With the end of WWI multiple problems surfaced. Fascism took
a form under the name of Mussolini, followed by Hitler as well. Communism ruled
in the east, and the fear of it in the west, was strong. The League
of Nations, the few lasting remains of the Treaty of Versailles,
seemed to be shattering while wars continued on. Thus it came down to the
individual powers to try to keep the few remaining strands of peace together.
With the rise of new powers this became more and more difficult especially with
the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Their way of action was usually far more
drastic then England
or France would
have liked. To that their foreign policies were mostly focused on their own
gains and not that of international peace. Until 1939, the foreign policies of
Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means
of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic
foreign policies.
Why both Mussolini and Hitler acted at certain times in
certain ways has been discussed by multiple historians. Some think that both
had fixed agendas and followed them all the way through. Other saw them as
opportunists and took every chance they had. However the nationalistic goals
were there and can be clearly traced through their actions.
For Mussolini and Hitler there was nothing more important
than their countries. Thus both of their foreign policies were motivated by the
main leading cause of nationalism. Mussolini having risen to power already in
the 1920s had nationalistic aims to make Italy
greater. He wanted to return Italy
to its former Roman Empire glory. This meant increasing
Italian landholdings, resources, and economic as well as militaristic strength.
It also meant connections to greater powers. These actions can be seen by his
expansions into Abyssinia and Albania
as well as his method of autarky (economic self-sufficiency). Even his links
with U.S. one of
the rising powers of the time made it clear that Mussolini was aiming for Italy
to become a world power once again.
Hitler also had similar nationalistic aims, focusing on
German glory. Although in his original plans he wished to claim the old
colonies lost after WWI, he decided for a more realistic goal of expansion to
the east. The unity of the German people, revision of the Treaty of Versailles,
economic strength (also the idea of autarky), military strength, and alliances
with great powers (Britain
was a possibility here) included some of his aims.
All these aims can be reflected back upon each of these
members in their actions of foreign policy, using the means of militarism,
imperialism, and alliances.
Of course there is the counterargument that neither Hitler
nor Mussolini had any plans. In truth they were just opportunists. Not even
their nationalistic parties had an influence on their actions. Rather they were
focused on gaining glory for themselves.
From a Revisionists viewpoint, the aims of fascism can be
seen as forever changing. As Mommsen in his book “National Socialism:
Continuity and Change” puts it: “It is questionable… whether National Socialist
foreign policy can be considered as an unchanging pursuit of established
priorities.” He then goes on to say that “Hitler’s foreign policy aims…knew no
bounds.” A counterfactualist would question that what if Mussolini had not
risen to power at all and therefore created fascism, would Hitler even have
existed? What if there never would have been either leader, would their still
have been such a nationalistic focused foreign policy of each respective
country?
The first method used by both Mussolini and Hitler to
accomplish their nationalistic foreign policies was militarism.
Mussolini wanted a glorified Italy,
and for this he needed to expand. However to expand he needed an army, and a
strong one. This is why he started to build his army. Italy
had been looked down upon during the Washington Naval Conference, limiting its naval
power. Why should Mussolini abide to this? In order to gain more resources, to return
Italy to its
former glory, Mussolini needed an army, thus he started to rearm.
Hitler had similar feelings. In the Treaty of Versailles
Germany had
been given a limited amount of army, no air force, and no navy. To that the Rhineland
area had to stay a demilitarized zone. This was enough to cause problems for
any nationalistic aims for a greater Germany.
If the own land was not even fully controlled by a German army, how could one ever
hope to expand to the east?
Another important aspect which shows that the nationalistic
aims of the foreign policies were converted by militarism was the Spanish Civil
War. With the aid of Mussolini and Hitler, Franco was able to rise in Spain.
Of course both Italy
and Germany
would be happy about an ally in the west however this was not their major goal.
