Politically, there are many factors which collectively give rise to the emrergence of fascism, including: the importance of national political traditions, the emergence of the ‘new’ states, divions within the present political system, the existence of the threat from the left and the necessity of efficient leadership and the existence of a fascist role model.
It is crucial to study fascism within different national contexts, for national political traditions certainly played their part in molding the fascist movements that emerged. Political traditions in different nations could not only encourage but also defuse fascism. The French republican belief in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and Britain’s emphasis on individual rights and constitutional, parliamentary government indeed failed to encourage fascism. The seventeenth century English Revolution was vital in consolidating parliamentary government, and the rise of Protestantism with its sense of rights and tolerance provided a foundation stone of national identity. Along with the emergence of elected local government after the 1880s, which encouraged the development of two mass political parties, Britain was not the most fertile ground for fascism to develop. Germany and Italy’s political history however, could be perceived to have encouraged Fascism. Germany had a strong Romantic tradition of nationalism, producing a longing for strong leadership and a sense of community. There was also the German tendency to define citizenship in terms of blood, which reinforced the growth of anti-Semitism. Italy was finally reunited as a state in 1870, before then she had been merely a geographical expression, yet she was still divided socially.
It is clear that fascism was by all means far more successful in the comparatively new European states, formed in the 1860s and 1870s such as Italy, Germany, Austria and Hungary. These states had late-developing political systems, and had failed to achieve empire and status. It was during the period that these newly established states were making the transition to a liberal democracy, often that they had just recently made this transition. It ensured that liberal democracy in these counties was indeed unconsolidated. These sufficient conditions seemed necessary for movements of fascism to emerge and flourish. Fragmentations, divisions or polarization within a country’s political system was also a clear requirement for fascism. Fascism certainly had far less impact in countries such as Britain, France and the Low Countries, which had stable party systems and hence remained largely immune to fascism.
Generally fascist movements appeared to emerge in countries where there was a real or even perceived threat from the left. In Romania, even though the communist party had been effectively suppressed there was still the presence of a communist threat, for she now shared a new border with the Soviet Union and hence anti-communism remained a significant factor in Romanian political affairs. Hungary was the only country outside the Soviet Union that had been briefly ruled by a revolutionary communist regime. This exacerbated anti-communion and anti-left ideas, the sting of the communist regime still taunted Hungarian politics for the next generation. Germany was the home of possibly the strongest communist party in Europe that was outside of the Soviet Union. Communism was indeed always perceived as a serious threat by many of the Germans. These conditions helped to create an atmosphere where only a radical non-leftist movement such as fascism could appeal, rally social discontent and flourish.
The authoritarian principles of fascism necessitated strong, effective leadership for it to succeed. Indeed the more successful the movement, the more important the character and strength of the leader. This factor can help to illustrate why certain fascist movements were perhaps not more successful for not all of the fascist leaders in the inter-war years period were charismatic and efficient. Ferenc Szalasi of Hungary is possibly one of the best negative examples. A strong leader was certainly a factor in determining the success of the movement. There is no debate regarding the manipulative, calculating and efficient character of Hitler, and the tremendous frenzied impact he was known to have on the crowds at mass rallies. Fascist ideology certainly played upon the myth of the leader, who was indeed venerated like a Saint, he was God-given and had super-human qualities.
The impact of the existence abroad of a fascist role model should certainly not be underestimated. Foreign examples of fascism indeed encouraged the majority of movements, except for those in Germany and Italy, which provided the role model. Only in Germany in Italy did fascist movements develop entirely on their own. This perhaps also explains the further success of the movements in Germany and Italy, for not only did they develop on their own but also it ensured that the roots of their fascist movements were more deeply embedded.
