The Relationship between Fascism and Nationalism
It is evident why fascism could be considered to be an extreme form of nationalism –many fascist regimes
have been most particularly characterized by their extreme nationalistic feelings, for example the Nazi
emphasis on the importance of being German. It could be argued that some of the beliefs that characterize
fascism are simply extensions of nationalistic ideas. For example the positive focus on struggle and
competition could be seen to be the logical conclusion to the idea that ones nation is superior to other
nations as victory in struggle proves that this is so. Furthermore the two ideologies also share certain
beliefs, such as the idea of organic society. However such ideological similarities do not mean that
fascism can be regarded simply as nationalism at its most extreme, the central themes of fascism and the
way these have been put into practice demonstrate that this is not the case.
The most convincing evidence that fascism is simply an extreme form of nationalism comes from the fact
that fascists are supporters of nationalism. They emphasize the importance of the unity of the nation. In
Italian and Spanish fascism this was promoted through the idea of loyalty to the state, Mussolini regularly
reiterated the philosophy of Giovanni Gentile, “everything for the state, nothing against the state, nothing
outside the state”. Meanwhile German fascism (Nazism) took a different approach to nationalism,
focusing on cultural and racial unity of the people, for example portraying Aryan Germans as the ‘master
race’. Like nationalism, fascism can be seen to promote unity through a shared culture and history, for
example under the Nazis children were taught about the heroic deeds of the Teutonic knights in the
Middle Ages. It can be seen that this idea of shared culture is more extreme in fascism than other forms of
nationalism, particularly in Italian fascism where the popular idea that Italy in the past a glorious
established single nation was actually largely a crafted myth. This suggests that fascism is more than an
extreme form of nationalism as cultural nationalists do not create a false history to promote their own
ideas, but merely emphasize aspects of culture that are in existence, for example in Scotland there are
celebrations of haggis and bagpipe playing. However, whilst nationalism is celebratory of cultural
differences fascism can be seen to be far more destructive. This is particularly evident in Nazi Germany
where differences were not just frowned upon but destroyed with the use of extermination camps.
Furthermore the fascist idea is far more than simple patriotism and valuing of tradition, it stresses the idea
of a ‘national re-birth’, for example in Italy the emphasis was on modernization and industrialization,
which again separates the fascism that occurred there from nationalism. The fact that this was more
evident in Italy than Germany suggests that Nazism was a more nationalistic form of fascism (although
both exhibited fascist elements). Nazism contained more of the elements of traditional nationalism, for
example emphasizing common aspects of culture and race, whereas Italian fascism is more economically
based. The Nazi approach is far more extreme than traditional nationalism, for example the persecution of
Jews simply because of their racial identity. Whilst the basic ideas of cultural separation in Nazism can be
regarded as nationalistic, the extremity of such fascist action marks it as ideologically separate to
nationalism, rather than a strong extension of it, it is racialism rather than just extreme nationalism. Since
Nazism is evidently the most nationalistic form of fascism this suggests that nationalism is not merely an
extreme form of nationalism.
However what ultimately separates the nationalistic aspect of fascism from nationalism itself is its
aggressive militant aspect. Nationalism is partly characterized by the concept of self-determination, each
state has the right to exist and to decide how it is governed. This idea is clearly overlooked in fascist
thinking and there is a clear expansionist element. This was evident in the 1930s when Japan occupied
Manchuria, Italy began to found an African empire through invasion of Abyssinia and Germany sought
‘lebensraum’ (living space) by first taking over Austria and later invading Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Whilst nationalists may argue that it can be necessary to defend the nation, pursuing such expansion
without just cause could not be defended from a nationalist viewpoint and is hence clearly unique to
fascism. The two ideologies may appear to have similarities but they have completely different
foundations for their beliefs – nationalists believe in national pride whereas fascists believe in national
superiority. The difference is evident in the way fascist countries have acted. Therefore whilst nationalist
beliefs are a part of fascist ideology, most particularly Nazism, fascism is not just an extreme form of
nationalism. Fascist nationalism is markedly different to nationalism itself as an ideology and some forms
of fascism do not even exhibit nationalism as their most overpowering force. Ultimately fascism has more
components than simply being extreme nationalism, hence why it is classed as a separate ideology.
