Which historical fascist movements rejected racial antisemitism, and why did their trajectories diverge?
Executive summary
Several interwar fascist movements—notably early French fascist parties, the British Union of Fascists in its early years, and Mussolini’s Italy before 1938—either rejected or downplayed racial antisemitism and even accepted Jewish members; other fascist currents embraced explicit racial antisemitism from the start or shifted toward it later, producing divergent outcomes shaped by international alignment, colonial experience, domestic politics, and leadership choices [1] [2] [3].
1. Early French and British currents that downplayed antisemitism
In France, the largest fascist formations of the early interwar period—the Faisceau, the Young Patriots, the Cross of Fire, and the French Popular Party—initially rejected antisemitism and admitted right‑wing Jews until the mid‑1930s, when the Popular Front’s rise and other pressures changed the political terrain [1]. In Britain, Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists did not foreground antisemitism at its founding and even counted some Jewish supporters in its early phase, but the BUF adopted explicit antisemitic tactics and rhetoric by 1936 as its politics radicalized [2] [1]. These examples show that rejection of racial antisemitism was possible within fascist frameworks when local political cultures, electoral tactics, or leadership calculations made antisemitism unnecessary or counterproductive [1] [2].
2. Mussolini’s Italy: an official rejection turned late embrace
Italian Fascism officially rejected antisemitism for much of its early life; Mussolini himself dismissed racial doctrines as a “German vice” and Italy had relatively integrated Jewish communities into public life prior to the late 1930s [3] [4]. That changed decisively in 1938 when the “Manifesto of Race” and the Racial Laws introduced formal antisemitic policy, a shift historians attribute both to the regime’s growing alignment with Nazi Germany and to new ideological currents tied to colonial policy and notions of “defense of the race” developed after the Abyssinia campaign [3] [5] [4]. Internal elite resistance—figures like Italo Balbo and Dino Grandi reportedly opposed the laws—underscores that the turn to racial antisemitism was a political decision, not a necessary or uniform attribute of fascism [4] [5].
3. Movements that were antisemitic from the outset and why
Other fascist or proto‑fascist movements made antisemitism central from the beginning: in Croatia the Ustaša embraced ethnic hierarchy and grew increasingly antisemitic in the late 1930s, later collaborating with Nazi occupation to persecute Jews and Serbs; Polish groups such as the Falanga engaged in street attacks on Jews and institutional discrimination like “ghetto benches” at universities [1]. Those movements drew on local histories of ethnic conflict, militarized nationalism, and existing antisemitic currents, which meant antisemitism served their mobilizing narratives from the start rather than being an imported policy [1].
4. Why trajectories diverged: international alignment, colonialism, and political calculation
Divergence among fascist movements turns less on “fascism” as a single doctrine and more on contingent factors: the magnetic pull of Nazi Germany and the international prestige of racial science pushed many groups toward harsher racial programs as German power grew [3] [6]. Italy’s late turn was shaped by colonial violence in Ethiopia and by the regime’s desire to synchronize foreign policy and ideology with Hitler [5] [3]. Conversely, in Britain and early French fascisms, domestic political costs, existing social integration of Jews, and leaders’ ideological priorities made antisemitism tactically unnecessary until external pressures or radicalization shifted calculations [1] [2].
5. Internal variation, elite interests, and limits of generalization
Historians emphasize that fascist movements were heterogeneous; some elites opposed antisemitic laws while rank‑and‑file elements or allied groups pushed for racism, meaning antisemitism’s presence or absence often reflected elite bargaining and electoral strategy rather than doctrinal inevitability [4] [3]. Scholarship on Italy and Britain documents both Jewish collaboration with and resistance to fascist movements, indicating complex local interactions rather than a simple binary [7] [4]. Available sources do not permit definitive claims about private motives beyond documented statements and policy shifts; explanations rest on the interplay of international alignment, colonial policy, and domestic political opportunity as recorded by contemporaries and historians [5] [3].