Source A

Italian historian and liberal politician Benedetto Croce, who became a member of the Italian government in 1944 after the overthrow of Mussolini, gives his view of Fascism (1944).

Fascism was an interruption in Italy’s achievement of ever greater ‘freedom’, a short-term moral infection. Since the turn of the century, the liberal ‘sense of freedom’ was debased by materialism, nationalism and a growing admiration for ‘heroic’ figures. The masses and the liberal politicians were easily manipulated by a majority of Fascist hooligans.

Source B

Italian historian Renzo de Felice gives his view of fascism (1977).

The Fascist movement was mainly one of an emerging middle class eager to challenge the traditional, liberal political class for power. The spirit of this new middle class was vital, optimistic and creative; it was, in fact, a revolutionary phenomenon. However, the only way Mussolini was able to get to power was with help from the conservatives, and he was unfortunately always dependent on them afterwards. He was therefore never able to achieve the full aims of Fascism – to revolutionise Italy by transforming it into a totalitarian, corporative society.

Source: Both sources are summarized briefly in Martin Blinkhorn, Mussolini and Fascist Italy (Methuen, 1984).

Source A

The view of German historian Martin Broszat, writing in 1981.

What presented itself as the new government of National Socialist Germany in 1933/4 was, in effect, a form of power sharing between the new National Socialist mass movement and the old conservative forces in state and society. . . . Hitler practised no direct and systematic leadership but from time to time jolted the government or the party into action, supported one or other initiative of Party functionaries or departmental heads and thwarted others, ignored them, or left them to carry on without a decision . . . in practice this was not conducive to the survival of the regime.

Source: Martin Broszat, The Hitler State (Longman, 1983).

Source B

The view of British historian Alan Bullock, writing in 1991.

When he [Hitler] wanted something done, he created special agencies outside the framework of the Reich government: Goering’s organisation of the Four-Year Plan, for example, which cut across the jurisdiction of at least four ministries. . . .

Hitler’s personal withdrawal from the day-to-day business of government left the more powerful of the Nazi leaders free not only to build up rival empires but to feud with each other and with the established ministries. This state of affairs extended to the policy making and legislative functions of the government as well as the administration. Henceforward decrees and laws alike were issued on the authority of the Chancellor. . . . Hitler’s authority was unquestioned and, whenever he chose to intervene, was decisive.

Source: Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (HarperCollins, 1991).