The Origins of Fascism in Europe

Anatomy of Fascism
Chapter 2 Analysis
Paxton identifies the starting place and date of “fascism” (Italy, 1919) but goes on to note that the idea of fascism was occurring elsewhere in Europe at the same time—quite distinctly from anything related to Mussolini. The Hungarian kingdom had essentially been dissolved by the Treaty of Trianon following the end of WWI, and Bela Kun had instituted a socialist government in Budapest. Hungarian elites struck back and formed the Anti-Bolshevik Committee, which was essentially anti-Jewish, as Kun’s commissars had mainly been Jewish. Thus a type of Hungarian fascism was born. A similar story was told in Germany, where Hitler led a similar response to Jewish power during the Weimar years. Essentially, fascism was a nationalistic-militaristic response to liberalism and socialism. Likewise, the miserable outcome for countries defeated by the Allies in WWI was a prelude to the organic rise of fascism—a power viewed by the people as sufficient to stop the spread of Bolshevism.
Paxton’s purpose in writing this chapter is to provide context for the notion of fascism. It is not sufficient, he indicate, to say that Mussolini coined the term and that is all one needs to know about it. There were very real geopolitical and socio-political factors involved that led many people to support fascism and leaders who displayed a tendency towards fascism. Fascism was viewed, Paxton indicates, as the last hurrah of the Old World patriarchs—the elites who did not want to see their countries taken over by Soviet-style separatists (i.e., Jews). Paxton’s argument is that fascism had very clear and distinct social, cultural and emotional roots, with everything from the music of Wagner to the philosophical works of Schonerer and Chamberlain and Georges Sorel. Fascism had an intellectual basis that was opposed to the liberalism represented by the Leftist (largely Jewish) sect, according to this chapter’s notes. The goal of Fascism was to mobilize the masses towards nationalistic rejuvenation in the face of Leftism.
Chapter 3 Analysis
Paxton points out that every nation had some system akin to fascism between the wars and that these systems were quite effective in mobilizing the masses towards nationalism. Fascism was described by its adherents as a movement rather than as a party. Indeed, wherever it appeared it had the feel of a movement—a force—the will of the people rising up. The Blackshirts in Italy, the NSDAP in Germany, the extreme Right in France (unsuccessful, however, in achieving its goal)—each showed that Fascism was a movement of a mass of people against a countering trend by the revolutionary Left. Paxton also examines the failure of Fascism in England and why Weimar Germany was the heart and soul of cultural experimentation, as Paxton puts it, in Europe. The Left embraced Marxism, while the Right embraced the discontented. The Left embraced ideology, the Right embraced the disgruntled masses who felt they’d been wronged by the Allies.
Paxton’s purpose in this chapter is to show that fascist attitudes were not uncommon throughout the West following WWI. Indeed, many people wanted to return to a kind of conservatism and nationalistic self-interest. They were distrustful of Jews, they felt threatened, they wanted strong leaders who could act. The leaders of successful fascist states were indeed decision makers, as Paxton calls them. His argument here is that fascism was not an anomaly that occurred only in Italy and Germany, it is just that in these states there were two homegrown leaders who had the personality to pull it off: Hitler and Mussolini were able to develop the fascist movements because they were indeed decision makers.

References
Paxton, R. (2005). Anatomy of Fascism. NY: Vintage.