Fascists though took inspiration from Machiavelli's political philosophy, its emergence took place in the preceding century when Italy in the post-WWI period was shackled in a Mussolini-led fascist government. Hitler subsequently took inspiration from the Italian regime and went to meet Mussolini and acquaint with his ideas for a stringent fascist regime. The question did not ask for theory but its actual practice in global politics.

That's a wonderful interpretation by you bro. But since Mussolini was never part of course outline (and I did not study him), I emphasized upon the conditions of Italy when Machiavelli was there. I emphasized that the Italian Fascism bred in the age of Machiavelli when Renaissance was being replaced, the separation of Church from the State and quoted all prominent facts and figures of the Italy. In a nutshell, strong idea of nationalism by Machiavelli for the sake of unity and existence of Italy were responsible for framing Italian fascism.

For the other part of question about Germany, I did not go for Nazism. Instead, I took a leap of current refugee crisis being faced by Angela Merkel, and how this crisis has divided a modern liberal democracy Germany into two-wings of politics: the radical ethnocentric Germans who have nearly 'resurrected' from the ruins of Fascism and on the other hand, the pro-liberals who want lenient policies for refugees. Therefore, this ethnocentric exposure of Germany could possibly reach to re-gaining of Fascist ideology.

What's your take on it?

I do not understand why students rivet the sense of the question towards another theme. Why would the syllabus particularly mention about Mussolini or hitler or Stalin or Lenin? There is clearly contained a fascism topic in the syllabus. Now it is up to the student to which extent he can read and inculcate a certain topic. The question categorically asked about the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany. The former was originated by Mussolini while the later by Hitler. Why would we have to go back to the Machiavellian era or jump directly to the present Merkel's era? Please, it is admonishingly suggested that articulate only those points which are asked. Do not beat about the bush to give an adverse impression to the examiner.

__________________
The fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself.

True that bro! I did not quote Machiavelli's views though but the 'emergence of Fascism' in Italy.

Sikandar, you would have been right only if you had READ the question asked in the question paper. The question read: "DISCUSS the ENABLING conditions..." It was not: "What were the enabling conditions...". Moreover, the examiner quoted two aspects for the writer: 1. NATIONALISM; and 2. WEAK DEMOCRACIES which for sure point towards Germany and Italy, respectively. Please remember here that ITALY had remained a weak democracy throughout (since development of Nation-State) while Germany a center of Nationalism.

I won't even bother to discuss what happened in Italy. As for Germany, long gone are the flames of Fascism from her. However, today, there took yet another uprising with the ongoing 'white supremacy' across the globe which flared space for far-right (fascist) groups taking advantage of growing refugee crisis which literaly divided the leftists and rightists into a situation similar to that of East and West Germany of the Communist era and nailed Merke's government with country-wide protests. Germans are ethnocentric and a closed-society while Nationalism lies in their core. Hence, I would regard the refugee crisis as an 'enabling condition to break ground for inculcating fascism in today's Germany'. I believe the examiner would definitely allow space for a holistic argument rather than a cooked-tale of Mussolini and Hitler in a historical context. Remember the question? It had to be "DISCUSSED" which means an analytical intreperation which can be performed in any way; a bit out of the box.

As for Fasicm as a conccept in course outline, I think it was supposed to be described from a theoratical stand point since it belongs to Part-I in course outline and should belong to Section-I of the paper (see past papers). However, the examiner placed it in Section-II of the paper and it made us free to choose our discourse for an open yet contextual discussion. I take the examiner as an open-minded, sane and a wise person. Incase he is not, you are absolutely right even without understanding the nature and scope of question.

The following read is a little reference.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1449...ning-elections

Though I did not refer to Wiki for CSS prep, but to make it easy for you regarding Italy, I would recommend you see Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

ethno-nationalists*

Not ethnocentric.