Does criterion (2) apply to the nominatively original case of Italian Fascism? Probably depends on how you define the boundaries of “mass,” but all in all the state relied on violence (but very few actual murders) to suppress democracy and organized labor and saved the killing fields for colonial areas it wished to conquer. The latter is of course as evil as it gets, but not out of line with what liberal states like Britain, France, and the US carried out at a larger scale.
I suppose if I wanted to be stubborn I could say "well, we're talking the popular definition, in this case, that popular definition has drifted away from the original case, to centre on Nazi Germany". But that seems absurdly recalcitrant.
Probably I should just change it to include mass imprisonment and torture, that would be more sensible.
I think that's a pretty good point about fascism - even the Nazis, the archetypical fascists, did not come into power and immediately begin implementing the Final Solution - for example, Kristallnacht was planned to some extent, but it was also capitalising on a moment of particular animus towards Jewish people following a political assassination. I suppose that could be seen as both reassuring (even if fascists gain power, the full realisation of their goals will take time) and menacing (obviously they're not going to say they're planning mass killing on the campaign trail, but when the opportunity presents itself...).
Does criterion (2) apply to the nominatively original case of Italian Fascism? Probably depends on how you define the boundaries of “mass,” but all in all the state relied on violence (but very few actual murders) to suppress democracy and organized labor and saved the killing fields for colonial areas it wished to conquer. The latter is of course as evil as it gets, but not out of line with what liberal states like Britain, France, and the US carried out at a larger scale.
Yes this is a good point.
I suppose if I wanted to be stubborn I could say "well, we're talking the popular definition, in this case, that popular definition has drifted away from the original case, to centre on Nazi Germany". But that seems absurdly recalcitrant.
Probably I should just change it to include mass imprisonment and torture, that would be more sensible.
I think that's a pretty good point about fascism - even the Nazis, the archetypical fascists, did not come into power and immediately begin implementing the Final Solution - for example, Kristallnacht was planned to some extent, but it was also capitalising on a moment of particular animus towards Jewish people following a political assassination. I suppose that could be seen as both reassuring (even if fascists gain power, the full realisation of their goals will take time) and menacing (obviously they're not going to say they're planning mass killing on the campaign trail, but when the opportunity presents itself...).
"In the end, there's only one real reason to forgive someone. Because they're sorry."