Fascism: A Warning is a book published in 2018 which details the history and anatomy of Fascism and was written by Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state for the US. An accessible, powerful, and informative read, Fascism clearly illustrates the dangers of a creed which relies on extremism, bigotry, and hatred for its survival.
Albright begins the book by writing that her family fled to America from Czechoslovakia when the Nazis invaded, and her father warned that Americans were so accustomed to liberty that they were taking it for granted. Albright speaks from her experience that Donald Trump becoming president was like “ripping off the bandage and picking at the scab” that was left behind by Fascism (5). To be specific, she writes that Trump’s beliefs are extremely undemocratic, for he “systematically degraded political discourse in the United States, shown an astonishing disregard for facts, libeled his predecessors, threatened to ‘lock up’ political rivals, referred to mainstream journalists as ‘the enemy of the American people,’ spread falsehoods about the integrity of the U.S. electoral process, touted mindlessly nationalistic economic and trade policies, vilified immigrants and the countries from which they come, and nurtured a paranoid bigotry toward the followers of one of the world’s foremost religions” (5). She then writes that Trump is setting a very bad example for the rest of the world, for his aristocratic and undemocratic behavior gives other leaders more room to be worse. Albright then writes that Donald Trump’s statements of “America first” is an obvious given, for leaders of the world are supposed to value their countries (countries, though, don’t actually exist - Homo Sapiens made them up to give themselves purpose and a category that they belong to). Furthermore, the way Trump sees the world is somewhat unrealistic, for he views countries as trying to exploit others as much as possible - while exploitation does occur, this is no longer the general rule of thumb. Albright writes that Fascism requires most of the people in a society to function, and it does so by capitalizing on fear, humiliation, and pain. Fascist leaders are generally great orators, for they want their audience to feel like they are understood. As Albright puts it, “these secular evangelists exploit the near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have an aptitude for spectacle-for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music, incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and armlifting salutes … To build fervor, Fascists tend to be aggressive, militaristic, and-when circumstances allow-expansionist. To secure the future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striving to produce ‘new men’ and ‘new women’ who will obey without question or pause” (10).
Fascists frequently control the flow of information upon ascending to power. This is seen very well in the book burnings of Nazi Germany (among the books which were burned were copies of All Quiet on the Western Front, which described the horror and bloodshed of WW1). Albright notes that today the internet allows potentially dangerous regimes to spread misinformation, which makes them a major threat. She also provides a definition for a Fascist: “To my mind, a Fascist is someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary-including violence-to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist” (11). Albright then writes that while tyrants and autocrats generally don’t trust their populace, Fascists generally expect popular support. A large reason why Fascism spread, historically speaking, was that traditional behavior such as autocracy and religion were largely challenged, causing people to lose their sense of identity. Furthermore, as many political ideas arose, some people became terrified of Communism, thereby lending their support to Fascism when it arose. Albright begins her discussion of the history of Fascism with Benito Mussolini, its founder. As a child, he noticed income inequality due to him not being wealthy enough to afford higher education. He was also mischievous, being expelled once for using a knife to stab a fellow pupil in the butt. From his parents, he learned intellectualism and the power of action. That is, his father excited in him a desire to change the world through action, while his mother let him know of the importance of deliberation and planning. Mussolini became a teacher, but his lack of discipline caused him to be fired. He went to Switzerland at the age of nineteen where he “worked as a laborer, slept on a packing crate, and was jailed … for vagrancy. Out of prison, he got a job as a bricklayer and soon became active in the local union” (16). He wrote newspapers for a Socialist newspaper (including an entertaining series which describes the lust of a clergyman), but when WW1 broke out, he became a nationalistic patriot. He fought in the war and was severely wounded when a “howitzer exploded during a training exercise, the shrapnel ripping dozens of holes in his guts” (18). While he was recuperating, he learned the results of the Battle of Caporetto, the most humiliating defeat of Italy in WW1; ten thousand had died, thirty thousand were injured, and more than a quarter-million had surrendered. At the end of WW1, Italians were disappointed - they lost a large number of people, and they viewed their territorial gains as negligible. When veterans returned home, they found political extremism, seen in the clash between Socialists and conservatives. Furthermore, said veterans also had trouble finding jobs, for Italy’s economy was doing poorly. As Albright put it, “Italy was on the verge of falling apart. Parliament was regarded even by its members as a corrupt bazaar where favors were divvied out to those with political and Social connections. As for Victor Emmanuel, he was tiny, timid, and indecisive … Mainstream political leaders quarreled incessantly among themselves but made almost no effort to communicate with the public at large. The times were ripe for a real leader, a duce, who could bring Italy together and make it once again the center of the world” (19).
