Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 18:22

Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11119
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 13 Jan 2021 18:36

George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:22
Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.
Hitler was not a fascist and Schuschnigg was an Austro-fascist .There was also a big difference between Schuschnigg and Mussolini,who was always very suspicious of the Vatican ,the Vatican was also suspicious of Mussolini .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 18:40

ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:36
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:22
Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.
Hitler was not a fascist and Schuschnigg was an Austro-fascist .There was also a big difference between Schuschnigg and Mussolini,who was always very suspicious of the Vatican ,the Vatican was also suspicious of Mussolini .
“Hitler was not a fascist” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oops, I forgot, he was a communist who thought everyone should be treated equally! :D

Hitler and the Nazis were fascists. Nazism (National Socialism) included incorporated fascism.

Indeed Schuschnigg was an Austrofascist which is why I posted that Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists but to “varying degrees” - to point out that the fascism used by Hitler’s party and Schuschnigg’s party had different ideologies and ideas.


Please, stop posting nonsense.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 8151
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2021 18:43

Hi GLG,

Again, I agree with most of what you write. The exceptions:

Austria was undoubtedly invaded. No other interpretation of a foreign army crossing the border and advancing on one's capital without invitation is possible.

I am certainly not saying ".....that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real." It is just that it only shows a self selecting minority audience. It is like assuming the audience of any political rally or sports fixture is representative of the population at large.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 13 Jan 2021 18:47, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 8151
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2021 18:46

Double post.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 20:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:43
Hi GLG,

Again, I agree with most of what you write. The exceptions:

Austria was undoubtedly invaded. No other interpretation of a foreign army crossing the border and advancing on one's capital without invitation is possible.

I am certainly not saying ".....that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real." It is just that it only shows a self selecting minority audience. It is like assuming the audience of any political rally or sports fixture is representative of the population at large.

Cheers,

Sid.
No, there was no organising of selected Austrians to show support for the Anschluss when the Germans crossed the Austrian border.

The following is what Evan Burr Bukey wrote:

“What accounts for the euphoria with which most Austrians greeted the loss of their country's independence, a rapture remarkably similar to that which most East Germans hailed the collapse of the German Democratic Republic a half century later? First, there can be no doubt that the initial enthusiasm was both genuine and spontaneous; Reich German cameramen and broadcasters certainly provided extensive coverage of the Anschluss, but neither they nor Propaganda Minister Goebbels had sufficient time to stage-manage events. Second, it is clear that the populace was profoundly relieved that bloodshed had been avoided. For most people the intervention of German troops thwarted the outbreak of civil war and provided a security shield against foreign aggression. Third, nearly all hoped for a dramatic improvement in the material conditions of everyday life; most Austrians were aware of Hitler's economic achievements and had good reason to believe that their expectations would soon be fulfilled. Fourth, there can be little doubt that millions of people welcomed the Anschluss as a chance to put an end to the so-called Jewish Question. The anti-Semitic violence that followed Schuschnigg's valedictory was perpetrated by the Austrian Nazis and their accomplices, not by the German invaders. That the new regime openly sanctioned persecution and Aryanization, in other words, could only enhance its popularity.

This does not mean that the masses had suddenly embraced all the doctrines of National Socialism, As already mentioned, no more than a third of the populace could be considered dyed-in-the-wool believers. Most Austrians were therefore hailing the collapse of the Old Regime; they viewed the Anschluss as both a powerful "agent of change" and thee fulfillment of an ancient dream.”

The German army was used in case of any resistance but it was not needed. An invasion doesn’t normally have support from the inhabitants of the invaded country. The Anschluss wasn’t an invasion, it was a union of the same people who were separated as two countries because of the victors of WW1.

The Anschluss could rightly be called an invasion if the Germans had used force to secure the annexation of Austria but that wasn’t the case, quite the opposite was the case actually.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 20:08

Sid, the absence of 90% of Austrians being out on the streets when the Germans crossed the border doesn’t signify anything really. I’m sure many Austrians were looking after their families, were at work, etc. It doesn’t prove anything about the actual Austrians’ approval of the Anschluss.

