Why are buildings linked to Hitler destroyed but not so for Mussolini?
Adolf Hitler house to be ‘neutralised’, Austria says
Why Are So Many Fascist Monuments Still Standing in Italy?
Rise to Power
Richard Bosworth gives several reasons for Mussolini’s rise to power, from the flexibility of Fascism to his talent as an orator. Denis Mack Smith focuses more on his ability to appeal to the masses whereas Hannah Malone stated that the king panicked after the March on Rome and appointed Mussolini as prime minister.
Hannah Malone
Rise to Power of Mussolini by Dr Hannah Malone
Richard Bosworth
- He argues that Mussolini came to power for several reasons.
- The ideology of Fascism allowed him to be flexible, he could make promises to different groups within the country.
- Fascist squads terrorised the country and neither the police, army or state would stop them. Consequently, they were allowed to increase their power and deter opponents such as the Socialists.
- Mussolini was a skilled political leader. His abilities as a writer and orator, his experiences as a soldier and a politician from a young age (albeit a Socialist initially) and his charisma, would all help him gain support.
- Nationalism had grown in Italy during the nineteenth century, leading to its formation in 1871. This became a factor in Italy entering into the First World War and one in the formation of the new Fascist Party in 1919. The Party wanted to regain what they believed was theirs (Fiume for example) and prevent the country from becoming Socialist (fear of the Bolshevik Revolution spreading).
- Several post World War One governments came and went in Italy. The country could not agree as there were so many divisions. Three previous prime ministers, Giolitti, Salandra and Orlando, competed with each other to return to office in 1922. But they each would rather have the young Mussolini in charge rather than a hated old rival.
Denis Mack Smith
argues,
He was able to appear as all things to all men and was an excellent journalist.
Evaluation
- However, Mack Smith’s analysis is criticised by other historians. From Anthony James Joes,
- He also argues that Mack Smith writes history backwards, using his knowledge of the German and Italian alliance during the Second World War, to criticise Mussolini. Instead, he should have evaluated Mussolini against the events of the time.
- However, John A Davis explains that Mack Smith began researching Italian history in 1946, travelling around the country searching for documents. He saw the post-war damage and the effect the conflict had on the civilians. Importantly, he was able to access the thoughts and memories of Benedetto Croce, who twice served as a minister.
- He further explained that AJP Taylor praised his early work on Italian unification, he was a huge advocate of accessing primary sources to develop thesis and was courageous enough (this did not endear him to powerful Italians such as Croce) to write against the narrative that Mussolini’s regime was unique – Mack Smith argued that it was a continuation of authoritarian rule.
- Moreover, the Ministry of Education chose to adopt his books as compulsory texts for schools and universities throughout Italy.
De Felice
- He argues that Mussolini rose to power because he had the support of the elite within Italy. (perhaps a similarity with Hitler).
Consolidation and Maintenance of Power
Richard Bosworth
- argues that Mussolini consolidated his power by accepting responsibility for the Matteotti murder,
- the failure of the King, Army and the Pope to oppose or act against the violence in the country,
- and the failure of the Left to unite.
Denis Mack Smith
- Argues that violence was a pattern throughout the life of Mussolini. He used this to consolidate power, the murder of Matteotti was an example of this.
- Mussolini was no more of a circus performer whose propaganda was effective enough to convince more than enough Italians of his competence.
- As a journalist, he also saw the importance of censorship in shaping the thoughts of people.
- He also argued that, similar to Hitler in Germany, authoritarian leadership in Italy was not something new, Mussolini only inherited this culture.
- But Mussolini did not have totalitarian power as even his own ministers, for example Pietro Badoglio and Rodolfo Graziani, flatly disobeyed his orders.
Benedetto Croce
- argues that the fascists maintained their position in Italy because of the fear of the postwar economic crisis and of communism.
- Importantly, Croce was an advocate critic of Mussolini, especially after 1945.
Foreign Policy
Opportunist
- “Mack Smith argued that Mussolini had conducted fascist foreign policy almost single handedly and with no aims more coherent than capricious opportunism and aggression.”
Denis Mack Smith, by John A. Davis
Intentionalist
Structuralist
Marxists could argue that Mussolini exploited the proletariat and gave financial power to powerful industrialists via its corporatist strategy.