The word “Fascism” was derived from “fasces,” a Roman symbol which consisted of some elm rods and an ax. Mussolini, a great orator, drew on fears of Bolshevism and inspired hopes of a better Italy to rise to power. He called for mass cooperation and used the Blackshirts (veterans who became his private militia) to violently put down congregations of Socialists and Communists. He eventually went on his March to Rome and was named Prime Minister of Italy by Emperor Victor Emmanuel, despite the Blackshirts being numerically unlikely to beat the official Italian army. Upon ascending to power, he knew that his power wasn’t firmly entrenched, so he tried to appeal to the citizens by starting reforms. For instance, he introduced roll calls for government officials to guarantee competence, allocated money for infrastructure, limited the workday to eight hours, confirmed insurance for the elderly and the disabled, bettered health clinics for expecting mothers, started seventeen hundred summer camps, and suspended the jury system. This won him much popular support, and “By the end of 1926, Il Duce had abolished all competing political parties, eliminated freedom of the press, neutered the labor movement, and secured the right to name municipal officials himself” (24). As was expected, he turned schools into indoctrination centers, appeased the king, and convinced the Catholic Church to allow his excesses by giving priests money and by closing brothels. Mussolini made economic growth one of his main goals, but he failed, for he didn't understand the subject very well: “He thought a great country required a robust currency and so pegged the lira to the dollar, causing an abrupt increase in public debt, a problem made worse by his failure to understand how interest rates worked … He emphasized wheat production when prices were low while neglecting other crops that would have yielded more revenue” (27). Mussolini’s errors occurred in large part because he viewed himself as being infallible and refused to listen to his advisors.
Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau, near the frontier of Austria and Bavaria. He was described by a teacher as arrogant and lazy. He wanted to become an artist, but he was repeatedly denied from Vienna art school. While he appeared to be in bad shape, he viewed himself as destined for greatness, and when WW1 began, he eagerly enlisted. He served bravely for four years and was blinded by a gas attack in 1918. When he recovered, he learned that Germany had been soundly defeated, and, like many others, he refused to accept defeat, seeing that the number of German men between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two has dropped by thirty-five percent due to the fighting. He joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919 and quickly rose through its ranks due to his magnetic speaking. The party, in an attempt to sound leftist, changed its name to the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” or “Nazis.” He met Ernst Rohm, a veteran who would encourage others to join the party. He formed the Sturmabteilung, which focused on physical intimidation and theft. Hitler as a speaker was powerful, being able to work himself into a frenzy of hate towards the supposed enemies of Germany. In November 1923, Hitler and other Nazis tried to overthrow the government in the Beer-Hall Putsch and failed miserably. Originally sentenced to jail for five years for treason, he served only thirteen months and wrote Mein Kampf: Four and a Half Years Against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice, in which he included his racist and genocidal views. After being released from prison, he wasn’t very successful because of the improving economic situation. However, when the Great Depression occurred and sank Germany into a cesspool, the Nazi Party became the second-largest due to the desperation of the people for a quick and easy solution. After the Nazis won even more seats and power, Paul von Hindenburg, the president of Germany and a former general and war hero, gave Hitler executive power.
After Hindenberg’s death, Hitler passed the Enabling Law, which effectively turned himself into a complete dictator. He immediately outlawed local assemblies and unions and began policies of anti-Semitism. He also started the Gestapo, the infamous secret police of Nazi Germany, to frighten any potential rivals. Controlling information, he made Joseph Goebbels, the head of the propaganda department, the leader of communication. After Hitler’s rise to power, he disposed of Ernst Rohm, for Rohm no longer agreed with Hitler: “Ernst Rohm, rebelled, arguing that there were many more tempting targets to attack, including corporations, landed estates, and anyone with property the SA could plunder” (39). Hitler had Rohm executed in the purge known as Operation Hummingbird, or the “Night of the Long Knives.” Albright writes that Hitler’s propaganda was very effective due to the radio: information can only be broadcasted, and those who know better can’t verbally respond. Hitler, as stated before, appealed to his audience’s love of simplicity, seen in his own explanation that “‘There are … only two possibilities,’” “‘either the victory of the Aryan side or its annihilation and the victory of the Jews’” (40). Albright writes that Hitler was an obscene and prolific liar since he “convinced millions of men and women that he cared for them deeply when, in fact, he would have willingly sacrificed them all. His murderous ambition, avowed racism, and utter immorality were given the thinnest mask, and yet millions of Germans were drawn to Hitler precisely because he seemed authentic” (41). Hitler became even more popular when he dealt with the Great Depression effectively by not trying to change the economy altogether: in two years, the number of those who were unemployed was cut in half. Three million jobs were created, many of them having to do with the military. Hitler was also an admirer of Mussolini, but the two of them didn't get along well: Mussolini viewed Hitler’s racial prejudices as being ridiculous. As for Mussolini, in March 1938 he bombed Barcelona, killing many, which caused international peoples to turn against him. Interestingly enough, Italy’s military was unprepared for war, seeing that Mussolini didn't invest in armaments. In 1939, the Nazis invaded Poland and quickly succeeded. Italy, on the other hand, tried to invade Greece but were soundly defeated, causing Hitler to have to intervene on their behalf, which caused him to delay the invasion of the Soviet Union.