For Hitler, what better place was there than the Spanish Civil War to test his
military machine, especially new inventions such as rockets? For any foreign policies
aims of expanding Germany,
Hitler needed to have a well-trained army, and he needed to be sure it could
work. Mussolini had other aims in the Spanish Civil War. While he too may have
been testing his army, he most importantly wanted to have glory in war for Italy.
To show the might of Italy
to the rest of the world. Thus both countries used militarism to prepare their
countries for further goals of their nationalistic foreign policies.
A counterargument to the whole idea of militarism playing a
role in the foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler is that since all of their
aims were more based on expansion, this could be achieved through clever
political games. Therefore the main focus was actually was gaining political
strength not military strength.
The actions of both Mussolini and Hitler can be analyzed
from different viewpoints of historians. For example from a militaristic
historian viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini were only able to pursuit political
as well as physical land goals (nationalistic goals) with military power. A cliometric historian in contrast would credit
the fast growing economies of both countries to the aggressive foreign polices
of Mussolini and Hitler. Since only through this economic upswing could they guarantee
their polices a success and keep a happy home front.
With the full aid of militarism, Mussolini and Hitler,
following their nationalistic foreign policy aims of expansion and greatness of
their countries, decided to follow a path of Imperialism. This was however not possible
without the militaristic strengths and actions mentioned before.
One of the most similar actions both Mussolini and Hitler
take are that of protectorates. Albania
for Italy
became a protectorate in 1926. For Germany,
it was Czechoslovakia
(for a short time). Both had the wish to expand and both used whatever means
necessary. A small difference can be found though: Italy
was focused on colonies while Germany
wished more for expansion within Europe.
Interesting to note is that the foreign policy aims of both
are first done through political means and then by military force. Hitler first
receives the Sudetenland through the Munich Conference,
a clear political tactic. However then he continues to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia,
to the great horror of its citizens.
Italy
follows the same steps. Forming Albania
as a protectorate in 1926, Mussolini then invades it directly in April of 1939.
Other imperialist actions taken by Mussolini for his
nationalistic foreign policy aims is the invasion of Ethiopia.
Having lost before to this country, Italy
did not wish to keep this humiliation unaddressed. To that, the imperialistic
wish to expand further and gain more resources, had a clear factor as well.
Hitler in contrast, has no wish to expand outside of Europe
and therefore could not solely rely on military actions. Both however use
military force to put pressure on the western powers, who wish to avoid war to
get what they want in imperialistically. Mussolini invades Abyssinian and then
receives a piece from the League of Nations. Hitler too,
used military force especially in the aspect of Czechoslovakia
to gain the upper hand on the Munich Conference table (meeting of Italy,
England, France,
and Germany)
and gained Sudetenland. Therefore all in all, it was
through the use of militarism, that imperialism could be used to continue on
the nationalistic foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler.
In the case of Hitler, it can be argued that what he pursued
was in fact not imperialism but simply war. Imperialism is usually only argued
for countries which are expanding outside of their countries. This would then
work in the idea of Mussolini since he wanted colonies outside of the European
continent.
From a political viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini pursued
political strength and in order to have more influence over the negotiating
table, they wanted to have more land. Thus the strength of imperialism and
militarism was needed. From a Marxism stand point, there was no reason at all for
these focuses on imperialism and nationalism since all borders would soon
dissolve for one united people, the working people. Thus the struggle of
Mussolini and Hitler for more land, more power, was simply pointless.
The foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler, mostly
motivated by Nationalism, then continued on to use alliances in exchange for
areas were imperialism and militarism failed.
Hitler wanted ‘Lebensraum’ (living space) for his German
people. To that, his racial theories of the Aryan race caused great dislike for
Eastern countries. While it can be argued, Hitler’s main goal towards the east
was Russia.
However a two front war had proven catastrophic for Germany
in WWI. To that, the need for an ally was stronger to the years leading up to
WWII then the main goal. For Hitler, alliances were only for the moment,
“scraps of paper” as he would famously call the agreement between England
and Germany at Munich.
