Fascism and Nazism. Fundamental differences

Many do not understand the difference between fascism and Nazism, and think that they are one and the same, or consider one ideology as a special case of the other. You can hear such exclamations:
1. "Yes, call it at least a pot, the essence of this does not change."
Well, if a person wants to appear uneducated and be a copy of "Ellochka-cannibal" and call all things in one word (a pot, for example), then this is his same democratic right, like any homeless person lying on the street and promoting their way of life .
2. “Nazism is seen as a special case of fascism, reading the same wiki, it's easy to understand. There is practically no difference.”
In practice, there is a difference. By virtue of historical justice, these concepts should be distinguished, and sour should not be mixed with green. It is possible to unite according to common features, and consider it as a special case - but it is pointless (in the context of the ultimate goals of ideologies), because a bunch of other "-flaws" will fall under these "cases"). For a detailed study, one should turn to the relevant works, and not to dictionaries, and even more so not to the media.

Today, in the media, often, fascism is called any real or imaginary manifestation of an extremely radically different idea from democratic ideas in combination with a racist idea, the idea of ​​national or racial eugenic teachings about race, as well as sympathy for Nazi symbols and aesthetics. Fascism is also called a form of populist ultranationalism based on the appeal to the past, its romanticization and idealization. In practice, fascism has become just a dirty word in political controversy, having lost its specific content.

Part 1. Difference between National Socialism and Fascism

Some people don't even know that there is a difference between Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's National Socialism. National Socialism is often referred to as Fascism, or German or German Fascism. Most often, this identification of concepts is observed in an environment brought up on the communist ideology, which called all manifestations of radical right ideas in Europe fascism. Often a person from childhood was brought up hostile to these ideologies and simply did not want to share these ideologies, to delve into the essence of these ideologies, considering them evil of one root, common, mixing both concepts and not wanting to understand the difference.

Part 2. The relation of fascism and national socialism to the state, to its goals

According to Mussolini, “the main provision of the fascist doctrine is the doctrine of the state, its essence, tasks and goals. For fascism, the state appears as an absolute, in comparison with which individuals and groups are only "relative". Individuals and groups are conceivable only in the state.

Thus, Mussolini formulated the main idea and goal of fascism. Even more specifically, this idea is indicated in the slogan that Mussolini proclaimed in his speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1927: "everything in the state, nothing against the state and nothing outside the state."

The attitude of the National Socialists towards the state was fundamentally different. If for the fascists the state is primary: "the state creates the nation" (1), then for the National Socialists the state is "only a means to preserve the people." Moreover, National Socialism had as its goal and main task not even the maintenance of this "means", but the rejection of it - the restructuring of the state into society. What was the society of the future supposed to be like? First, it had to be racial, based on the principles of racial inequality. And the main initial goal of this society was the liberation of the race from the influence of other races, in this case the Aryan, and then the maintenance and preservation of its purity. The state was conceived as an intermediate stage, which is necessary at first for the construction of such a society. There is a certain similarity with the ideas of Marx and Lenin, who also considered the state a transitional form on the way to building another society (communism). For Mussolini, the main goal was the creation of an absolute state, the revival of the former power of the Roman Empire. The difference becomes clear.

Part 3. Differences on the national question

The fascists are characterized by a corporate approach to solving the national question. The fascists want to achieve their ultimate goal of an absolute state through the cooperation of nations and classes. National Socialism, in the person of Hitler and his other leaders, solves the national problem through a racial approach, by mechanically purging the race, that is, maintaining the purity of the race and sifting out foreign elements.

The main thing in the ideology of National Socialism is race. At the same time, in Nazi Germany, race was understood as a very specific type of people, laws were adopted to ensure the purity and preservation of the Aryan race, and specific measures were taken to breed a certain physiological type.

Mussolini argues that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling." And these are not particulars, these are fundamental ideological differences. Mussolini does not use the concept of "race" at all, he operates only with the concept of "nation". Hitler, on the other hand, argued that the concept of “nation” is an outdated, “empty” concept: “The concept of a nation has become empty. "Nation" is the political instrument of democracy and liberalism.(2) Hitler fundamentally rejects the concept of "nation". Moreover, he sets the task of abolishing this concept. Mussolini, on the contrary, identifies the concept of "nation" with the basis of the fascist doctrine - the concept of "state".

Anti-Semitism was the cornerstone of the national policy of National Socialism. At the same time, in fascist Italy, there was no persecution of Jews for any ideological reasons. Fascism, as an ideology, is generally free from anti-Semitism.

Moreover, Mussolini strongly condemned the National Socialist eugenics doctrines of racial purity and anti-Semitism. In March 1932, talking with the German writer Emil Ludwig, he said: “... To date, there are no completely pure races left in the world. Even the Jews did not escape the confusion. It is this mixture that often makes a nation strong and beautiful ... I do not believe in any biological experiments that supposedly can determine the purity of a race ... Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. Italian Jews have always behaved like real patriots. They fought bravely for Italy during the war."