Francisco Franco was the Fascist leader of Spain. A military man, “He was short, pudgy, and balding, had a droopy countenance, was prone to crying, and-when issuing orders-tended to squeak. Colleagues referred to him behind his back as ‘Miss Canary Islands’” (50). Franco, unlike Mussolini, was relatively realistic when it came to war (the Spanish Civil War in his case), predicting accurately that it would be a long, terrible struggle. He headed the side of the nationalists against a coalition of rival forces known as the Republicans. The Republican side included the Communists, Anarchists, and Socialists. Franco largely refused to give military aid to Hitler and Mussolini because he knew not to overextend his resources, and the Spanish Civil War lasted for four years and killed more than 500,000 people. Both the nationalists and the opposing side slaughtered large amounts of people. Furthermore, the Catholic Church supported the Francoists and their mass executions of potential dissidents. On the other hand, the Republican forces “murdered an estimated ten thousand bishops, priests, nuns, and monks. These atrocities helped color foreign reporting and prompted most major newspapers in the United States to support Franco. When Eleanor Roosevelt urged her husband to send arms to the Spanish Republican government, he told her that if he were to do so, no Catholic would ever vote for him again” (51). I find the prior statement to be somewhat interesting - as said before, the Catholic Church supported the mass executions of potential enemies (as well as utterly stripping women in Spain of their reproductive and social rights), yet their atrocities were ignored while the actions done against them were widely publicized (I highly recommend the film Pan’s Labyrinth, which details the Spanish Civil War and the roles people played in it). Although the Republicans had many groups, they were largely beaten due to their lack of cooperation. George Orwell himself fought in the Spanish Civil War against Fascism and “ended up getting shot by a Communist sniper,” which almost killed him (51). Albright writes that as a person, Franco “was Spain’s youngest general and possibly its most cruel. He personally ordered the executions of thousands of alleged enemy combatants and sympathizers, without the least sign of remorse. He was deliberate, but ambitious. Even before the war had been won, he was designated the future chief of state, with full dictatorial powers” (52). The Spanish Civil War ended on April 1, 1939 with the victory of the Fascists, and Franco died decades later in his bed at the age of eighty-two.
Albright then writes of Fascism in other countries. She describes that Sir Oswald Mosley began the British Union of Fascists (BUF) in Britain. In America, William Pelley started the Silver Legion of America in January 1933. Fritz Kuhn, a chemical engineer with German ancestry, started the German American Bund (GAB) to support Hitler, going so far as to say that “‘Just as Christ wanted little children to come to him, Hitler wants German children to revere him’” (62). Fortunately, most of the people weren’t receptive to extreme anti-semitism and to Fascism, and the parties never became powerful. Albright writes that the best antidote for Fascism is tolerance, kindness, and sympathy - that is, trying to look at the situation from another perspective. Albright writes that her maternal grandmother was murdered by the Nazis, as well as other family members. In 1940, Nazi Germany took over vast amounts of land. Between April and June alone, it had conquered 400,000 square miles of land. While the Nazis began strong, they would eventually be defeated. The end of Nazi rule began when Winston Churchill told Hitler that Britain would not be surrendering, and Hitler, in a fury, ordered the Luftwaffe, the German air force, to cripple Britain. While Britain was severely bombed, the Luftwaffe failed at its ultimate objective. Hitler, not knowing his limits, invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. While the Soviet Union was decimated by the Nazis during WWII, with a loss of more than twenty million people, it still resisted and ultimately succeeded due to the sheer amount of people it possessed. In one instance, “By early December, the frostbitten Germans had reached the forests west of Moscow, but the Soviets soon launched a counteroffensive that drove them back and put the capital out of reach. In 1942, Hitler tried again and once more attempted too much. On the second day of February 1943, in Stalingrad, the German Sixth Army surrendered some ninety thousand men. The fighting would drag on for months, but the Fuhrer’s eastern expedition was doomed” (72).
