got any resources or links to learn about Bennito's Fascism from before they allied with Nazi Germany?

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I have doubts about the value of fascist Italy, considering their spendid military performance. But I'm curious about one thing. On another board, two posters insist that nazism was NOT fascism. I say it was, even if it's not the kind most people here would want.

Some people say Stalin wasn't a Communist too. Some people are idiots. Whatchagonnadoo?

These posters have assimilated the postwar anti-racist message and projected it into the past in an attempt to make their favored ideology palatable to modern, liberal audiences. A bit of a joke, really.

Nazism was an extremist form of fascism, based primarily upon racial rather than national and class considerations. For this reason it is undesirable.

On the subject at hand: I have uploaded unto PoFo many documents crucial to an understanding of fascism, even if you read nothing else.

F.T. Marinetti was a friend of Mussolini, and a powerful influence on the development of Italian Fascism. His Futurist Manifesto, available here is necessary to read because of this. Futurism would later become a very powerful component of fascist thought.

During the fascist insurrection in Fiume, and subsequent takeover, they devised a constitution. This constutition outlines very clearly what an ideal fascist state would look like. I have uploaded it here.

Gentile was perhaps the greatest fascist intellectual. His works on Actual Idealism are profoundly interesting, and worth study. If you are looking for material less abstract, he ghost-wrote the Doctrine of Fascism, also available here.

Although written in 1943, the Doctrine of Verona represented to many a return to fascist roots. However, it was written in the Salò Republic, and Hitler's influence is obvious when it talks of the Jewry. I have also uploaded it, here.

That is all easy, and brief, reading. You may breeze through it in an hour, and it sums up fascist ideology rather well. If you desire more, there are two major works you should consider:

Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France, by Zeev Sternhell
My Rise And Fall, by Benito Mussolini

The word race was used somewhat interchangeably with nation in the prewar period, and being deeply concerned with the national community was tantamount to being concerned with race. In fact, that's still true today. Nazism was also not exclusively Nordic, it noted multiple "blood sources" of the German nation which could not be unbundled. Nazi propaganda became notably less Nordicist as time went on. Nazi policy certainly did not follow Nordicist doctrines strictly, given that Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, waged war on England, and allied with 15% Nordic Italy against 25% Nordic France.

I realize this, Dave. I also believe a homogeneous nation will be much more successful than a mixed one, and that ethnic states are a fundamentally good idea. I do not agree with the way Hitler pursued the goal of a pure state, nor do I agree with much of their program, or their idea that the Aryan peoples were superior to others. Nazism today is notable, not because it pursues a homogeneous state, but as a vehicle of white supremacism, which thus makes it today a defunct and morally bankrupt ideology.

I'm not sure that any of the classical fascist movements (beyond Brazilian integralism), unless you consider Estado Novo to have been fascist, would've disagreed with white supremacy per se. Mussolini was certainly opposed to Nordicism (as any Italian nationalist should be), but I'm not aware that he considered colored people to be of equal standing to whites and certainly enforced measures of white supremacy in Italy's African colonies. Frankly most liberal movements at that time would've qualified as white supremacist. And finally, while for a variety of reasons I do not endorse white supremacy, I'm not sure why it would be morally bankrupt.

I'm not exactly an anti-racist, but nevertheless dissociating yourself from a regime that killed 10-12 million civilians who posed no legitimate threat to its nation is wise.

Not when it's a transparent charade. Then you appear as a hypocrite, opportunist, and perhaps closer to the regime in question than ever.

Thank you Fasces for the links I am in particular very interested in Italian Fascism so I appreciate the effort of posting these

Mussolini certainly viewed his people as superior to others - but he did not limit his people by the color of their skin, but rather their actions, and their desire to integrate. Many Ethiopians and Libyans became respected members of the colonial establishment, and equal members of the nation under law. To Mussolini, being Italian was achievable in the lifetime of any foreigner, if they worked hard enough, and desired it. Hitler made no such allowances, which makes his vision undesirable, and ultimately self-defeating.