De Felicianists could argue that Mussolini put Italy on the world stage with the same strategy. Moreover, the work of the IRI made significant improvements during the Depression.
Historiography
- In 1932, anti-Fascist historian Gaetano Salvemini argued that Mussolini’s foreign policy was opportunistic showmanship without an ideological agenda. In 1951, he went further explaining that he ‘was always an irresponsible improviser, half madman, half criminal, gifted only – but to the highest degree – in the arts of ‘propaganda’ and mystification.’
- In 1948, Georg Zachariae, one of Mussolini’s doctors, published a book that defended him. He argued that Mussolini stood up to Hitler’s racist ideological policies (although passed anti-Semitic policies himself).
- In the 1980s, Richard Bosworth claimed that Mussolini sought to continue Italian expansion but that it was part of the country’s ambitions (Abyssinia 1896, Libya 1911-12). Bosworth subscribed to the structuralist theory of history, Mussolini was not the great man who was taking Italy forward, they were going together. He even argues that the decision to go to war in 1940 would have been taken without the dictator as the leader, due to the country’s belief in Risorgimento.
- It is also worth noting that Bosworth judges Mussolini in the context of other leaders in the 20th century. Italy carried out horrendous colonial wars but he argues so did France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the US, some even after 1945. Furthermore, a liberal monarchy took Italy to war in 1915, a conflict that arguably had more deaths proportionately than the Second World War. So should Mussolini deserve so much criticism? Is it perhaps because of his relationship with Hitler and Nazi Germany, his actions towards the Holocaust (7000 Italian Jews were killed), or that Italy lost the Second World War? Finally, Mussolini has something in common with Mao, Lenin, and Stalin – they continue to be revered by some modern-day citizens of the country they led.
- However, the key historian in the debate about how Mussolini conducted his foreign policy was De Felice (a revisionist theory of the 1980s). His conclusions are similar to Bosworth although argued them several years earlier in 1974. De Felice had an excellent reputation in Italy but his conclusions led to criticism that he was a fascist and supported Mussolini. The ensuing debate is similar to the Fischer controversy in Germany. However, De Felice did explain that the dictator was not aggressive in the 1920s, he waited until the 1930s (Abyssinia 1935, Spanish Civil War 1936-39, Rome-Berlin Axis 1936) possibly because he saw no future in acquiring European land.
- However, in his 2002 book, Mussolini, Bosworth added that the dictator could manipulate most people and kept power by doing so. Furthermore, he was much less in control of his country than Hitler was in Germany. Italian people ignored his protestations of totalitarianism.
- AJP Taylor and Denis Mack Smith, two prominent British post-Second World War historians, argued that Mussolini agreed with Salvemini in that Mussolini was opportunistic and his foreign policies were improvised. In fact, Mack Smith argues that Mussolini only signed the Rome-Berlin Axis to deter western rivals, he did not aspire to any grand fascist plan. Moreover, he only went to war in 1940 when he realised he could not reach an agreement with Britain and France and maintain his alliance with Germany.
- But Stephen Corrado Azzi argues that the 1960s and 1970s (new documents had been available by the Italian government) saw a change from this perspective, Mussolini conducted foreign policy as part of a great plan – imperialism in Africa and expansion in the Mediterranean. For example, Alan Cassey in 1970 argued that the aggressive 1930s policies were begun in the 1920s, Fiume and Corfu. However, Mussolini did not go further because his foreign policy advisors kept him in check.
- Azzi concludes by explaining Mussolini’s foreign policy was a combination of his plans and opportunism. Italy was not strong enough to influence Europe but did have territorial ambitions because of its history. But by arguing Mussolini was merely an opportunist is to judge every other statesman this way too. None can completely take control of international events.
- Finally, John Gooch (his lectures are at the bottom of this page) argues that Mussolini was thinking of using force in the 1920s far more than he did (against France and Yugoslavia). One of his key aims was to keep France and Germany separate, this failed when the Locarno Pact was signed under Stresemann. But Mussolini was hopeful that Germany would return to war in the 1930s to rectify the problems of Versailles and the First World War. He would buy time by appearing friendly and conciliatory towards the Europeans and then take advantage of the situation himself. In this, he disagrees with Denis Mack Smith and AJP Taylor but agrees with Azzi and arguably Bosworth.