Albright writes that although Mussolini and Hitler both desperately tried to create a Fascist state, they were unable to do so perfectly, as people still thought for themselves to some degree, and there was always some resistance. For instance, the Gestapo was meant to root out traitors, enemies, and “undesirables,” but many of those in the ranks were opportunists who frequently used their power to get rid of people who they didn't like (ex. people whom they owed money to and personal rivals). Nazi ideology tried to get women to stay at home and to be mothers, but from 1933 to 1939, the number of women who were working rose from four to five million. In Italy, Communists and Socialists survived by keeping a low profile. On July 20, 1944, Count von Stauffenberg tried to murder Hitler by putting a bomb in his briefcase. The plot failed, as Hitler survived “with scorched hair, a burned leg, damaged eardrums, and the conviction-due to his narrow escape-that Providence still had his back” (73). Regardless, the end soon arrived for Mussolini and Hitler: as the war continued and Italians lost their lives, Mussolini lost all of his popularity. Eventually, things got so bad that he tried to escape with his mistress. However, he was caught red-handed and executed by firing squad. Hitler, in the months leading to his death, suffered from physical ailments (tremors) and mental issues (paranoia). Finally, the end came: “On April 30, 1945, two days after the demise of Mussolini, Hitler and his wife of thirty-six hours, Eva Braun, committed suicide, she by cyanide, he by pistol shot” (77-8).
Albright then writes of Soviet ideology: while the Nazis categorized enemies and allies by race, the Soviets did so using class. Albright writes that both Stalin and Hitler relished violence and hated democracy. In her own words, “For all their dissimilarities, the two men spoke a common language: violence. Both despised the Jeffersonian ideals of popular governance, reasoned debate, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, and fair electoral competition. Both struck remorselessly at enemies within and outside their parties. In the 1920s, when the Nazis were still struggling to establish themselves, the Soviets implemented their revolution by forcibly reorganizing industry, sending millions of ‘class enemies’ to Siberia, and triggering a horrendous famine through the collectivization of agriculture. In 1937, Stalin ordered the executions of 680,000 people judged politically unreliable … The Communists, almost as much as the Nazis, knew how to turn the state into a fearsome killing machine” (81). Albright writes that like the Nazis, the Communists tried to win popular support through propaganda. They made obedience the ultimate virtue and “disloyalty” the worst crime. Albright states that “The Bolsheviks” literally translates to “the Majority,” clearly showing that the Communists initially believed they could rely on the public. She then states that Communism is very unrealistic to implement, for humans are selfish on some level, seen in how people want to be compensated for their productivity. During WWII, the Red Army forced millions of people to fight, and they largely complied, though they didn't fight for Stalin - they fought for Russia. When the Soviets won WWII, they promised free elections for nearby areas. Expectedly, they refused to honor that promise, instead turning nearby areas into satellite states with puppet governments. Czechoslovakia, a country which ardently fought against the Nazis in WWII, was considered a traitor. When the Iron Curtain fell down and the Berlin Wall was constructed, the Soviet Union fed its citizens even more propaganda to justify their decision to keep them geographically and intellectually isolated. In America, Senator Joseph McCarthy utilized the fear of Communism to ruin the lives of thousands of people by denouncing them as Communists - he got this idea from a Roman Catholic priest at Georgetown University. McCarthy, following the advice of the priest, stated that he had a list of 205 names with the names of Communists working in the American government. Albright narrates, “There followed a three-year spectacle during which McCarthy captured enormous media attention by prophesying the imminent ruin of America and by making false charges that he then denied raising-only to invent new ones” (90-1).
