logo
Italy's areas of wartime fascist resistance remain less susceptible to the far right today

Italy's areas of wartime fascist resistance remain less susceptible to the far right today

Yahoo07-05-2025
Italy's areas of wartime fascist resistance remain less susceptible to the far right today
Across Europe, far-right parties are making unforeseen breakthroughs – from local councils to national and supranational parliaments. As their presence becomes normalised, these parties promote nationalist rhetoric, challenge democratic institutions, and attempt to reshape a political present rooted in hard-won struggles against authoritarianism.
Yet, not all communities are equally permeable to these growing forces. Some actively resist, mobilising to block authoritarian ideologies and defend democratic values.
Our recent research in Italy offers one explanation as to why some communities are less easily enticed into far-right politics than others. Local histories of wartime resistance continue to shape political cultures in ways that, even generations later, inspire people to push back against the resurgence of fascist and neo-fascist ideologies.
In areas where anti-fascist resistance movements were active during the second world war, civic engagement to defend democratic values is stronger. In these communities, support for far-right parties is weaker.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Join The Conversation for free today.
These legacies aren't accidental. They are cultivated, reinforced, and passed on through intensive and continuous local memory work.
ADVERTISEMENT
During Italy's civil war (1943–1945), students, workers, farmers and clergy mobilised into bands of resistance to fight the Nazi-fascist regime. Their efforts were central to Italy's liberation and the establishment of its democratic republic. While this story is often told at the national level, our research examines its enduring local consequences.
Using an original dataset mapping resistance activity across about 8,000 Italian municipalities, we compared places with strong partisan mobilisation to those without. Even today, eight decades later, residents of areas with a resistance past are more likely to support initiatives that counter far-right ideologies.
This was especially evident in the response to a recent initiative. In 2020 and 2021, a grassroots campaign proposed a law to ban the public glorification of fascism. To bring it for discussion before parliament, the campaign needed 50,000 signatures.
Despite the pandemic, it collected over 240,000 within a few months. While support was widespread, municipalities with strong resistance histories were significantly more likely to participate. Our estimates show roughly 40% more signatures in these places.
These patterns suggest that wartime resistance can leave legacies that translate into contemporary political behaviour. But data alone can't explain how these legacies endure. That's where our fieldwork comes in.
ADVERTISEMENT
We have been closely studying towns with deep resistance roots and strong support for the 2021 initiative to see how they keep these legacies alive and who is involved.
We have followed (and participated in) memorialisation efforts in the Cuneo region, one of the main centres of wartime resistance, and in areas deeply affected by Nazi violence and known for creating some of the strongest partisan brigades. These include villages around Stazzema in Tuscany and Marzabotto in Emilia.
The main insight is that remembrance isn't just ceremonial – it's part of daily life. Schools, hiking clubs, cultural associations, and city halls all contribute to preserving and activating the memory of resistance.
One public elementary school in the rural hills around Bologna, for example, created a 'memory garden' to honour local residents who died fighting fascism. Through interviews, art and storytelling, students have engaged directly with their community's past, creating not only a commemorative space but a living bridge between generations.
Similarly, local Alpine clubs in Emilia Romagna and Piedmont restored partisan trails through the mountains, now used for memory treks. These hikes attract people who might not otherwise engage politically but who, by walking the paths of wartime partisans, connect with stories of sacrifice and solidarity. What begins as recreation becomes an encounter with democratic values.
ADVERTISEMENT
These deeply localised memory efforts – anchored in the names, stories and spaces of the community – often intensify during democratic threats. The 2021 campaign emerged amid growing support for parties like Lega and Fratelli d'Italia (Brothers of Italy).
Related studies show that when exclusionary welfare policies gain ground, local communities sometime organise in defence of vulnerable groups. In towns with a resistance past, local 'memory entrepreneurs' doubled their efforts in response to far-right victories.
Memory as a political battle
This is not just an Italian phenomenon. Across Europe, historical memory is a political battleground. In Germany, the Stolpersteine – brass plaques in sidewalks commemorating Nazi victims – serve as grassroots reminders that shape civic attitudes. In Hungary, activists have created 'living memorials' to Holocaust victims, directly contesting government efforts to whitewash fascist collaboration.
These commemorations also have measurable political effects. In Berlin, neighbourhoods where one or more Stolpersteine was placed before an election saw fewer votes for the far-right AfD (a 0.96%-point decrease) compared to those with no Stolpersteine. This happened across federal, state and EU elections between 2013 and 2021.
What unites these efforts is a belief that remembering the past matters – not only to honour it, but to shape the future. Local narratives of wartime resistance and victimisation help instil democratic values and inoculate communities against authoritarianism.
ADVERTISEMENT
But this doesn't happen automatically. It requires effort. Teachers, students, parents, associations, and local councils all play a role in keeping memory alive and politically meaningful.
Recognising this is especially vital today, when the meaning of anti-fascism itself is a polarising subject. Far-right leaders, including those in office, downplay and discredit the resistance's legacy, replacing it with revisionist myths.
When communities take ownership of their histories, they are more likely to uphold democratic principles not only in ceremonies, but at the ballot box and in everyday actions. The past is never just the past. The legacies of wartime resistance continue to shape how people view democracy, justice, and belonging. In times like these, remembering the resistance is more than homage – it is civic defence.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Juan Masullo has received funding for this research from UNUWIDER and Leiden University. He is affiliated with the University of Milan.
Simone Cremaschi has received funding for this research from UNUWIDER, the European Research Council (grant number 864687), and Leiden University.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza
Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza

The Hill

time4 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war. The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas' deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack — amounts to genocide. The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations. That's because of the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews, and because many in Israel view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination. Shattering a taboo in Israel The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. 'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel, and coming to this conclusion, is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants. Israel's government on Monday didn't immediately comment on the reports by B'Tselem and PHRI. Israeli officials largely blame civilian deaths in Gaza on Hamas, saying it uses civilians as shields by embedding militants in residential areas. The reports echo international claims The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel's policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory's health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide. Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Like other rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts. Hamas' attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country's policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from 'repression and control to destruction and annihilation,' B'Tselem said. The group has long been outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army's investigations into wrongdoing weren't serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state. The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food. Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society. A 'painful' conclusion The term 'genocide' strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors' harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again. The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' 'As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it's very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,' said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said. Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza. Broader scrutiny of Israel's conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel's growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness. And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it's difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war. Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn't take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel's right to defend itself. Israelis' focus is on the hostages, not Palestinians After groups like B'Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways. Israeli historian Tom Segev said he's not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public. 'The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,' he said. But he said what's happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel. The rights groups said the international community hasn't done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up. 'We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B'Tselem.

Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza
Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza

Hamilton Spectator

time32 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war. The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas' deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack — amounts to genocide. The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations. That's because of the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews, and because many in Israel view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination. Shattering a taboo in Israel The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. 'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel, and coming to this conclusion, is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants. Israel's government on Monday didn't immediately comment on the reports by B'Tselem and PHRI. Israeli officials largely blame civilian deaths in Gaza on Hamas, saying it uses civilians as shields by embedding militants in residential areas. The reports echo international claims The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel's policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory's health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide. Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Like other rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts. Hamas' attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country's policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from 'repression and control to destruction and annihilation,' B'Tselem said. The group has long been outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army's investigations into wrongdoing weren't serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state . The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food. Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society. A 'painful' conclusion The term 'genocide' strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors' harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again. The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' 'As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it's very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,' said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said. Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza. Broader scrutiny of Israel's conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel's growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness. And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it's difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war. Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn't take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel's right to defend itself. Israelis' focus is on the hostages, not Palestinians After groups like B'Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways. Israeli historian Tom Segev said he's not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public. 'The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,' he said. But he said what's happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel. The rights groups said the international community hasn't done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up. 'We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B'Tselem. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Columbia genocide scholar may leave over new definition of antisemitism. She's not alone
Columbia genocide scholar may leave over new definition of antisemitism. She's not alone

Los Angeles Times

time3 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Columbia genocide scholar may leave over new definition of antisemitism. She's not alone

NEW YORK — For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt's book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,' to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. But after Columbia's recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel's founding. For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' she told the Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, including applying 'double standards' to Israel, comparing the country's policies to Nazism or describing its existence as 'a racist endeavor.' Ahead of a $220-million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Trump and his administration. For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel's founding amount to 'clear censorship,' which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said. 'Now the university is saying that's off limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia didn't respond to an emailed request for comment. When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he 'never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.' At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its 'weaponization' against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. 'People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia's leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university's current interim president. The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for 'training and educational' purposes. Then this month, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing 'discriminatory intent.' 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move 'appalling,' predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university's disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. 'With this new edict on IHRA, you're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism training with groups such as the Anti-Defamation League. Last week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia's actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would 'provide clarity, transparency and standardization' to the university's effort to root out antisemitism. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' Marcus said. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath. Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel's 'ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide' in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 60,000 Palestinians have died in 21 months of war — most of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry — and where experts are warning of rising famine. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,' Hirsch said. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.' Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store