90% of British people weren’t out on the streets to celebrate VE Day. Were the photos and footage of British people Winston Churchill saluted to selected?

Please, stop using fallacies to come to conclusions.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11119
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 13 Jan 2021 21:47

George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:40
ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:36
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:22
Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.
Hitler was not a fascist and Schuschnigg was an Austro-fascist .There was also a big difference between Schuschnigg and Mussolini,who was always very suspicious of the Vatican ,the Vatican was also suspicious of Mussolini .
“Hitler was not a fascist” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oops, I forgot, he was a communist who thought everyone should be treated equally! :D

Hitler and the Nazis were fascists. Nazism (National Socialism) included incorporated fascism.

Indeed Schuschnigg was an Austrofascist which is why I posted that Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists but to “varying degrees” - to point out that the fascism used by Hitler’s party and Schuschnigg’s party had different ideologies and ideas.


Please, stop posting nonsense.
1 If the fascism used by Hitler and Schuschnigg had different ideologies and ideas, you can't say that Hitler was a fascist .
2 Your answer proves that you are lacking totally the needed knowledge about what fascism was .And that you do not understand the differences between fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and the authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland ,Vichy France .Claiming that Hitler was a fascist is the same as saying that Peron or Pinochet were fascists .
The right-wing authoritarian regimes outside Italy and Germany were anti-revolutionary regimes who supported and were supported by the monarchy(where it still existed ),the ruling classes and (partially )the Church .
Mussolini was an atheist and strong enemy of the church and the monarchy,til 1915 he was one of the leaders of the Socialist Party in Italy .Later he adapted himself and became an ally of the ruling classes (after all he was an Italian ) ,but at the end his true instincts reappeared again during the short living republic of Salo .
Hitler also was hostile to the church, to the monarchy and to the ruling classes ,but one of the essential differences between Nazism and fascism was anti-Semitism,which became (on a small extent ) part of Mussolini's policy only in 1938 .
Hitler had not much consideration for Mussolini and said that he was not a true revolutionary leader and Mussolini said also bad things about Hitler .
Nazism was exclusively German: it had never a serious support outside Germany (Austria included ) .
Fascism was almost exclusively Italian and had no or few support outside Italy .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 21:53

ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 21:47
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:40
ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:36
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:22
Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.
Hitler was not a fascist and Schuschnigg was an Austro-fascist .There was also a big difference between Schuschnigg and Mussolini,who was always very suspicious of the Vatican ,the Vatican was also suspicious of Mussolini .
“Hitler was not a fascist” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oops, I forgot, he was a communist who thought everyone should be treated equally! :D

Hitler and the Nazis were fascists. Nazism (National Socialism) included incorporated fascism.

Indeed Schuschnigg was an Austrofascist which is why I posted that Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists but to “varying degrees” - to point out that the fascism used by Hitler’s party and Schuschnigg’s party had different ideologies and ideas.


Please, stop posting nonsense.
1 If the fascism used by Hitler and Schuschnigg had different ideologies and ideas, you can't say that Hitler was a fascist .
2 Your answer proves that you are lacking totally the needed knowledge about what fascism was .And that you do not understand the differences between fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and the authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland ,Vichy France .Claiming that Hitler was a fascist is the same as saying that Peron or Pinochet were fascists .
The right-wing authoritarian regimes outside Italy and Germany were anti-revolutionary regimes who supported and were supported by the monarchy(where it still existed ),the ruling classes and (partially )the Church .
Mussolini was an atheist and strong enemy of the church and the monarchy,til 1915 he was one of the leaders of the Socialist Party in Italy .Later he adapted himself and became an ally of the ruling classes (after all he was an Italian ) ,but at the end his true instincts reappeared again during the short living republic of Salo .
Hitler also was hostile to the church, to the monarchy and to the ruling classes ,but one of the essential differences between Nazism and fascism was anti-Semitism,which became (on a small extent ) part of Mussolini's policy only in 1938 .
Hitler had not much consideration for Mussolini and said that he was not a true revolutionary leader and Mussolini said also bad things about Hitler .
Nazism was exclusively German: it had never a serious support outside Germany (Austria included ) .
Fascism was almost exclusively Italian and had no or few support outside Italy .
Is English your native language? The reason I’m asking you is because “to verifying degrees” means that there were differences.