One most important use of alliances, were militarism and
imperialism served impossible at the time was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler
wanted to gain Poland,
and Stalin wanted to keep Germany
from Russia’s
throat. Both were happy, for the most part. Although Hitler’s nationalistic
foreign policy aims focused on expansion to the east, there was no way he could
risk a war with Russia
yet. Hitler, while he may have been aiming for war, still hoped to gain as much
land as he could by militarism and then political negotiations before total war
was needed.
Mussolini also tried to use the work of alliances to in a
way complete his foreign policies. A strong Italy
alone could not stand long therefore he needed something to support him. To
that, the more connections one had the more powerful one seemed. Allies could
meet victory or defeat. However just like Hitler, Mussolini varied in his
alliances. At first, with the Stresa Conference, it seemed as if Italy
would side with Britain
and France. A
strong Stresa front against Germany.
However this holding together with Britain,
just like Germany
with the Munich Conference, would not hold long. Britain
wanted peace, Germany
and Italy
wanted expansion, and if war was needed they were open to it. To that it was Britain
which often criticized Mussolini’s actions, just like the invasion of Abyssinia.
In contrast Germany
supported Italy.
It was therefore only natural that the two countries would in the end join hand
in hand in the Pact of Steel. This alliance worked since Mussolini had no wish
to in anyway expand northwards, therefore this did not come into any conflict
with his nationalistic foreign policy aims. The old former glory was focused on
gaining colonies. Germany,
too had no wish for Italian land. It was focused on the unity of the German
race as well as expansion to the east. Thus with the use of alliances, both countries
could keep things politically under control until possible militaristic actions
could be taken to fulfill the nationalistic foreign policy goals.
One could counter argue that Mussolini never considered
alliances as a way to reach his goals. He saw it more as a needed method for
being present in the world. If he could cut himself off and rule separately
like the Roman emperor had done there would be no problem.
Hitler in contrast, it could be argued, saw alliances as the
first mean to create a path for militarism, which then leads to imperialism.
This can be seen by the actions he took to gain control of the Sudetenland.
At first he seemed to ally himself with Britain, even signing the famous ‘scarp
of paper’ at the Munich conference, declaring he had peaceful intentions, when
he suddenly turned around, claimed the Sudetenland (politically legally) and
invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia as well.
Using prosopography, history taught through the eyes of a
common man, then the path Hitler was taking to lead Germany
was very confusing. As a common man he wished to follow his leader, and if his
leader saw it fit to make allies with Russia or Britain it was fine as long as
the up swinging economy and life style stayed. From a militaristic standpoint,
Mussolini used alliances for nothing more then to gain more power for himself
militarily speaking. This meant making alliances with countries whose land Italy
wanted was a hindrance to the nationalistic foreign policy goals.
Analyzing the foreign polices of Hitler and Mussolini and aligning
them with each other is something we can do now. At the time, each was acting
for their individual goals, and for them the similarities may not have been as
apparent. There is also the problem that we ourselves were not there at the
time. We cannot in any way know whether they were both really opportunists or
not. We do not have the feeling of anxiety at the time. To that, my analyses
may be off. I, limited to a few textbooks and my view (which could be biased
and only reflect one standpoint) can limit this analyses. Even questioning
their similarities and difference of Mussolini’s foreign policy and Hitler’s
can already cause complication. All we have to go on are the few things left
behind.
Looking at the events mentioned above, it is possible to see
that until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly
motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and
alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies. Nationalistic aims
included bringing glory for their countries, economic strength, and expansion.
It is of course hard to say who influenced who. Both living at the same time
they may have subconsciously influenced each other. However what each leader
wanted was clear, and how they went about it is clear as well. While it may be
true to state that had it not been for the policy of Appeasement and the
Failure of the League neither Hitler nor Mussolini had have gotten so far,
there is no way we can ever be sure. We can only look at what facts we have and
try to formulate our own opinions.
