Yes, contemporary and historical "theoretical fascists" and apologists often argue that the most extreme atrocities were distortions, exaggerations, or a perversion of the "true" ideology. This is a common tactic of historical revisionism, minimization, or denial used to sanitize the ideology and make it more palatable.
This viewpoint typically relies on several strategies:
Denial or Minimization: Some outright deny events like the Holocaust occurred or downplay the numbers and severity of the violence.
Blame Shifting: They may attribute the atrocities to specific individuals (e.g., blaming Hitler rather than the systemic Nazi ideology), external pressures, or wartime exigencies, rather than seeing them as an inherent outcome of the ideology itself.
False Distinctions: Apologists often try to separate "good" or "pure" Italian fascism from German Nazism, claiming that elements like radical antisemitism were unique to the latter and not essential to the broader fascist concept of an authoritarian, ultranationalist state.
Focus on the "Positive" Vision: They emphasize the stated goals of national unity, order, and strength, and argue that the violence was an unfortunate, but non-essential, deviation from this path. They present an image of an "ethical" or "benevolent" authoritarian state that knows how to run itself better than a democracy.
Justification as Necessary: Other proponents do not necessarily see the violence as a "distortion," but rather as a necessary or even beneficial tool for achieving national purity and order by removing perceived "enemies" of the state. They believe that violence, if it serves the national community, is acceptable.
In contrast, academic and historical analyses argue that violence, the "othering" of specific groups, and the suppression of opposition are not distortions, but rather core, defining features of fascist ideology. The ideology inherently links the creation of a strong, homogeneous "in-group" with the violent persecution of the "out-group".