I do know what fascism is and I know that it has many varieties and is not a one size fits all ideology.

Now go ahead and prove that Hitler wasn’t a fascist/Nazism wasn’t a type of fascism.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11119
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 13 Jan 2021 22:06

The differences were that strong that there was no such thing as a German fascism .
Fascism was not hostile to the Jews til 1938,while the essence of Nazism was its hostility to the Jews .
Nazism without anti-Semitism is unthinkable, fascism was anti-Jewish only at the end .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 22:31

ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 22:06
The differences were that strong that there was no such thing as a German fascism .
Fascism was not hostile to the Jews til 1938,while the essence of Nazism was its hostility to the Jews .
Nazism without anti-Semitism is unthinkable, fascism was anti-Jewish only at the end .
What makes you think that there was no such thing as German fascism? :roll:

There are loads of different types of fascism e.g. German fascism, Austrian fascism, British fascism, Spanish fascism, etc.

The same goes for any other political ideology!

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 13 Jan 2021 23:31

No one can seriously deny that Adolf Hitler was a fascist or Nazism was a fascist ideology.

Pretty much most of Hitler’s political life was based on nationalist and fascist ideas and his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 was based on Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922.

Nazism incorporated many political ideologies and fascism was one of them.

GoeringsPetLion
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 31 Oct 2016 23:51
Location: Germany

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by GoeringsPetLion » 14 Jan 2021 00:23

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "German Austria must return to the great German motherland, and not because of economic considerations of any sort. No, no: even if from the economic point of view this union were indifferent, indeed, if it were harmful, it ought to take place. The same blood belongs in a joint empire." Regarding the Swiss, he once criticized Schiller for heroizing the "secession of a German tribe from the empire" in his play Wilhelm Tell (reference).
Lamarck wrote:
15 Aug 2018 19:16
Hitler identified the part of Austria where he was born as "Bavarian by blood" in Mein Kampf.
Right, he called Braunau "Bavarian by blood, Austrian by state". In 1779, the Innviertel, in which Braunau is located, was ceded from the Electorate of Bavaria to Upper Austria. However, he might have regarded all Bavarian-speaking areas of Austria as "Bavarian by blood".

Bavarian dialect groups within today's national borders (yellow: North Bavarian; pink: Middle Bavarian; blue: South Bavarian):
Image
Source: Wikimedia Commons, Postmann Michael, public domain
Last edited by GoeringsPetLion on 14 Jan 2021 02:05, edited 3 times in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 8151
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Jan 2021 01:49

Hi GLG,

As I did not suggest that there was "organising of selected Austrians to show support for the Anschluss when the Germans crossed the Austrian border.", I don't have to defend that invented point.

What I said was the crowds were "SELF-selecting". This means that those who supported Hitler and/or the Nazis and/or Anschluss turned up of their own accord.

These reportedly amounted to "only" about 40% of the population of the home town of Hitler's youth, Linz, and only about 17% of the population of Vienna. These were the main population centres he passed through.

Of course the Anschluss was an invasion. The only reason why there wasn't combat was because Schussnigg ordered his army, which was deploying on the River Traun, not to resist, as it was apparent he could expect no outside support and the position was hopeless. It was Schussnigg who prevented bloodshed, not the Nazis, who had shown themselves more than willing to shed Austrian blood to gain power in 1934.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you would believe Hitler and Goering. At 0100 on 11 March 1938 Hitler issued a directive that began, “1. If other measures prove unsuccessful, I intend to invade Austria with armed forces.” It went on, “If, however, resistance is offered, it must be broken ruthlessly by force of arms”. At 2026 Goering told General Muff, “The invasion is going to happen now, and we shall state that every one who puts up any resistance has to face the consequences.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11119
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 14 Jan 2021 07:54

George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 21:53
ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 21:47
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:40
ljadw wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:36
George L Gregory wrote:
13 Jan 2021 18:22
Although to varying degrees, Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists, so neither was ever going to be really ‘free’ in the true sense of the word.