A central theme of fascism that emphasizes this difference from nationalism is the positive view of
struggle. This demonstrates the militant nature of fascism; it is the adaptation of Darwin’s theory of
evolution in a way to fit human beings – ‘social Darwinism’. The belief is that human existence is based
on competition and so progress comes from conflict, which means war is good and it is important to have
regular conflict to maintain strength, which is valued extremely highly. This is evident in fascist regimes,
for example both Germany and Italy in the 1930s introduced compulsory military service and were more
than prepared to go to war in 1945, seeing war as the ultimate test of strength. Mussolini exhibited the
view that war is good and natural when he said “war is to men what maternity is to women”. Whilst
strength is valued in fascist thought naturally its opposite, weakness, is despised, as was evident in
Germany where there were attempts to eliminate disability (which was perceived as weakness) by
forcibly sterilizing the mentally and physically disabled. Nationalism has no such focus on the idea of
strength, nor does it value war in itself, usually regarding it as appropriate only as a defense strategy, for
example as a way to gain independence. Therefore the idea of struggle suggests that fascism is not merely
an extreme form of nationalism, as nationalists do not show support for war, they believe the nation as it
is to be a good thing, but they do not believe in forced strength. This is clearly a key ideological
difference.
One central belief of fascists that differentiates them from nationalists is idea of leadership and elitism.
This was based on the philosophy of Nietzsche who spoke of an ‘ubermensch’ (superman) who was a
gifted and powerful individual. Fascists emphasize the necessity of an unquestioned all-powerful leader
who they believe to reflect the will of the people. This has been evident in all fascist regimes, for example
Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain. Beneath the leader there is a small elite, for
example the SS in Germany, to help carry out the leader’s work, beneath them are the ordinary people and
beneath them the underclass (who are not a real part of society). Such a defined social system is not
evident in nationalism, indeed in most forms of nationalism it is simply being part of a nation that allows
you to be part of the belief system. Whilst it could be argued that both fascism and nationalism believe in
the collective good of the nation, which makes them appear similar, in nationalism there is no belief in an
unquestioned leader to ‘embody’ such this collective good. This is an evident ideological difference, as
the idea of a strong leader and complete opposition to democracy is a central feature in fascism, whereas
nationalism can occur in a variety of political systems, including democratic ones, for example America
and Wales.
Fascists can also be characterized by their opposition to rationalism and the ideas that dominated liberal
political philosophy. They believe in the ideas of Friedrick Nietzsche, that humans are driven by emotion
not by reason. This was a complete contrast to enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, who
believed that humans should act on reason alone. However fascists see ‘normal’ political life as ‘cold, dry
and lifeless’ and believe that (in the words of Henry Bergson) living creatures have a life force that must
be expressed. This emphasis on emotion can be seen to have occurred in fascist regimes, for example in
Nazi Germany Hitler was famous for his hugely passionate speeches that appealed strongly to the
emotions of the people. This is an evidently similar approach to that of nationalism, which is also filled
with emotion such as pride and love for one’s country. This is apparent in the passion evident in
nationalist groups, for example Indian nationalists were willing to go on hunger strike and long marches
in order to try to gain independence. The strength of emotion in Enoch Powell’s famous ‘rivers of blood’
speech could be seen to be merely a less extreme form of the anti-rationalism evident in Hitler’s famous
addresses. However it is not the case that fascism simply takes the emotional approach of nationalism one
step further. Fascists actively oppose the idea of rationalism in a way that nationalists do not. Nationalists
may be emotional regarding their ideas but they do not specifically reject the idea of using reason, indeed
liberal nationalists would argue that their ideas are a product of reason. This difference makes it evident
that fascism is indeed more than an extreme form of nationalism, it is a separate ideology with a different
belief system.
One notable feature of fascism is that in some ways it has been considered similar to socialism, for
example it is anti-capitalist, values the community above the individual, is against materialism and
believes that leadership should be based on personality not financial power. These ideas were evident in
fascist regimes, for example in both Germany and Italy there were attempts to control big business and
focus on the collective good, Nazi coins were inscribed with the slogan ‘common good before private
good”. It could potentially be argued that nationalism also has similarities to socialism, for example
nationalists focus on the good of the nation over the good of the individual and nationalist aims, such as
independence or cultural recognition are often not material. However these similarities do not in any
sense show that fascism is nothing more than an extreme form of nationalism, it merely demonstrates that
there are ideological overlaps between fascism, nationalism and socialism (indeed nationalism has
occurred in both fascist and socialist regimes).
In conclusion fascism certainly is something more than an extreme form of nationalism. Whilst fascist
regimes, particularly Nazi Germany, demonstrate a strong belief in nationalism, the extremity of actions
demonstrates a different belief, a belief in racialism. Furthermore fascism is characterized by other key
beliefs which are not shared by nationalists, such as struggle and leadership and elitism. These can be
seen to be even more fundamental to fascism that nationalistic beliefs as different kinds of fascist regimes
place different emphasis on nationalism, whereas leadership and struggle remain ideologically central
regardless of the strand of fascism in question. The central themes of fascism and the ways they have
been manifested in different countries indicates that whilst fascism may have some similarities to
nationalism ultimately it is ideologically distinct.