McCarthy was able to do the damage he did to the spirit of liberty and fairness because few people were willing to denounce him in fear of being denounced themselves. Many right-wingers also financed his efforts, but most people believed that McCarthy had a point, which he didn't. Albright then writes of Harry Truman, who famously stated that “‘Fascism did not die with Mussolini,’” “‘Hitler is finished, but the seeds spread by his disordered mind have firm root in too many fanatical brains. It is easier to remove tyrants and destroy concentration camps than to kill the ideas that gave them birth’” (95). Indeed, the militaristic attitude described above was seen in countries both in the east and the west, from Imperial Japan to Nazi Germany. As a government official, Albright learned of Slobodan Milosevic, a Yugoslav businessman who rose to power. Like a Fascist, he benefited from the resentment his country had towards others, and “When, in 1991 and 1992, Yugoslavia broke uneasily into five pieces, the dissolution was most wrenching in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had a Muslim majority but also housed significant Serb and Croat communities. As part of the breakup, Milosevic allowed Bosnian Serbs from the Yugoslav Army to return home with all their weapons, giving them the upper hand in what quickly became a grisly civil war” (99). Among the atrocities committed, the Serbians performed the worst ones, seen in how they ran ninety-four concentration camps which saw tens of thousands of people being systematically mistreated, abused, and murdered. While Milosevic didn't commit the atrocities himself, he continued to finance those who were committing them. In total, fifty percent of Bosnia’s population was displaced, while five percent died. In 1995, a Serbian commander, General Ratko Mladic, in a mere ten days had 7,800 Muslim men and children slaughtered in Srebrenica. Later, a Sarajevo food market was attacked by Serbs, and thirty-seven were massacred. Finally responding, NATO bombed Serbian forces - at the time, it was the largest military action undertaken by NATO. The Serbs, seeing that they could no longer do what they wished, put their weapons down. The Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian War, and Milosevic, unrepentant, stated that those who died deserved it for their ancestors sided with Hitler. In 1999, Serbian nationalists murdered forty-five people by shooting. When Albright met Milosevic, she noted that he didn't appear to be as vile and terrible as his actions suggested. She tried to negotiate with him, but Milosevic refused to listen, justifying the slaughters by stating that the Christian Serbs had to defend themselves from those who were Muslim. Later, “Without warning, he ordered his security forces into Kosovo to burn houses, arrest political leaders and journalists, and saw panic. His goal was to drive Albanians out of the country so that they would no longer be the majority in Kosovo. Within weeks, hundreds of thousands had been compelled to leave by train, by truck, by car, or on foot and to find temporary shelter in the hastily constructed tent cities that sprouted in surrounding fields and hills” (104). Fortunately, NATO intervened once again with airstrikes, causing Misolevic to be forced to the negotiating table. Those who were forced out were allowed to return, and those who had been threatened by him were allowed to practice political autonomy through creating their own representative government. As for Milosevic, he never spent a day in jail - he died of a heart attack in 2006 before a verdict was reached by the court (it lasted four years by the time he died). Ratko Mladic, on the other hand, was sent to jail and currently remains there.
Albright writes that democracy has been strengthened in Africa, for in a twenty-five-year interval, forty heads of state ceded their authority to make way for more democratic representation. Albright then writes that for decades, democracies were compared to Communist states, and with Communism largely extinct (save in North Korea and China, of course), people’s expectations of their respective governments became extremely high. That is, Albright writes that “we are spoiled. Even those too lazy to vote feel it their birthright to blast our elected representatives from every direction. We complain bitterly when we do not get all we want as if it were possible to have more services with lower taxes, broader health care coverage with no federal involvement, a cleaner environment without regulations, security from terrorists with no infringement on privacy, and cheaper consumer goods made locally by workers with higher wages. In short, we crave all the benefits of change without the costs” (116). Albright writes that this can be potentially dangerous, for when people become cynical and lose faith in democracy, they may try alternatives like Fascism that offer a quick and easy fix. This clearly shows that while democracy does have flaws, the flaws of other types of governing, especially totalitarian governments, are much more severe, making democracy the best option for the largest number of people. Albright then writes of Hugo Chavez, a leader of Venezuela. She wrote that he had a face made for smiling, and he was genuinely concerned about the poor: “Chavez vowed to change that. He told us of his plan for an array of oil-financed funds to help families with low incomes gain access to food, shelter, health care, job training, and schools. He wanted to diversify the nation’s economy, attract foreign investment, and transform the government into a true servant of the people” (121-2). Albright writes of Venezuela’s history, seeing how it relied greatly on oil, and when the oil market worsened, so did it. It and the ever-growing number of Venezuelans also led to great debt which led to “a spike in inflation, a decline in real wages, a rise in unemployment, and a shrinking middle class” (125). Chavez in 1992 tried to take over the government but failed. He was put into jail for two years, but after being released from prison, he became the president in 1998 due to the corruption and incompetence of the others by getting 56% of the vote. Upon becoming the president, he drastically changed the constitution: “That document lengthened from five to twelve years the maximum tenure of a president, abolished the senate, and gave Chavez control over promotions within the armed forces … His fury may have stemmed from the poverty of his childhood, though many Venezuelans endured graver hardships-or perhaps it was simply an intellectual and moral response to all that he had read and observed” (126).