As you can see, Mussolini not only does not condemn the mixing of races, in which he fundamentally contradicts not only Hitler and the entire racial theory of National Socialism, but even speaks with sympathy about the Jews. And these were not just words - at that time in Italy, many important positions in universities and banks were occupied by Jews. There were also many Jews among the senior officers in the army.

The French author F. Furet in his book “The Past of an Illusion” said: “Hitler made the word “race” the main point of his political credo, while Mussolini was not essentially a racist.” Russian sociologist N.V. Ustryalov (1890-1937): “It is necessary… to note that the racist spirit is completely absent in Italian fascism… In other words, racism is by no means a necessary element of fascist ideology.”

Only at the last stage of the existence of the fascist regime in Italy, there were cases of oppression of the Jews. But they were not of a mass nature, and were caused only by Mussolini's desire to please Hitler, on whom by that time the fate of not only Italian fascism, but also its leader, had already largely depended. Consequently, based on the above statements of Benito Mussolini, the manifestations of anti-Semitism that took place at the last stage of the existence of the fascist regime in Italy were of an opportunistic-political, and not of a fundamentally ideological nature. Moreover, they absolutely did not correspond to the views of Mussolini himself and, therefore, did not correspond to the doctrine of fascism.

Hitler in his ideology took as a basis a way to unite it around socialist ideas, transforming Mussolini's idea of ​​an absolute Italian state into the idea of ​​a society with a eugenic doctrine of race, sharpened to anti-Semitism, where the Aryan race would dominate.

Today, in the media, often, fascism is called any real or imaginary manifestation of totalitarianism, combined with the idea of ​​national or racial exclusivity, as well as sympathy for Nazi symbols and aesthetics. Fascism is also called a form of populist ultranationalism based on the appeal to the past, its romanticization and idealization. In practice, fascism has become just a dirty word in political controversy, having lost its specific content.

Below is a small work (based on "Jewish sources" (!) (which is noticeable), so that there are no claims like: I do not need articles by inveterate nationalists here).

Part 1. Difference between National Socialism and Fascism

Some people don't even know that there is a difference between Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's National Socialism. National Socialism is often referred to as Fascism, or German or German Fascism. Most often, this identification of concepts is observed in an environment brought up on communist ideology, which called all manifestations of totalitarianism in Europe fascism. Often a person simply did not want to share these ideologies, considering them the evil of one root, common, mixing both concepts and not wanting to understand the difference.

In general, there is logic here, since this branch of European totalitarianism was born in Italy and was called - fascism from the Italian word "fascio", which means "bundle", "bundle", "association", "union". And since it was at that time that there was a powerful confrontation between the ideas of communism and fascism, then any such evil was called fascism, which remained in the minds of people, especially the old ones. Somewhat later, Hitler, taking Mussolini's idea as a basis, developed it on racist soil and created National Socialism or Nazism.

The essential difference between these two teachings is the tonal coloring of their nationalist ideas. Both ideologies are based on chauvinism, but if in fascism this chauvinism is aimed at strengthening the state, reviving the former Roman Empire and uniting the representatives of this nation, then National Socialism is a theory of the superiority of one nation over another.

Nazism is dominated by the racial idea, brought to the point of anti-Semitism. The attitude towards all other nations also has a connection with the Jews. Everything is associated with the Semites. Bolshevism becomes Jewish Bolshevism;

Consider the ideological foundations of fascism and National Socialism. It is a fact, but not widely known, that Hitler and Mussolini utterly disliked when their doctrines and ideologies were confused. There were fundamental disagreements: in relation to the state, on the national question, in relation to war and peace, on questions of religion, and some others, less significant.

Part 2. The attitude of fascism and Nazism to the state, to its goals

According to Mussolini, “the main provision of the fascist doctrine is the doctrine of the state, its essence, tasks and goals. For fascism, the state appears as an absolute, in comparison with which individuals and groups are only "relative". Individuals and groups are conceivable only in the state.

Thus, Mussolini formulated the main idea and goal of fascism. Even more specifically, this idea is indicated in the slogan that Mussolini proclaimed in his speech to the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1927: "everything in the state, nothing against the state and nothing outside the state."

The attitude of the National Socialists towards the state was fundamentally different. If for the fascists the state is primary: "the state creates the nation" (1), then for the National Socialists the state is "only a means to preserve the people." Moreover, National Socialism had as its goal and main task not even the maintenance of this "means", but the rejection of it - the restructuring of the state into society. What was the society of the future supposed to be like? First, it had to be racial, based on the principles of racial inequality. And the main initial goal of this society was the purification of the race, in this case the Aryan, and then the maintenance and preservation of its purity. The state was conceived as an intermediate stage, which is necessary at first for the construction of such a society. There is a certain similarity with the ideas of Marx and Lenin, who also considered the state a transitional form on the way to building another society (communism). For Mussolini, the main goal was the creation of an absolute state, the revival of the former power of the Roman Empire. The difference becomes clear.

