Fascism and Racialism: From Mussolini's Italy to Hitler's Germany

The interwar period witnessed the rise of fascism in Europe, but this ideology did not take a single form. While Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini and German Nazism under Adolf Hitler shared authoritarian ambitions, their approaches to race diverged significantly. Racialism-the pseudo-scientific belief in biologically distinct and hierarchical human races-became the cornerstone of Nazi Germany, while it played a secondary, more opportunistic role in Mussolini’s Italy. Understanding this difference is essential for grasping how the Holocaust became possible and why Mahatma Gandhi’s attempts to counter “Hitlerism” through nonviolence sparked fierce debate among Jewish intellectuals.

Racialism in Italian versus German fascism
The contrast with Nazi Germany
The theoretical basis of Nazi racialism
The Aryan myth and the master race
Jews as the “anti-race”
Gandhi’s condemnation and response
The call to prevent war
Soul-force against violence
The practical dilemma: Jewish responses to Gandhi
Buber’s critique
The limits of nonviolence
The tragic gap
Lessons from a painful debate

Racialism in Italian versus German fascism

When examining fascism’s relationship with race, a striking contrast emerges between its Italian and German variants. Mussolini initially rejected Nazi racism, famously dismissing the idea of a master race as “arrant nonsense, stupid and idiotic.” Early Italian Fascism, unlike its German counterpart, viewed race primarily as a cultural and political construct rather than a biological reality. Many early supporters of Italian fascism, including Mussolini’s mistress Margherita Sarfatti, were Jewish intellectuals.

This difference stemmed partly from practical considerations. Nordicism and biological racism were incompatible with Italian national interests because such theories inherently placed Mediterranean peoples beneath Germans and Northwestern Europeans in the racial hierarchy. Italian Fascists instead promoted “Mediterraneanism,” celebrating the cultural achievements of ancient Rome and viewing Jews who had lived in Italy for centuries as assimilated Italians.

However, as Fascist Italy grew closer to Nazi Germany during the late 1930s, Mussolini’s position shifted. The Manifesto of Race, published in July 1938, marked Italy’s adoption of antisemitic racial policies. This document declared that Italians belonged to the Aryan race and that Jews did not belong to the Italian nation. Many historians argue this was a pragmatic concession to strengthen the alliance with Hitler rather than a genuine ideological transformation. Significantly, not all Italian Fascists supported this turn-figures like Italo Balbo strongly opposed the racial laws, viewing antisemitism as having nothing to do with fascism.

The contrast with Nazi Germany

In Nazi Germany, racialism was not an afterthought or diplomatic gesture-it was the ideological foundation. Nazi Germany was centrally structured around racial ideology, making it fundamentally a “racial state” in ways that Italian Fascism never fully became. Hitler’s worldview, articulated in Mein Kampf, placed racial struggle at the center of history and politics.

The theoretical basis of Nazi racialism

Nazi racial ideology rested on the false premise that humanity could be divided into distinct biological races with inherent, unchangeable characteristics. According to the Nazis, each race had specific traits passed from generation to generation. These supposed traits determined a race’s appearance, intelligence, creativity, and strength. This pseudo-scientific framework drew upon nineteenth-century racial theories, Social Darwinism, and earlier antisemitic writings.

The Aryan myth and the master race

Central to Nazi ideology was the concept of the “Aryan” race. The Nazis adapted and radicalized the unfounded belief in an Aryan race and its supposed superiority to support their claim that Germans belonged to a “master race” (Herrenvolk). The ideal Aryan was portrayed as tall, blonde, blue-eyed, and athletic-though notably, Hitler himself did not fit this description.

At its core, Nazi ideology was racist and biological, positing that the so-called Aryan race-primarily North Europeans-was the superior race destined to rule over others. This supposed superiority granted Aryans both the right and obligation to dominate other peoples. The Nazis believed that racial purity was essential for German strength and that any mixing with “inferior” races would lead to national decline.

Jews as the “anti-race”

The Nazis reserved their most extreme hatred for Jewish people. Unlike other groups they considered inferior, Jews were defined by race rather than religion. The Nazis claimed that Jews belonged to a separate, inferior race and posed an existential threat to Aryan civilization. This false and prejudiced belief characterized Jews as a “parasitic race” supposedly exploiting and destroying other races. This virulent antisemitism justified persecution, forced emigration, and ultimately, genocide.

Gandhi’s condemnation and response

As fascism spread across Europe and the persecution of Jews intensified, Mahatma Gandhi felt compelled to respond. Gandhi wrote two letters to Adolf Hitler-the first dated July 23, 1939, weeks before Germany’s invasion of Poland triggered World War II, and the second in December 1940. Neither letter reached the Nazi dictator, as British colonial authorities intercepted them.

Gandhi’s approach to Hitler reflected his fundamental commitment to nonviolence. He addressed Hitler as “Dear friend”-a greeting that has puzzled and sometimes disturbed later readers. Gandhi’s sympathetic approach to the Führer modeled his deep practice of nonviolent values, attempting to reach the humanity he believed existed in every person, regardless of their actions.

The call to prevent war

In his first letter, Gandhi made a direct appeal to prevent the coming catastrophe. He wrote that Hitler was “the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state.” Gandhi asked whether any objective, however worthy it might appear, could justify paying such a terrible price. He presented himself as someone who had “deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success”-a reference to his successful nonviolent campaigns in India.