Chavez as a president was very bitter (for good reason) against the rich, referring to them “as putrid oligarchs, spoiled brats, pickpockets, and pigs; called business leaders vampires and worms; and denounced Roman Catholic priests as perverts” (127). Chavez also criticized the US. Middle-class Venezuelans protested his policies, and when twenty of them were killed by the police, he surrendered to the dissidents and left for Cuba with his family. He soon returned due to the disorganization of those who had thrown them out and the desire of many people to want him as the president. When he returned, “Chavez suspended the judges and packed the bench with more compliant appointees. As year succeeded year, he stripped the bureaucracy of people who opposed his policies, then of those who were not sufficiently servile. He established a grassroots political organization that rewarded loyalists and denied fair treatment to others. He set up a private security force-essentially a gang of thugs-to intimidate opponents and prevent protests from gathering steam. He called dissent a threat to freedom and revoked the operating licenses of television and radio stations that failed to toe the party line” (129). Chavez was a fantastic orator and actually benefited his country during his rule. For instance, he used high oil prices to benefit the majority of Venezuelans: people received better health care, made more money, lived in better places, and no longer worried about necessities. Chavez also tried to make himself a populist by speaking to the downtrodden, and when he died of cancer in 2013, the attitude of those who loved him was summed up in the following sentences: “Fourteen years ago, my barrio neighbors didn't dream of going to college, much less becoming doctors in their communities. Fourteen years ago my neighbors could barely fit in their tin or mud homes, much less envision living in a spacious three-bedroom house with indoor bathrooms that cost almost nothing. Fourteen years ago, only those on the wealthy east side of my city felt they were citizens. Now we know we all are” (131). Despite his various successes, Chavez also made mistakes, for he caused Venezuela to develop an overdependence on oil. His antagonism of the US made him remove the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency from Venezuela, “causing a 500 percent rise in cocaine imports within three years. Chavez was pro-labor, but when strikes compromised his other priorities, he had the leaders thrown into jail. He urged his followers to adopt a new and higher moral consciousness, but he left behind a nation with one of the grimmest crime rates on earth and a capital city, Caracas, that was a more dangerous place to wake up each morning than Baghdad” (133).
Chavez was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro, the current president of Venezuela, who ruined the economy by causing hyperinflation. The hyperinflation was so severe that basic necessities were extremely difficult to buy; people could barely survive even if they worked long hours. Maduro, instead of conceding his errors, replaced parliament with those who he knew would support him in 2017. Maduro continues to blame other countries for the problems of Venezuela. Moving on, Erdogan was a powerful political leader of Turkey, who, upon hearing of a potential coup, declared a state emergency. Those who were suspected of being related to those involved in the coup were arrested. As Albright describes, “As the months passed, more than 140,000 government employees were suspended or fired, 16,000 military and police officers cashiered, 6,300 teachers purged, 2,500 journalists sacked, 1,000 businesses seized, 180 media outlets shut down, fifteen universities closed, and one out of every five judges forced to resign” (149). In 2017, Erdogan increased his own power as president by rewriting the law for presidential terms: he could remain president until 2029. Albright writes that the biggest issue facing Turkey is not terrorists or political dissidents, but Erdogan - if he acts foolishly, greedily, and angrily, he can put his country into serious trouble. Albright then writes of Vladimir Putin. He was lucky to be born, for his mother almost starved to death in the Siege of Leningrad and his father outran Nazi soldiers and survived a crippled leg. Putin himself was very athletic, energetic, and idealistic, and became the leader of Russia while it was transitioning from a Communist to a capitalistic society. Putin continues to reign, not because of any special oration, but because of his stability, consistency, and detail-oriented mind. In an attempt to remain independent from political parties, he separates himself from them, and he doesn’t want to open Russia democratically. Furthermore, he doesn’t attack minorities in Russia: “Unlike Rightists in Europe, he is respectful toward Jews and Muslims. He saves the bulk of his verbal ammunition for foreign enemies, the arrogant hypocrites who live in glass houses, lie about Russia, and conspire to encircle and strangle his country. When he does go on the offensive against a domestic opponent, it is not to engage on a question of policy but to accuse the adversary of being a traitor” (163).