Part 3. Differences on the national question

The fascists are characterized by a corporate approach to solving the national question. The fascists want to achieve their ultimate goal of an absolute state through the cooperation of nations and classes. National Socialism, in the person of Hitler and his other leaders, solves the national problem through a racial approach, by subordinating the "subhuman" to one superior race and ensuring its dominance over the rest.

The above is confirmed by the statements of the leaders of these movements:
B. Mussolini: "Fascism is a historical concept in which a person is considered exclusively as an active participant in the spiritual process in a family and social group, in a nation and in history, where all nations cooperate."
A. Hitler: "I will never agree that other peoples are equal with the German, our task is to enslave other peoples." (2)

The main thing in the ideology of National Socialism is race. At the same time, in Nazi Germany, race was understood as a very specific type of people, laws were adopted to ensure the purity and preservation of the Aryan race, and specific measures were taken to breed a certain physiological type.

Mussolini, on the other hand, argues that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling." And these are not particulars, these are fundamental ideological differences. Mussolini does not use the concept of "race" at all, he operates only with the concept of "nation". Hitler, on the other hand, argued that the concept of “nation” is an outdated, “empty” concept: “The concept of a nation has become empty. "Nation" is the political instrument of democracy and liberalism.(2) Hitler fundamentally rejects the concept of "nation". Moreover, he sets the task of abolishing this concept. Mussolini, on the contrary, identifies the concept of "nation" with the basis of the fascist doctrine - the concept of "state".

Anti-Semitism was the cornerstone of the national policy of National Socialism. At the same time, in fascist Italy, there was no persecution of Jews for any ideological reasons. Fascism, as an ideology, is generally free from anti-Semitism.

Moreover, Mussolini strongly condemned the Nazi theory of racism and anti-Semitism. In March 1932, talking with the German writer Emil Ludwig, he said: “... By now, there are no completely pure races left in the world. Even the Jews did not escape the confusion. It is this mixture that often makes a nation strong and beautiful ... I do not believe in any biological experiments that can allegedly determine the purity of a race ... Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy. Italian Jews have always behaved like real patriots. They fought bravely for Italy during the war."

As you can see, Mussolini not only does not condemn the mixing of races, in which he fundamentally contradicts not only Hitler and the entire racial theory of National Socialism, but even speaks with sympathy about the Jews. And these were not just words - at that time in Italy, many important positions in universities and banks were occupied by Jews. There were also many Jews among the senior officers in the army.

The French author F. Furet in his book “The Past of an Illusion” said: “Hitler made the word “race” the main point of his political credo, while Mussolini was not essentially a racist.” Russian sociologist N.V. Ustryalov (1890-1937): "It must be noted that in Italian fascism the racist spirit is completely absent ... In other words, racism is by no means a necessary element of fascist ideology."

Only at the last stage of the existence of the fascist regime in Italy, there were cases of oppression of the Jews. But they were not of a mass nature, and were caused only by Mussolini's desire to please Hitler, on whom by that time the fate of not only Italian fascism, but also its leader, had already largely depended. Consequently, based on the above statements of Benito Mussolini, the manifestations of racism and anti-Semitism that took place at the last stage of the existence of the fascist regime in Italy were of an opportunistic-political, and not of a fundamentally ideological nature. Moreover, they absolutely did not correspond to the views of Mussolini himself and, therefore, did not correspond to the doctrine of fascism. In this regard, the assertion found in the mass media and wide literature that “the most important sign of fascism is extreme nationalism ... the inculcation of intolerance towards other peoples, the restriction of their rights up to physical destruction” cannot but raise doubts. This feature fully applies to the National Socialist ideology, but not to fascism.

Hitler in his ideology took as a basis a way to unite it around pseudo-socialist ideas, transforming Mussolini's idea of ​​an absolute Italian state into the idea of ​​a society with racial inequality, sharpened to anti-Semitism, where the Aryan race would dominate.

Mussolini believed that it was necessary to revive the former power of the Roman Empire, he solved the national question corporately. For Mussolini, it was important to organize equal cooperation of nations in order to achieve the common goal of organizing an absolute state, where the individual would be under complete, both spiritual and physical control.

Hitler, so to speak, squeezed the juice out of Mussolini's doctrine, as well as out of communist ideas, turning them into a monster not only from the inside (total control over the individual in the state), but also from the outside, turning the German people into a machine of war, destruction and subjugation other nations.

Part 4. Similarities

Both fascism and Nazism are totalitarian or authoritarian-dictatorial regimes. Comparing the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini according to the features and signs of totalitarian regimes:

Totalitarianism is an ideology. Both Mussolini and Hitler wrote their own works, which were the doctrines of their regimes. In Italy it is "The Doctrine of Fascism", while in Hitler it is "My Struggle". These doctrines were the foundations with which the people were persuaded, and which were supposed to be the book of the "being" of every fascist and Nazi.