An important social factor in the necessary conditions for fascism to flourish was the existence of a large sector of society that was not represented or alienated from politics. The lower middle-classes were ultimately the most important social sector for movements in Germany, Italy, and Austria, for it was in these examples that the lower middle sectors of society were failed to be represented or incorporated into the political liberal system. The failure to incorporate or represent the lower classes provided space available for mass social recruitment. It was to these groups that fascism appealed. The ordinary members of the fascist parties in Hungary and Romania were indeed peasants and workers who were alienated from the present political system. Fascist movements won social support from a wide spectrum of population, yet it was from the peasantry, rural workforce, small business and craftsman and the disgruntled conservative intelligentsia that there was a large proportion of support. Fascism in Italy won support from significant numbers of landowners and economically embattled petty bourgeoisie, while in Romania and Hungary there was support from angry and alienated peasants who blamed the merchants and city banks for the countryside economic crisis. Half of Hitler’s 13 million votes in 1932 stemmed from Germany’s villages. Huge support for fascist parties could be created by propaganda being tailored to what the peasants wanted to hear: that merchants, selfish socialist workers and city bankers were responsible for their economic problems. Small businessmen and craftsman not only provided votes but also were active party members in several countries. The Nationalist Socialist Movement in the Netherlands drew one third of its members from this sector of society, while in Germany; the 1931 Nazi membership proportions reflected 61% as small merchants, artisans and farmers in the locality of Eltersdorf.
It is once again important to stress the essential nature of the combination of factors to result in a mass movement of fascism, for as much as the existence of an economic crisis was important; there was no automatic progression from crisis to the rise of a fascist regime. Britain had great misery and mass unemployment during the inter-war years, yet Mosley’s movement proved incompetent in attracting significant support. However, with a combination of other political, social and cultural influences, economic factors could certainly provide suitable conditions for fascism to emerge. The devastating economic crisis, which made millions unemployed and threatened the economic existence of many, undermined the foundations of society which fascism was able to take advantage of. It is frequently noted that there was extremely high German unemployment statistics 1930-33, in tangent with Hitler and the Nazi rise to power. In the majority of cases of fascism, there was the development of a great economic hatred of the ‘capitalist plutocracies,’ which emerged when the economic crisis was seen to link to military defeat and foreign exploitation.
The context of the First World War greatly highlighted the political and military flaws and strengths of different nations, and hence exacerbated certain nations susceptibility to fascism. The President of France, Poincaré declared the ‘sacred union’ of French people, hence nationalism was used to forge a social cohesion, this along with the Treaty of Versailles which restored Alsace-Lorraine to France, seemed to suggest to France that Liberty and Fraternity and triumphed. The typical British citizen perceived that the war had consolidated Germany’s position as the ‘black sheep’ of Europe, and it was Britain who had fought against despotism in the name of democracy – victory signaled their rightness. It was no coincidence that as the war dragged on and signs of dissent grew in Germany, that there was the creation of the German Fatherland Party in September 1917, which exhibited clear proto-fascist features. Germany’s humiliation was sealed by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the price she paid included accepting responsibility for the war, paying huge reparations, extensive boundary changes in the East and a removal of her colonies. The war hardly united but polarized German society and resulted in a longing for a rebirth of a German version of Fraternity. Italy likewise, found that the war increased rather than solved social divisions. The world war had unifying impact for Britain and France, yet heightened the flaws and further divisioned society for Germany and Italy, making them more understandably susceptible to the emergence of fascism.
It is indeed impossible to give a pan European analysis for the reasons for the rise of fascism, it was a combination of varying factors, which resulted in varying degrees of fascism. Fascism certainly did vary from country to country, in the impact and success of different movements. Fascism only amounted to a mass movement when factors variables were combined. The role of a strong leader, for example, was not alone enough; Britain remained the immune to the temptation of fascism, even though it produced one of fascism’s most charismatic leaders, Sir Oswald Mosley. However, it would be wrong to state that fascism was the dominant political force in the inter-war years period, there were indeed always more anti-fascists than fascists. It may have emerged in many of the European states, however it was only in Germany and Italy, for Spain was a more conservative authoritarian regime, that fascism successfully developed into a movement and regime. This can be explained by the fact that Germany and Italy constituted essential cultural, political, social and economic variables resulting in sufficient conditions for fascism to emerge.
