Austrofascism - Criticism of The Term

Criticism of The Term

Although the term "Austrofascism" was used by the proponents of the regime itself, it is still disputed today. It is predominantly used by left-wing historians, while most historians prefer the term Ständestaat. On a political level, criticism sometimes comes from representatives of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP; the post-World War II successors of the Christian Social Party), some of whom do not distance themselves from the authoritarian Austrian regime of the Patriotic Front. They usually stress the Austro-fascists' merits in fighting for Austria's independence and against Nazism.

While it is undisputed that the regime was an authoritarian dictatorship in character (it locked away members of the opposition, mostly Nazis, Communists and Social-Democrats, in concentration camps called Anhaltelager or imprisonment centers), some historians argue that it lacked certain characteristics of true fascism. Although the Fatherland Front used fascist-like symbols (such as the Kruckenkreuz) and was meant to be a party of the masses, it lacked a solid basis in the population, especially among labourers who tended to support the Communists or the Nazis. The Austrian government also did not target minorities or engage in any sort of expansionism.

According to some historians, Austrofascism was a contrived and desperate attempt to "out-Hitler" ("überhitlern") the Nazis, a term used by Dollfuss himself. They argue that Dollfuss was interested in a renaissance of Catholicism rather than in a totalitarian state, meaning that he wanted to return to the time before the ideas of the French Revolution of 1789 took hold. Ernst Hanisch, for example, speaks of semi-fascism. Some parallels to Spain under Francisco Franco cannot be overlooked, however. Austrofascism is sometimes also called imitation fascism.