Under totalitarianism there is no place for the individual. Everything is absorbed by the state, in the case of fascism, or society, in the case of National Socialism. We see from history that this is the case.

Totalitarianism is terror. In Italy, these are the Blackshirts, and in Germany, the SA, SS, Gestapo, as well as the "People's Tribunal" and other bodies of fascist justice.

And by all indications, experts attribute these regimes to the totalitarianism of the twentieth century.

The word fascism is strongly associated with Nazi Germany. However, the head of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler, did not profess fascism, but National Socialism. While many provisions coincide, there are significant differences and even contradictions between the two ideologies.

A fine line

Today, any movement that is extremely radical in nature, declaring nationalist slogans, is usually called a manifestation of fascism. The word fascist, in fact, has become a stamp, having lost its original meaning. This is not surprising, since the two most dangerous totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century - fascism and National Socialism - were in close contact for a long time, exerting a noticeable influence on each other.

Indeed, there is much in common between them - chauvinism, totalitarianism, leaderism, lack of democracy and pluralism of opinions, reliance on a one-party system and punitive bodies. National socialism is often called one of the manifestations of fascism. The German Nazis willingly adapted some elements of fascism on their soil, in particular, the Nazi salute is a copy of the so-called Roman salute.

With the widespread confusion of concepts and principles that guided Nazism and fascism, it is not so easy to identify differences between them. But before doing this, we need to dwell on the origin of the two ideologies.

The word fascism has Italian roots: "fascio" in Russian sounds like "union". This word, for example, was in the name of the political party of Benito Mussolini - Fascio di combattimento (Union of Struggle). "Fascio" in turn goes back to the Latin word "fascis", which translates as "bundle" or "bundle".

Fasces - bunches of elm or birch rods tied with a red cord or tied with belts - were a kind of attribute of the power of the ancient Roman kings or masters in the era of the Republic. Initially, they symbolized the right of the authorities to achieve their decisions by the use of force. According to some versions, the fasciae were indeed an instrument of corporal punishment, and, together with the ax, the death penalty.

The ideological roots of fascism date back to the 1880s in the Fin de siècle (French for “end of the century”), characterized by a rush between euphoria for change and eschatological fear of the future. The intellectual basis of fascism was largely prepared by the works of Charles Darwin (biology), Richard Wagner (aesthetics), Arthur de Gobineau (sociology), Gustave Le Bon (psychology) and Friedrich Nietzsche (philosophy).

At the turn of the century, a number of works appeared that professed the doctrine of the superiority of an organized minority over a disorganized majority, the legitimacy of political violence, and radicalized the concepts of nationalism and patriotism. This leads to the emergence of political regimes seeking to strengthen the regulatory role of the state, violent methods of suppressing dissent, rejection of the principles of economic and political liberalism.

In many countries, such as Italy, France, Belgium, Hungary, Romania, Japan, Argentina, fascist movements declare themselves in full voice. They profess similar principles: authoritarianism, social Darwinism, elitism, while defending anti-socialist and anti-capitalist positions.

In its purest form, the doctrine of fascism as the power of the corporate state was expressed by the Italian leader Benito Mussolini, who understood this word not only as a system of state administration, but also as an ideology. In 1924, the National Fascist Party of Italy (Partito Nazionale Fascista) received a parliamentary majority, and since 1928 it has become the only legal party in the country.

national socialism

This movement, known as Nazism, became the official political ideology in the Third Reich. It is often viewed as a form of fascism with elements of pseudo-scientific racism and anti-Semitism, which was expressed in the concept of "German fascism", by analogy with Italian or Japanese fascism.

German political scientist Manuel Sarkisyants writes that Nazism is not a German invention. The philosophy of Nazism and the theory of dictatorship were formulated in the middle of the 19th century by the Scottish historian and publicist Thomas Carlyle. “Like Hitler, Carlyle never changed his hatred, his contempt for the parliamentary system,” Sarkisyants notes. “Like Hitler, Carlyle always believed in the saving virtue of dictatorship.”

The main goal for German National Socialism was the construction and establishment of a “pure state” on the widest geographical area, in which the main role would be given to representatives of the Aryan race, which had everything necessary for a prosperous existence.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) was in power in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Hitler often emphasized the importance of Italian fascism, which influenced the formation of Nazi ideology. He gave a special place to the March on Rome (the procession of the Italian fascists in 1922, which contributed to the rise of Mussolini), which became an inspiration for the German radicals.

The ideology of German Nazism was based on the principle of uniting the doctrines of Italian fascism around National Socialist ideas, where the absolute state of Mussolini would be transformed into a society with a eugenic doctrine of race.

So close but different

According to Mussolini, the main provisions of the fascist doctrine are the doctrine of the state, its essence, tasks and goals. For the ideology of fascism, the state is an absolute - an indisputable authority and the highest authority. All individuals or social groups are inconceivable without the state.