Soul-force against violence

Gandhi also addressed the persecution of Jews directly. In a November 1938 article in his newspaper Harijan, published shortly after the Kristallnacht pogrom, Gandhi expressed sympathy for Jewish suffering while advocating his philosophy of satyagraha (truth-force or soul-force). He suggested that German Jews could practice nonviolent resistance against Nazi persecution, believing that such moral courage might ultimately transform their oppressors.

Gandhi’s faith in nonviolence extended even to this extreme situation. He believed that self-suffering without retaliation could awaken the conscience of aggressors and witnesses alike. This was not passive acceptance but active moral resistance-a willingness to accept suffering rather than inflict it, thereby demonstrating the moral bankruptcy of the oppressor’s position.

The practical dilemma: Jewish responses to Gandhi

Gandhi’s advice provoked strong reactions from Jewish intellectuals, revealing a painful tension between idealistic nonviolence and immediate survival. Martin Buber, the renowned Jewish philosopher who had recently fled Nazi Germany for Palestine, wrote a detailed response to Gandhi in February 1939.

Buber’s critique

Buber’s letter was respectful but firm in its disagreement. Buber pointed out that during his five years under Nazi rule, he had observed many instances of genuine nonviolent resistance among Jews, showing remarkable spiritual strength. However, he emphasized that such actions “exerted apparently not the slightest influence on their opponents.”

Buber argued that satyagraha depends upon testimony-the ability for the suffering of the victim to be witnessed and to touch the conscience of the oppressor. In the face of total loss of rights, mass murder, and forced oblivion, no such testimony was possible. He famously described the Nazi regime as a “diabolic universal steamroller” that could not be withstood through nonviolent means alone.

The limits of nonviolence

The question arose whether Gandhi could truly understand Hitler’s extreme evil. Gandhi compared the situation of German Jews to that of Indians in South Africa during his earlier struggles, but Jewish intellectuals argued this comparison was fundamentally flawed. No one in South Africa had launched a campaign of systematic mass murder against Indians. The conditions for nonviolent resistance-some remaining civil space, media attention, a conscience to appeal to-simply did not exist under Nazi totalitarianism.

Judah Magnes, another supporter of dialogue and binational coexistence, similarly challenged Gandhi’s position. Both Buber and Magnes felt that Gandhi demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of not only Jewish history but also the desperate situation Jews faced under Nazi rule. Gandhi’s assumption that Hindu religious consolation and nonviolent methods provided adequate answers to Nazi persecution seemed tragically inadequate.

The tragic gap

The debate between Gandhi and his Jewish critics exposes a fundamental tension in peace philosophy. Gandhi principally cleaved to nonviolence and did not advise taking up weapons against Nazism, while Buber and others argued that proportionate force could be justified against extreme aggression. This was not merely an academic disagreement-it concerned millions of lives and the very possibility of survival.

Gandhi never fully addressed the Holocaust after its full scope became known. Some scholars suggest he remained silent precisely because he stood by his principles despite everything, while others see this silence as a tacit acknowledgment that his advice had been inadequate for such extreme circumstances. The efficacy of action was not Gandhi’s primary consideration-the moral rightness of means mattered more to him than guaranteed results.

Lessons from a painful debate

The confrontation between fascist racialism and Gandhian nonviolence illuminates enduring questions about resistance to oppression. Italian and German fascism demonstrated that racial ideology could be either peripheral or central to authoritarian movements, with vastly different consequences. The Nazi obsession with biological race led directly to the Holocaust, while Italian Fascism’s racial turn remained more superficial and contested.

Gandhi’s interventions, though ultimately unsuccessful, represented a sincere attempt to extend nonviolent principles to the most extreme circumstances imaginable. Buber proposed tempering absolute nonviolence with the principle of justice-suggesting that self-defense might sometimes be morally required. This dialogue between Gandhi and Buber continues to inform discussions about when nonviolent resistance can succeed and when it faces insurmountable obstacles.

The tragedy of European Jews under Nazism reveals the horrific consequences when racial ideology combines with state power and the absence of any meaningful protection for targeted populations. It also challenges us to consider the conditions under which moral witness and nonviolent action can transform society-and the painful reality that such conditions do not always exist.

What do you think? Can nonviolent resistance ever be effective against regimes committed to total annihilation, or does such extreme evil require different responses? How should we balance moral idealism with practical considerations when lives are at stake?

References

PDF 📄

Fascism and Racialism: From Mussolini’s Italy to Hitler’s Germany

Share on Mastodon

Fascism and Racialism: From Mussolini’s Italy to Hitler’s Germany

Table of Contents

Racialism in Italian versus German fascism 🔗

The contrast with Nazi Germany 🔗

The theoretical basis of Nazi racialism 🔗

The Aryan myth and the master race 🔗

Jews as the “anti-race” 🔗

Gandhi’s condemnation and response 🔗

The call to prevent war 🔗

Soul-force against violence 🔗

The practical dilemma: Jewish responses to Gandhi 🔗

Buber’s critique 🔗

The limits of nonviolence 🔗

The tragic gap 🔗

Lessons from a painful debate 🔗