However, anyone who thinks that the support that the Austrians show in the Nazi propaganda newsreels is not real or that Austria was ‘invaded’ is buying into the myth of “Austria victim theory” which has been dismantled for decades now.

While we’ll never know for sure how many Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss precisely in March 1938 for whatever reason(s), it doesn’t really matter because there has never been any evidence discovered to prove that most Austrians did not approval or at least weren’t neutral about it at that time.

Things always need to be put into context. It’s a different ballgame to ask whether Austrians would have voted for it again in let’s say March 1942... given that they were second best to Prussians, received less stuff, became simply the Ostmark or Eastern Realm, etc.

Or, in 1918 plenty of Austrians were wanting to join Germany, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest that was the case in let’s say 1928.

Also, for the most part support for union between Austria and Germany had nothing to do with support for the Nazis, Völkisch ideas or any other national sentiment but rather economical reasons and a shared German identity.

Similarly, most Germans didn’t want war in September 1939, but when the Germans made a lot of quick victories in a relatively short period of time and when France was defeated then most Germans had changed their mind about things.
Hitler was not a fascist and Schuschnigg was an Austro-fascist .There was also a big difference between Schuschnigg and Mussolini,who was always very suspicious of the Vatican ,the Vatican was also suspicious of Mussolini .
“Hitler was not a fascist” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oops, I forgot, he was a communist who thought everyone should be treated equally! :D

Hitler and the Nazis were fascists. Nazism (National Socialism) included incorporated fascism.

Indeed Schuschnigg was an Austrofascist which is why I posted that Hitler and Schuschnigg were both fascists but to “varying degrees” - to point out that the fascism used by Hitler’s party and Schuschnigg’s party had different ideologies and ideas.


Please, stop posting nonsense.
1 If the fascism used by Hitler and Schuschnigg had different ideologies and ideas, you can't say that Hitler was a fascist .
2 Your answer proves that you are lacking totally the needed knowledge about what fascism was .And that you do not understand the differences between fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and the authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Poland ,Vichy France .Claiming that Hitler was a fascist is the same as saying that Peron or Pinochet were fascists .
The right-wing authoritarian regimes outside Italy and Germany were anti-revolutionary regimes who supported and were supported by the monarchy(where it still existed ),the ruling classes and (partially )the Church .
Mussolini was an atheist and strong enemy of the church and the monarchy,til 1915 he was one of the leaders of the Socialist Party in Italy .Later he adapted himself and became an ally of the ruling classes (after all he was an Italian ) ,but at the end his true instincts reappeared again during the short living republic of Salo .
Hitler also was hostile to the church, to the monarchy and to the ruling classes ,but one of the essential differences between Nazism and fascism was anti-Semitism,which became (on a small extent ) part of Mussolini's policy only in 1938 .
Hitler had not much consideration for Mussolini and said that he was not a true revolutionary leader and Mussolini said also bad things about Hitler .
Nazism was exclusively German: it had never a serious support outside Germany (Austria included ) .
Fascism was almost exclusively Italian and had no or few support outside Italy .
Is English your native language? The reason I’m asking you is because “to verifying degrees” means that there were differences.

I do know what fascism is and I know that it has many varieties and is not a one size fits all ideology.

Now go ahead and prove that Hitler wasn’t a fascist/Nazism wasn’t a type of fascism.
It is ON YOU to prove that Hitler was a fascist . If he was one, so were Nasser, Sukarno,Castro and Stalin .
Fascism was what Mussolini said it was, not what you are saying it is .
If all authoritarian regimes are fascist, than is Erdogan also a fascist ,and were Idi Amin and Mao fascists and is Kim a fascist .

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”