More clearly, this idea is indicated in the slogan that Mussolini proclaimed in his speech in the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1927: "Everything in the state, nothing against the state and nothing outside the state."

The attitude of the National Socialists towards the state was fundamentally different. For the ideologists of the Third Reich, the state is "only a means to preserve the people." In the long term, National Socialism did not aim to maintain the structure of the state, but sought to reorganize it into public institutions.

The state in National Socialism was seen as an intermediate stage in building an ideal, racially pure society. Here one can see some analogy with the ideas of Marx and Lenin, who considered the state a transitional form on the way to building a classless society.

The second stumbling block between the two systems is the national and racial issue. For the fascists, a corporate approach in solving national problems was extremely important in this respect. Mussolini declared that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling." Moreover, Mussolini tried to avoid this word whenever possible, replacing it with the concept of nation. It was the Italian nation that was for the Duce a source of pride and an incentive for its further exaltation.

Hitler called the concept of "nation" "obsolete and empty", despite the presence of this word in the name of his party. The German leaders solved the national question through a racial approach, literally by mechanically purifying the race and maintaining racial purity by sifting out foreign elements. The racial question is the cornerstone of Nazism.

Fascist ideology in its original sense was alien to racism and anti-Semitism. Although Mussolini admitted that he became a racist back in 1921, he emphasized that there was no imitation of German racism here. "It is necessary that the Italians respect their race," Mussolini declared his "racist" position.

Moreover, Mussolini repeatedly condemned the eugenic teachings of National Socialism about the purity of the race. In March 1932, in a conversation with the German writer Emil Ludwig, he noted that “to date, there are no completely pure races left in the world. Even the Jews have not escaped confusion.”

"Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy," the Duce said. And it wasn't just words. While anti-Semitic campaigns were gaining momentum in Italy in Italy, many important positions in universities, banks or the army continued to be held by Jews. It was only from the mid-1930s that Mussolini declared white supremacy in Italy's African colonies and switched to anti-Semitic rhetoric for the sake of an alliance with Germany.

It is important to note that Nazism is not an obligatory component of fascism. Thus, the fascist regimes of Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain or Pinochet in Chile were deprived of the theory of racial superiority fundamental to Nazism.

A few weeks remained until the day of victory in the Great Patriotic War. And then there are the events in Ukraine, where for almost a year and a half both sides of the conflict have been calling each other “fascists”. The very word "fascism" is increasingly penetrating into the mass consciousness - and now a stable association is being formed: "The Second World War was a war against fascism." Or maybe against Nazism? Today, many people have no time to understand - that's why all the concepts interfere together. But journalists should not allow themselves this.

Today, more and more often we hear statements from various eloquent lips, as if according to a template: “We will not allow the rehabilitation of fascism!”. And of course, here are “Victory over the Nazi invaders”, “Fascist power in Kyiv”, “Fascist youths on the Maidan”, “German fascists staged a Holocaust to destroy the Jews”. Amazing mix! But if one cannot expect any competence from the officials responsible for the ideology (they are selected according to a different principle), then when journalists begin to echo them, it becomes completely sad.

Let's see what is the difference between "fascism" and "Nazism", which of them really unleashed the most terrible war in history and why the "German fascist hordes" never actually existed. Why Jews and Gypsies were destroyed by the Nazis, and saved by the Nazis. Marvelous? Let's figure it out.

Fascism

Usually, the modern layman knows that fascism originated in Italy, and that the first fascist to head the state was, respectively, Benito Mussolini. Unfortunately, this is where most knowledge ends. And further in the mass consciousness, for some reason, Hitler and concentration camps follow.

A similar situation is in countries where both Nazi and communist symbols are prohibited. For example, in Lithuania or Ukraine (from the beginning of April this year). The Ukrainian law is called: "On the condemnation of the communist and national-socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes in Ukraine and the prohibition of propaganda of their symbols."

There is a similar law in Russia - Nazi symbols are prohibited there. True, in Russia it is more difficult for lawyers - each court decides in its own way what is considered Nazi symbols and what is not. Hence the mass of controversial issues. But in any case, again, Nazi symbols are prohibited. But not fascist.

P.S.

And the last, especially for those who are too lazy to turn on the brain and who are already ready to accuse the author of "revising the results" and "whitewashing fascism." I am equally disgusted by Nazism and fascism. I am for liberalism and against any leaderism; marching in formation with banners gives me a toothache, and any call to "rally around" gives me diarrhea. I am for a completely free press, against any censorship. I am for a parliamentary republic and many parties in the legislature. But I am against mixing historical concepts. Because that's what history is about to be rewritten. And I know her too well to put up with that.

The question posed in the title is not at all speculative or abstract, as it may seem to someone. Moreover, it concerns the past, present and future of not one or two or three, but very many countries - practically all of humanity.