Albright describes that Russia has likely interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that Putin might have helped Donald Trump become president. This reflects Russia’s tendency to use social media as a way to direct misinformation and to influence important events, illustrating the potential dangers of the internet when it is misused. Putin, despite having worked for the KGB before, no longer rallies people by using Communism - he uses nationalism instead. Albright writes that Russia continues to have many problems, although it has become larger on an economic level since the fall of the Soviet Union: “Wealth is distributed less equally than in any other major nation-a throwback to the time of the czars. The country’s population is aging. Politically, there are signs … that Russians are growing weary of Putinism” (168). Albright then talks about Hungary, writing of Viktor Orban, who became the president. He pushed a nationalistic agenda, seen in his view that true Hungarian citizens are those with Hungarian blood. That is, “To him, a person of Magyar ancestry living in Serbia or Romania is more authentically Hungarian than a Roma or Turk born and raised on Hungarian soil. The prime minister exploits national grievances dating back to the Ottomans, but he gives attention to the 1920 treaty-imposed by the victors after World War I-that cost Hungary two-thirds of its territory” (172). Orban, repeatedly emphasizing Hungarian history and values, has also encouraged Magyar women to have more children. Albright criticizes this xenophobic and ultranationalist attitude, stating that in many areas in Europe, negative attitudes towards immigrants have prevailed - the most frequently proclaimed slogans are those desiring a white Europe and the barring of refugees. For instance, in Czechoslovakia, Milos Zeman was re-elected as president in January 2018. Zeman called himself the “Czech Trump” and is an islamophobe who warned “of a Muslim invasion even though the Republic has accepted barely a dozen of the twenty-six hundred asylum seekers required by EU policy. Zeman is also overtly pro-Russian and pro-Putin, which may explain the flood of lies slandering his pro-EU opponent that appeared on social media in the runup to the balloting” (183). Albright moves back to Orban and writes that he remains indifferent to immigrants who are in trouble, seeing that he states the refugee crisis of the Middle East (which has led to hundreds of thousands of people before forced to leave) as a premeditated series of events to “‘transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and settle them among us’” to reshape “‘the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to reengineer its ethnic foundations’” (184). Orban and his political allies went so far in 2017 as to send a questionnaire to every household which tried to invoke anger towards immigrants by asking them whether they wanted Hungary to be forced “to accept migrants, pay them welfare, and assure them lenient sentences for any crimes they might commit. This approach to consulting with the people takes … the plebiscite-and uses it to spread and validate a falsehood. By asking questions based on a lie, it makes the lie a central part of national conversation” (184). As Joseph Goebbels once said, “The most effective form of persuasion is when you are not aware of being persuaded.”
Albright writes that the concept of immigration and the fears of an ethnic takeover have existed for a very long time, seen in 125 BC when Romans debated on whether they should allow Italians to become Roman citizens. Albright again states her personal experience as a refugee and immigrant, asserting that those who were forced from their homelands due to internal catastrophes like war and political repression should be legally entitled to protection in other areas. Albright states that illegal immigration is a major issue, for people generally wouldn’t leave their homeland for another one if a major problem wasn’t present to begin with. Albright then concedes that countries do indeed have good reason to worry about the effects of immigration, for living with immigrants requires goodwill and time, both of which take time in order to develop. Albright then states that if immigration is to be viewed negatively, it will be “vital for leaders to work across international boundaries to minimize the number of people who feel the need to leave their home countries in the first place. That requires building healthy democracies, fostering peace, and generating prosperity from the ground up. However, success in that endeavor demands a way of looking at the world that recognizes the humanity we share with one another, and the interests that nations have in common. Those who are content to look inward, and who see no higher purpose than to shield themselves from the different, the new, and the unknown, will be of no help” (187). Following Albright’s maxim, those who will be of no help include leaders like Orban who divide people into categories, for in the end, we are all members of the species Homo Sapiens. Albright then writes of Kim il-Sung, who was the first Supreme Leader of North Korea, a totalitarian state. North Korea was formed after the Korean War in which South Korea decided to modernize. North Korea, unlike South Korea, was Communist in nature, and when the two fought, the war was bloody: more than 500,000 Koreans, 900,000 Chinese, and 54,000 Americans perished. Even worse, at the end of this terrible war, no gains were made. What the war did accomplish, though, was North Korea isolating itself from every country except China. North Korea brainwashes its citizens into believing that the rulers are living gods, and those who voice protest are commonly sent with their entire families (known as the “three-generation rule”) into concentration camps. Albright writes that those who visit North Korea may report that people are smiling, but it should be remembered that people commonly smile out of fear for their own lives. Albright writes that there are roughly 100,000 political prisoners in North Korea, showing that there is resistance to the policies being pursued.
Albright elucidates that the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea/government of North Korea) is “a secular ISIS,” for they don’t hesitate to do tremendous damage to their country. For instance, in a catastrophic famine that lasted from 1994-1998, many North Koreans perished (the exact number is not known due to North Korea’s secretive nature) because the government viewed its civilians as dispensable and the military as mandatory. As stated before, North Korea also has concentration camps, and it should be noted that they have the worst human rights abuses compared to every country, seeing their use of torture and execution for even minor crimes (ex. stealing food to survive is a potential capital offense). North Koreans are also underweight and malnourished due to starvation, and luxuries like electricity and cars are virtually nonexistent save in the capital city Pyongyang. Albright then discusses Donald Trump, who is xenophobic: she writes that he may be the most undemocratic president as of yet. This is seen in how he stokes up anger towards foreign countries, commonly stating that America was “robbed” (though he never gives any concrete evidence or historical examples or even statistics to support his extensive claims) by foreign countries and that he could make America “great” again (though he is rarely specific with how he is going to improve the country). Albright states that Trump’s approach “is that of a demagogue. His analysis is filled with full-throated assertions that are riddled with bunkum and his arguments are designed to exploit insecurities and stir up resentment. A speaker with a more objective approach might have noted … between 2009 and 2016, inflation remained low, the jobless rate declined by more than half, and the U.S. workforce grew by twelve million … His apparent intention, therefore, is not to address and alleviate anger, but to inflame it” (216). This clearly illustrates that Trump’s claims are inaccurate - as stated before, he provides little to no evidence. Furthermore, the whole concept of “Principled Realism” is merely a slogan, and “Putting America First” has an interesting history: during WWII, the America First Committee (AFC) tried to prevent America from going to war against Hitler. They opposed the Lend-Lease Act which would help the British fight Hitler’s army, and “Within twelve months of its founding, the committee had built a membership of more than 800,000 and attracted support from across the political spectrum” (216). However, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the organization quickly disbanded.
