Nowadays when “decolonise” is a very fashionable concept among historians, political scientists, intellectuals and activists, Anti-Colonialism and the Crises of Interwar Fascism, evinces the complexity of the colonial and anticolonial discourse, where the concept of anticolonial/anti-colonialism is not a linear one has several entanglements. Colonialism as a phenomenon is more articulated and far more complex than a mere oppressor/oppressed mechanism.
Ortiz deconstructs the supposed opposition between “liberal-imperialist and fascist nation-states” and contends that the struggle between them “was not a titanic clash between Manichean sociopolitical systems, but rather an imperial contest between satisfied and unsatisfied empires.”
The book focuses on the Age of Appeasement (1935–1939) and unfolds his argument through five case studies: the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Spanish Civil War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Munich Agreement and the outbreak of the Second World War. Ortiz challenges the most common historical narratives, according to which European totalitarian systems were the evolution of western imperialism. This is what the author defines the “inside-out” point of view, which depicts fascist expansionism into Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas as a “centrifugal European” thrust. Scholars explored the ways in which fascisms affected other parts of the world, but have ignored the ways in which the inhabitants of these places understood fascism. Ortiz reverses the perspective and adopts what he defines the “outside-in” vision, epitomized by the way anti-colonialists perceived fascisms. The volume focuses on Indian nationalism, represented by five iconic figures of Indian nationalism, namely Rajani Palme Dutt, Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhi and Manabendranath Roy, born Narendra Nath Bhattacharya, but commonly known as M.N. Roy, one the most prominent Indian left-wing revolutionaries and founder of the Communist Party of India.
Ortiz provides a groundbreaking interpretation according to which there was no difference “between liberal-imperialist and fascist nation states,” because fascism was a form of imperialism which acted in Europe against other European states and political subjects. Ortiz reconceptualizes the categories usually employed by the scholars of “fascist imperialism” as opposed to “colonial antifascism,” since the two have the same nature and goals. Both fascism and liberal democracies are colonial: fascist nations indeed yearned for overseas possessions on equal terms with liberal states and strove also for conquering more lands in Europe as well. On the other hand, the colonial liberal nations were far from being antifascist: the categorization between “righteous” nations and “evil” regimes, defenders of freedom and oppressors, mildness and violence is dispelled by the atrocities committed by all colonial liberal powers, included the United States, and by the restrictions of freedoms adopted by all colonizers. From the perspective of Indian nationalists, liberal democracies resembled very similar to fascist regimes. On the other hand, besides aspiring to a “place in the sun” in Asia and Africa, European fascisms aimed for additional territories inside Europe, especially as a form of compensation for their unsatisfied claims overseas. Fascism, according to the author’s perspective, is imperialism inside Europe which takes the shape of a competition between satisfied (liberal colonial power) and unsatisfied (European fascisms) nations. The five crises described by Ortiz represent the culmination of this competition, “a paroxysm of imperial cupidity” similar, if not identical, to the Scramble for Africa. It was a power game aiming at the obtainment and maintenance of empire. Europe was the playground were powers, both liberal and illiberal, decided the fate of the world at the expenses of the smaller countries, both outside and inside Europe. In the words of Michael Ortiz, “Whether fascist, democratic, or imperialist, Europe’s great powers collectively negotiated the fate of smaller nations.”
The negotiations that accompanied the five crises described by the book, the ineptitude of the liberal nations, failing to contain the imperial claims of the illiberal nations, had the objective to broker a deal aiming at containing and not averting the pretensions of the fascist powers. The liberal nations effectively collided with the fascist powers only very late, they preferred the policy of appeasement and pursued it until the threshold of the Second World War because, Ortiz contends, ultimately both, colonial liberal and fascist nations were imperialistic. Until the outbreak of the Second World War liberal and illiberal nations collaborated, rather than opposing each other.
Each of the five events is described though the eyes of a nationalist leader. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 examine respectively the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (1935) from the perspective of Rajani Palme Dutt and the Spanish Civil (1936) from the perspective of Jawaharlal Nehru: both leaders contended that German, British and French non-intervention “reflected the interrelation between fascism and liberal imperialism.”
In Chapter 3, Ortiz contends that, according to Subhas Chandra Bose, the British limited support to China during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937) was due to “a preoccupation with the rise of Nazi Germany” and that, ultimately, “that British colonialism was largely responsible for the Japanese invasion of China.” Moreover, according to Bose British colonialism “had inspired Japanese expansionism.” Chapter 4 examines the Anglo-German Munich Agreement (1938) from the perspective of Gandhi, who came to the conclusion that the deal “reflected the similarities between British colonialism and German Nazism, insomuch as it was great-power imperialism practice in Europe.” Chapter 5 explores the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe from the perspective of M.N. Roy, who did not consider this war as a clash against political violence, oppression and persecution, but “a civil war between rival imperialisms.” Contrary to common Marxist opinion, Roy suggested that Indian support to British imperialism would “precipitate Indian independence” insomuch the destructiveness of the war would expose Britain’s moral, economic and political bankrupt.
The outside-in perspective adopted by this book enables historians to better explain certain political issues, as the appeasement persistently adopted by the liberal nations, otherwise not satisfactorily explained by the inside-out history. Moreover, though the lens of anticolonial nationalism we can better understand European history between the two world wars.
Although Anti-colonialism is based on a limited use of primary sources, it avails of original writings and records of Indian leaders and an impressive and updated secondary literature in English, which reflects the newest interpretations of European totalitarianisms and of the historical events that involved them.