The term "fascism" in our country - recently the Soviet Union, and now Russia - is much more famous than Nazism. Moreover, fascism has become literally a folk word that has a common, worldly, and, in essence, abusive meaning. In everyday life, fascism is associated not only with Hitler, our mortal enemy in the last war, but also with extremely odious qualities.

Study in shades of brown

To begin with, let's see what is called, from the side, offhand. What do we see? Firstly, the term "fascism" in our country - recently the Soviet Union, and now Russia - is much more famous than Nazism. Moreover, fascism has become literally a folk word that has a common, worldly, and, in essence, abusive meaning. In everyday life, fascism is associated not only with Hitler, our mortal enemy in the last war, but also with extremely odious qualities. Simply put, a fascist is considered an extremely cruel and at the same time unprincipled person - a kind of fiend in real life.

Another story with Nazism. This word is much less familiar to the majority of our fellow citizens, is less rooted, does not have such an unconditionally negative connotation, and in general is the property of the scientific community rather than everyday life. In any case, calling / calling someone a “fascist” is a widespread practice, but there is no mass use of the word “Nazi” for the same purposes ... And if the question “What is fascism?” the majority will give a more or less clear, although by no means always complete or accurate, exhaustive answer, then many will shrug their shoulders in bewilderment or speak out completely incoherently to the same request regarding Nazism.

This difference is rooted in the past. Even before the Second World War, Soviet propaganda widely used the term "fascism" (of course, in a negative sense). Then, during the short period of cooperation between Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist USSR from August 1939 to June 1941, the mention of fascism and fascists disappeared from official rhetoric. True, Nazism did not fully appear either. Mostly it was said about "Hitlerism", the abbreviation of the Nazi party - NSDAP was occasionally mentioned, but it usually did not reach its decoding, from which it was just a stone's throw from Nazism.

With the outbreak of the war, fascism became and until the perestroika of the second half of the 1980s remained a ubiquitous turnover, and only from the 1960s did the term “Nazism” appear more and more often in the research literature. And for the last quarter of a century, fascism and Nazism have been used in Russia with almost the same frequency, and at all levels, although the style of mass commemorative events (primarily Victory Day) still remains “anti-fascist”, not “anti-Nazi”.

Left alignment

Where did the lexical bias towards fascism come from, and what explains the increased “presence” of Nazism in recent years? Finally, what is the relationship between these socio-political, spiritual and ideological phenomena - fascism and Nazism? Is it possible to put an equal sign between them, and if not, what are the differences?

During the war years, the most common words were "fascist", "fascist", "German-fascist". This is exactly what Stalin said - both during the period of military failures and in the halo of the Great Victory. And never "Nazis" or "Nazi". After Stalin, the situation did not change - under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and even in the early years of Gorbachev, the use of the term "Nazism" was not only forbidden, but still exists in special, "unemotional", "cold-blooded" literature. In the official media, in the speeches of the leaders of the party and state, in works of art (books, performances, films), in the public life of cities and villages, “fascism” sounds everywhere. Both in relation to military subjects, and at the everyday level in relation to the "fiends", "non-humans", "scoundrels" of our time.

Take, for example, the famous film by Mikhail Romm - namely "Ordinary Fascism", in the Soviet version there is no film "Ordinary Nazism". A minute of silence - after all, it is called "in blessed memory of those who died in the fight against fascism." In school textbooks, fascism is everywhere, not Nazism, etc., etc.

Why is that? The casket opens easily. Nazism is short for National Socialism. And he, in turn, is a derivative of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), which was led by Hitler. Of course, there were significant differences between the Bolsheviks, the Communists, on the one hand, and the National Socialists (Nazis), on the other. And yet, there are similarities in the style of the names. Although they have nationalism, they still have socialism, and this, as they say, brings them together - at least in words. In addition, the word "working" is present in the name of the Hitlerite party.

At the same time, in the West, the situation was initially the opposite - it is the term "Nazism" that is used there. Politicians, including Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, de Gaulle, and non-communist media constantly talked about Nazism (“Nazi”), National Socialism. Thus, they “gradually”, associatively placed the Bolshevik communists close to the National Socialists (Nazis).

In general, for the uninitiated, the names "All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" - the CPSU (b), "Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (CPSU) and "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (NSDAP) are very close: in all cases there is "leftism ”, “people”, “protection of the interests of workers”, “revolutionary”. Therefore, already in the pre-war years, “fascism” was in Soviet everyday life, since “Nazism” and especially “National Socialism” gave rise to undesirable parallels and associations. Moreover, since June 22, 1941, it was precisely the habitually negative fascism that was in use, and the degree of its negative perception was rapidly growing, and not Nazism.

