary Of Fascist Italy By Professor Kershaw
Introduction
This paper, by professor Kershaw, is very interesting. He provides a new angle from which we should look at the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. In order to support this type of “uniqueness”, he gathers a few peculiarities that were embedded in the regime: ethnic nationalism, genocidal violence and, of course, the character of Hitler himself.
I believe, however, that some of the points he has indicated as “unique” were simply the transformation of a phenomena already existing in Fascist Italy, as the two regimes came to influence each other at some point of their history. I will first introduce the article; second, I will address the flaws of Kershaw’s argument - what aspects deserved a better explanation and what is not unique compared …show more content…
Kershaw claims that the nature of Nazism resided in the personality of Hitler, therefore saying that Nazism is equal to saying Hitlerism . An interesting angle that he could have taken would have been to describe the figure of Hitler and Mussolini in their respective parties. In fact, the cult of Hitler was impressive. Not only did he write his political pamphlet -Mein Kampf-, which became the ideological ground of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his character inspired many of the party’s apparatus such as the Hitler-Jugend. Conversely, in Italy, the personality of Mussolini, while it played a great role in the propaganda machine, there is no mention of “Mussolinian youth” or such like. What Fascists and Nazis diverged in was exactly the relationship that the two leaders had with their parties. While Hitler was seen as the incarnation of the Nazi party and subsequently of Germany itself (famous is the video in which Rudolf Hess says “Die Partei ist Hitler! Hitler aber ist Deutschland wie Deutschland Hitler ist! “The Party is Hitler! Hitler is Germany like Germany is Hitler!” These traits were not so common during the very first decade of Mussolini’s rule. In fact, the Fascist Party relied greatly on discourse from the Roman era rather than shaping it to the image of Mussolini. Worth mentioning is also the fact that …show more content…
Hitler aimed at recreating the “lebensraum” – a vital space for the Aryans and the Germans-, while Mussolini aimed at recreating the Roman Empire through which it could rule in accordance with Roman values and
This paper, by professor Kershaw, is very interesting. He provides a new angle from which we should look at the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. In order to support this type of “uniqueness”, he gathers a few peculiarities that were embedded in the regime: ethnic nationalism, genocidal violence and, of course, the character of Hitler himself.
I believe, however, that some of the points he has indicated as “unique” were simply the transformation of a phenomena already existing in Fascist Italy, as the two regimes came to influence each other at some point of their history. I will first introduce the article; second, I will address the flaws of Kershaw’s argument - what aspects deserved a better explanation and what is not unique compared …show more content…
Kershaw claims that the nature of Nazism resided in the personality of Hitler, therefore saying that Nazism is equal to saying Hitlerism . An interesting angle that he could have taken would have been to describe the figure of Hitler and Mussolini in their respective parties. In fact, the cult of Hitler was impressive. Not only did he write his political pamphlet -Mein Kampf-, which became the ideological ground of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his character inspired many of the party’s apparatus such as the Hitler-Jugend. Conversely, in Italy, the personality of Mussolini, while it played a great role in the propaganda machine, there is no mention of “Mussolinian youth” or such like. What Fascists and Nazis diverged in was exactly the relationship that the two leaders had with their parties. While Hitler was seen as the incarnation of the Nazi party and subsequently of Germany itself (famous is the video in which Rudolf Hess says “Die Partei ist Hitler! Hitler aber ist Deutschland wie Deutschland Hitler ist! “The Party is Hitler! Hitler is Germany like Germany is Hitler!” These traits were not so common during the very first decade of Mussolini’s rule. In fact, the Fascist Party relied greatly on discourse from the Roman era rather than shaping it to the image of Mussolini. Worth mentioning is also the fact that …show more content…
Hitler aimed at recreating the “lebensraum” – a vital space for the Aryans and the Germans-, while Mussolini aimed at recreating the Roman Empire through which it could rule in accordance with Roman values and