Albright writes that Donald Trump’s approach towards other countries is both unforgiving and angry: he offers few opportunities for friendship. She writes that she is worried America will be an isolationist country once again and fall back into racism, seeing how when Donald Trump ascended to power, the percentage of people from other countries who believed the US president could be counted on to do the right thing dropped drastically. Albright then writes of Fascism, recollecting that it is often seductive and slow to act. As a civilian who lived in Nazi Germany attested, “Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained … unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning … one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing … And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you … some minor incident … collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose” (230). Albright then writes that it is always possible for Fascism to take root in any country, for every person has their own grievance which can be exploited. Albright states that humans have both a drive for liberty and the propensity for obeying orders, and while this can benefit us in times of peace, people may be willing to blindly obey orders to get the result they desire in turbulent times. Albright then tellingly writes that “In the lives of nations, the origins of anger do not have to be deeply personal to awaken the desire for instant solutions. Mussolini and Hitler drew on the anguish of their citizens following the carnage of World War 1. Kim Il-sung played guardian and guide in a country scarred by four decades of strife. Milosevic and Putin tapped into deep wells of nationalist outrage in the aftermath of the Cold War. Chavez and Erdogan rose to power amid political and economic crises that were knocking members of the middle class off their financial ladders and into poverty. Orban and his fellow travelers on the European right promise to shield voters from the psychological demands that stem from religious, cultural, and racial diversity” (242-3). Albright requests the audience to remember that there are no simple answers to large problems, and that foresight and patience should be practiced alongside level-headedness and decency. As Hitler once said in 1936, “‘I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached. Our political problems appeared complicated. The German people could make nothing of them … I, on the other hand … reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realized this and followed me’” (244).
Albright then discusses two heroes who didn't become villains despite fighting terrible institutions: Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela. When Abraham Lincoln was president, both Northerners and Southerners disliked him. Despite this, he kept his cool and spoke through decisive action: “History long ago judged him a stronger leader, but not because he professed to be. While the object of much ridicule himself, Lincoln never mocked the downtrodden, nor bragged of his own accomplishments, nor exhibited personal cruelty. He was a savvy politician who could play rough and whose wartime policies compromised civil liberties, but his true aim-to save a nation from the ugliness of its own worst passions and policies-never wavered” (251). Lincoln, after the Battle of Gettysburg, called for reconciliation, not vengeance. Nelson Mandela, on the other hand, started off as a political prisoner for speaking against Apartheid, the racist organization which discriminated against colored people. Despite being imprisoned for years, when he became president, he refrained from getting his pound of flesh from the Afrikaners, the group responsible for his incarceration. Instead, “he was able to communicate with them, find common ground with them, forgive them, and-most astonishingly-lead them … He appointed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that received testimony from all sides. Unlike so many, he found the trappings of high office eminently resistible and refused to stand for a second term” (252). Albright ends her book by stating that political parties and stances aren’t important; what’s vital are the goals pursued and the methods used to reach said goals. Albright states that even if her book is to be viewed as alarmist, it is still relevant, and people should be more vigilant and decent to ensure a better future.
Personal thoughts:
Fascism: A Warning by Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state of the US, is a concise, powerful, and informative read of a violent and despicable political ideology, seen in Nazi Germany to Francoist Spain to Fascist Italy. Albright is able to transcend political party lines and dogmas to appeal to the common humanity of every single human being, and the examples which she gives excellently illustrate her point. Fascism should be read by every Homo Sapiens, for not only is it a warning of Fascism, but it also serves as a call for the readers to become more tolerant, decent, compassionate, empathetic, and fair. I highly recommend Fascism: A Warning to anyone interested in politics, history, fascism, and current affairs.
Get the book:
Comments