Big Three games

Thus, even during the years of the joint struggle with Hitler (not to mention the times before and after the war) between the USSR and the Western allies - both state leaders and the prevailing trend in public opinion - there was a kind of Alaverdi. The Soviet leaders "unobtrusively" brought America and Britain closer to the Nazis, while Roosevelt and especially Churchill placed the Bolshevik Communists close to the National Socialists (Nazis). I repeat, first of all, this is about ideology, worldview, and not about international strategy, where the main thing was still the joint, Western-Soviet, rejection of fascism-Nazism - in any case, starting from June 22, 1941.

In other words, fascism, whose birthplace was Italy, translated from Latin (“fascia”) was just a bunch of rods, a symbol of power in Ancient Rome, symbolizing a society united under a single, strict leadership of a leader (king, emperor, sultan, etc.). .d.), turned into a bogey due to a combination of historical circumstances. With an impartial approach, rigid unity of command can easily be seen in the political system of the Stalinist (Khrushchev, Brezhnev) USSR, and in communist China, and in modern Russia.

Of course, Stalin, like his "sworn friends" in the anti-Hitler coalition, not only defended, but also attacked. In an effort to show the closeness of Western democracies and the Third Reich, to put Berlin next to Washington and London, Soviet propaganda claimed (and during the years of alliance with the West implied) that there was nothing to distinguish between America-Britain and Nazi Germany: the Anglo-Saxons had “a disguised dictatorship of a large capital," and with Hitler this dictatorship is already open. But what kind of “nearby” is there, if instead of the word “fascism” you pronounce “Nazism” - that means “national socialist”, and even “worker” ?!

At the same time, in the West, the situation was initially the opposite - it is the term "Nazism" that is used there. Politicians, including Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, de Gaulle, and non-communist media constantly talked about Nazism (“Nazi”), National Socialism. For Western society, for the majority of the inhabitants of America, Britain or France, for example, the Nuremberg trials are a trial of Nazism, it is National Socialism that is the “brown plague” and a threat to humanity, it was Nazism that fought, in its own interpretation, the anti-Hitler coalition except for the USSR.

The reason for preferring the term "Nazism" in relation to Hitler's Germany and the non-use of the word "fascism" is also primarily in the ideological plane. If Nazism as a term was extremely inconvenient for the Soviet leadership, then for Churchill and Roosevelt it was just right. The auditory perception of the word "National Socialism" unobtrusively, gradually, not "on the forehead" brought Hitler closer to Stalin, put them on the same level, as it were, thereby distributing between them the responsibility for unleashing the Second World War. On the contrary, against this background, Western democracies seemed to be opposed to Nazis and Communists, and thus the “whiteness” and “fluffiness” of Washington and London became even more obvious and obvious.

The subtle game was not stopped even by the cooperation of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill after June 1941. There were influential circles in the West who perceived the coalition with the Bolsheviks as a purely forced and largely unnatural step, as an alliance with a lesser (in comparison with Hitler), but also no small evil. This was also the view of a significant part of the Anglo-American voters. The use of the term "Nazism" (with an unconditionally negative perception of it by the leaders of the Western powers) was intended to take into account these sentiments, confirmed that forced military cooperation does not cancel the fundamental differences in ideology, economy, political system, and social values. After the defeat of the common enemy, these differences again came to the fore, and short-term allies returned to the perception of each other as, first of all, rivals and even enemies.

As for Hitler and his associates, they considered themselves not fascists, but precisely National Socialists, and, of course, they considered this affiliation and this term to be extremely positive. But they never used the abbreviation "Nazism", since it had a clearly negative connotation.

From Mussolini to Pinochet

Now about the accuracy of terms: which is correct - fascism or Nazism? Who is closer to the historical truth - Western or Soviet style, and in many ways a reflection, interpretation of many events of the Second World War (the term "Great Patriotic War" also did not really take root across the ocean and in Western Europe)? It is impossible to give an unambiguous answer, because it - in an objective, and not propagandistic consideration - simply does not exist.

Between fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) as ideologies, political, social practices, there are both significant similarities and noticeable differences. For fascist (in essence, extreme right) parties and states, the cult of the national leader (leader) is characteristic; rejection of the values ​​of democracy (real competition and a multi-party system in politics, separation of powers, a relatively independent press, etc.); corporate construction of society (some, although not one hundred percent similarity with the "transmission belts from the party to the masses" in Soviet society); greater dependence of the private sector on the state (“capitalists with the permission of the authorities”).

In most fascist states, there is only one party, which has to a large extent (but still less than in the USSR) grown together with the state apparatus. At the same time, the support of the one-party system is not at all the big bourgeoisie (if this were the case, it would be too easy!), but workers, peasants plus owners and personnel in the urban service sector (service industries) - "shopkeepers", "petty bourgeoisie" . It was the proletariat and the working peasantry (to put it in terms of Marxism-Leninism) that became the mass support of fascism and especially Nazism. It is no coincidence that May Day was one of the main holidays in Nazi Germany, on the state flag a white circle with a black swastika was placed on a red background, and inside the NSDAP the usual address was “parteigenosse” - “party comrade”.