Hitler was a brilliant propagandist and a brilliant administrator. The aesthetic of the Nazi state is indeed something to aspire too, and his most important contribution to fascist thought. He is undeniably a part of the fascist experience, and cannot be rejected off-hand, much as Stalin and the Soviet Union will be forever linked to communism. However, it is right to condemn him where he was wrong, and it is not merely pandering to modern audiences to decry the actions that ultimately undermined his nation and people, and led to their defeat.

There was also high ranking Jews in Mussolini's government as well wasn't there? At least....that was until Germany set up a puppet government and started enforcing race laws. (I think)

Evidence? As far as I know Italy had the usual bevy of white supremacist laws in its colonies even if it pragmatically made allowance for exceptional colonials.


What exactly is undesirable and self-defeating about Hitler's vision on this particular question? The idea that anyone can become Italian strikes me as far sillier than the idea that a foreigner might not be able to become German.


Hitler was actually quite a poor administrator, which is one reason why Germany lost the war. Anyone who allows Robert Ley, Hermann Goering, etc. to stick around is an incurable bumbler.


Fair points. I think some of the modern movements to incorporate a more Christian morality into fascism are worth exploring, which neatly fulfills palingenetic aims while decisively disavowing the decidedly un-Christian doctrines of National Socialism. The trouble with this of course is that Christianity tends to universalism.

I heard that there was laws like this around as well, but I also heard that Mussolini hardly enforced them (at least not to the degree that Hitler did)

Germany didn't have any colonies in the first place at that time. You're likely thinking of Germany's Nuremberg Laws and various anti-semitic statutes. Mussonlini in 1938 adopted anti-semitic laws due to German prodding, and yes they were enforced half-heartedly. The Italian zones of occupation in Europe, particularly in France, also became safe havens for Jews fleeing Nazi persecution.

Yeah that's what I was thinking of, thanks.

For starters, Italy outlawed slavery of the local Ethiopian population, and actually enforced this, something other powers, particularly the French, did not do. A policy of emigration into Italy and Libya was actually encouraged, along with proper integration policies, showing that Italy had no qualms about integrating a separate race of peoples into Italy, if they proved their worth. After protest from the locals, Italy replaced a brutal governor with Amedeo, showing their respect for local desires, to an extent.

While I do not claim Italy's empire was benevolent, it was considerably better than any comparable African colony at the time, and had as its express aim the integration of Ethiopia and Somalia into Italian culture, rather than simply serving as a market and trading partner, like so many comparable colonies. It saw Libya as part of Italy, an equal, rather than a colony.



Many Jews saw themselves as German. Utilizing the labor and manpower of eight million Jews, rather than imprisoning and guarding them, would have made a huge difference to the German war effort. Allowing their integration would have ultimately better served Germany than excising them.



Hitler was a poor strategist, and too willing to allow incompetent friends into positions of power, true. I suppose it would be better to say that prior to 1939, Hitler had demonstrated a remarkable ability in domestic administration, despite his failures in military and foreign affairs.

All of this makes Italy sound rather naive and stupid. It does seem to be contrary to white supremacism but I would need to know more.


Pre-Nazi Germany had 300,000 Jews, not 8 million. I agree with you that Nazi anti-semitism was self-defeating, but you allluded to the issue of foreigners being unable to become German.


I think Hitler was a better strategist than he is given credit for, and I don't think he showed remarkable ability in domestic administration at all. Germany proceeded from one economic crisis to another in the 1930s, and in 1936 came to the brink of collapse (saved by Goering conceding to the position of Goerdler, Schact, etc. temporarily and looting various overseas assets and pension funds). In fact this bungling incompetence largely forced Germany to go to war before it had planned. Hitler for his part seems to have believed his own propaganda in the Volkischer Beobachter about the economy, a very troubling stance.

Hey Fasces it been a tiring day for me...kinda hard to concentrate/be patient when reading those tonight. I did however get through the first two. The first one "futurism" actually...confused me...a lot...maybe its just because I'm tired...but it seemed that it advocated anti-intellectualism....and then it seemed to me they where FOR intellectualism..I might have to read that thing over again I'm probably missing a lot. The second one was interesting more of a layout of how a society works. I also noticed there seems to be more "democracy" (sorry if thats the wrong word) than I thought there would be....very interesting.