Actually, history knows a lot of fascist regimes (in a strictly scientific, not emotional sense): for example, Italy under Mussolini, Francoist Spain, Romania under Antonescu, Horthy Hungary, Portugal under Salazar and Cayetana, a whole bunch of dictators in Latin America, including Pinochet. As already mentioned, individual features of fascism can be found in almost most states. Perhaps this is where the lightness of the many mutual accusations of fascism, which have become an important element of the political fashion of recent years, comes from.

Under the sign of the swastika

National socialism (Nazism) as a ruling ideology, political system, state structure existed only in Nazi Germany. Nazism has the named features of fascism, but there is a certain difference between them. Firstly, National Socialism is extremely aggressive in foreign policy, which is not at all necessary for “purely fascist states” (the only exception is Japan of the 1930s - the first half of the 1940s). Militarism is an essential element of the Nazi regime. Secondly, Nazism is extreme nationalism, it is racism with its doctrine of a superior race and inferior peoples, and the superior ones should dominate, while the inferior, inferior ones are subject to destruction or slavery - both in theory and in practice. In "typical fascism" this quality is either absent or expressed much less clearly than among the Nazis.

Thirdly, the fascist states are characterized by a large role of the church as a spokesman for the main confession, while the Nazis' relations with the traditional (Christian) dogma were very complex - in fact, occult ("Aryan") teachings, based again on on racial superiority. And although the scale of the persecution of priests and the Church as a whole was much more modest under Hitler than under the Bolsheviks, nevertheless, Nazism, moving, unlike fascism, from an authoritarian to a totalitarian stage, sought to control the personal, private life of its subjects, and therefore " There can't be two suns. National Socialism increasingly claimed the role of “a new religion that nourishes and educates the new man,” and considered the Church a competitor. And in this - again, with large differences in other areas - the similarity of Nazism with Bolshevism is manifested.

Stalin, like his "sworn friends" in the anti-Hitler coalition, not only defended, but also advanced. In an effort to show the closeness of Western democracies and the Third Reich, to put Berlin next to Washington and London, Soviet propaganda claimed (and implied during the years of alliance with the West) that there was nothing to distinguish between America-Britain and Nazi Germany.

Finally, fourthly, summing up what has been said, if fascism is characterized by a conservative scale of values, then revolutionary notes are clearly traced in Nazism, aimed at demolishing and transforming the entire society, starting from its foundation, from everyday life. Revolutionary does not mean progressive; revolution from the point of view of the development of human civilization can be quite reactionary: such, for example, was the regime of the "Khmer Rouge" (Pol Pot and Co.) in Kampuchea. And, for example, assessments of how progressive, for example, the order in North Korea over the past 70 years and even in the Soviet Union, as you know, vary greatly. In this context, the presence of revolutionary tendencies, and in a permanent non-stop mode, is an integral feature of National Socialism.

As for the Fuhrer and his associates, they considered themselves not fascists, but precisely National Socialists, and, of course, they considered this affiliation and this term to be extremely positive. But they never used the abbreviation "Nazism" used in the West, since it had a clearly dismissive negative connotation that "eats" the full decoding of the term. Such linguistics, such, it would seem, literalism, behind which stood huge, literally tectonic phenomena and processes of world history.

It was Nazism, Hitler's National Socialism, overwhelmed by the idea of ​​world domination, that was the striking force in unleashing the Second World War. Without Nazism, "pure fascists" would hardly have dared to do this. Nevertheless, a certain similarity between National Socialism and fascism, as well as the participation - on one scale or another - in the war on the side of Germany of a number of fascist states (Italy, Romania, Hungary, Spain, and Japan) seem to allow the use of the general term "fascism ". At the same time, this means that modern fascists are placed on the same level with “those” fascists - say, the recent regimes in Argentina or El Salvador, and this is already, let's say, incorrect. One might as well equate Brezhnev with Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un with Khrushchev, and Deng Xiaoping with Stalin.

Maid or mistress?

Thus, the question of the relationship between the terms “fascism” and “National Socialism (Nazism)” that suits everyone and the appropriateness of using each of them in one case or another remains — and, apparently, will forever remain — open. This, I am sure, is the strong side of history - a living science, which is not reduced to a set of undeniable truths, "reinforced concrete" stereotypes, sometimes implicated in the political situation, but involves discussions, clashes and comparisons of different points of view. The world is multicolored, diverse, and the events of the 1930s and 1940s, including the phenomenon of fascism / Nazism, are among the most complex and at the same time the most interesting in world history.

History owes nothing to anyone, but we must all treat it with respect. And, of course, do not keep her on agitation and propaganda "parcels" - this is a mistress, not a servant. If the teaching of history at school develops in this vein - discussion, independent, thoughtful, if you like - careful mastering of the complex fabric of historical knowledge, then our country will have an additional chance to avoid repeating previous mistakes.

Yuri Pronin, Candidate of Historical Sciences,
"Baikal News"