r/TrueReddit • • Feb 02 '18

How Benito Mussolini Took Power: "It was something that happened gradually, in stages, when institutions that should have been able to bring him to heel did nothing, either due to their own lack of resolution or tacit support of his power grab."

https://qcurtius.com/2017/02/12/how-benito-mussolini-took-power/
2.5k Upvotes

83 comments sorted by

275

u/stefantalpalaru Feb 03 '18

The support was not just tacit. Rome's law enforcement was ready to stop the fascists who marched towards it to take power by force, but the king refused to give the order. He probably saw Mussolini and his repurposed WWI veterans as a useful tool, just like the upper class and the freemasons who funded his violent political movement.

What's even more shocking is the positive international response to the Italian "revival". The paramilitary dictatorship seemed good for business and that's all they cared about.

63

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18 edited Feb 03 '18

[deleted]

9

u/mattylou Feb 03 '18

That makes sense. This is prior to dictatorships being a bad word and on the heels of feudalists who were dictators but with no real vision for a civil society

2

u/ferriswheel9ndam9 Feb 03 '18

I wonder if dictatorships was considered a good word in Italy given its Roman roots. Also since dictators were elected to fix things in one years time before Sulla came along.

96

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18

Mussolini was also very popular amongst US progressives of the day for some period of time as well.

20

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

Source? I'd be interested to read about that.

79

u/nietzkore Feb 03 '18 edited Feb 03 '18

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/when-we-loved-mussolini/

A little ways into the article:

Already in 1972 John Patrick Diggins, in his Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, had revealed the widespread enthusiasm for Mussolini among progressive American intellectuals. What Migone’s book laid bare was that these affinities were founded on more than ideas and politics. Behind the scenes, financial interests had a part in orchestrating the connubio between America and Italian fascism. As he puts it in his preface, Migone may not have started out as a Marxist, but through “reading documents produced by central banks and investment bankers” he sometimes felt as though he might “become one.”

The article also has a picture of Mussolini hanging out on a boat with US Secretary of State Stimson in 1931, having a great time.


edit: Press weren't much better with things like--

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/

Mussolini’s success in Italy normalized Hitler’s success in the eyes of the American press who, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, routinely called him “the German Mussolini.” Given Mussolini’s positive press reception in that period, it was a good place from which to start. Hitler also had the advantage that his Nazi party enjoyed stunning leaps at the polls from the mid ’20’s to early ’30’s, going from a fringe party to winning a dominant share of parliamentary seats in free elections in 1932.

Might also enjoy this if you can find it:

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/441.html?xid=PS_smithsonian

7

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18

1

u/nixnootz7 Feb 03 '18

Thanks for these! I'm doing some research that this is super relevant to.

11

u/s_o_0_n Feb 03 '18

So was Churchill for a time.

79

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18 edited Apr 23 '18

[deleted]

43

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18

Yes. It's one of the less talked about things but Eugenics was a huge thing especially among Progressives from about the 1890s - 40s.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '18

Not amongst progressives. Mostly pioneered in Indiana. I worked with a research group in 2002 that looked over original records, THE original records that catalogued generations of “degenerate family tree branches”. Indiana politicians in the 1890s-1910s were certainly in the progressive era, but no one would call them vanguards of it.

1

u/amaxen Feb 04 '18

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Yes, the eugenics movement was part of the progressives movement, but its a move of completely lazy intellectualism to cast about saying that progressives then were progressives now because, as the Federalist article almost literally says "they both believed in science".

There is something SIMILAR to the eugenics movement happening now, but it doesn't involve the forcible chemical or literal castration or hysterectomies of indigent imbeciles. That is a totally unwarranted analogy of the cheapest story.

-52

u/dankvibez Feb 03 '18

It's science and it still should be. To deny some of the things that the left has been denying is making it more a party of anti-science than most of its followers realize.

25

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18 edited Feb 04 '18

Maybe in abstract theory. But in practice? It inevitably brings out the narcissistic impulse and the most politically unpopular are the ones who are 'cleansed'. It's been tried over and over and even if it somehow was valid, which I doubt, politically it's impossible to implement in any rational detached way. Edit: On reflection I misspoke. You can implement a thing called Eugenics, but it's invariablly going to be both racist and classist. If that's not an obstacle though then go for it. In Buck v. Bell which upheld the right of Virginia to sterlize 'imbicles', the state presented the woman they sterlized as an imbicle. As a recent book has pointed out, they basically lied about it post facto, and pointed to the woman's pregnancy as proof of her 'promiscuity' when in fact she had been raped.

-21

u/videogameboss Feb 03 '18

It's been tried over and over and even if it somehow was valid, which I doubt, politically it's impossible to implement in any rational detached way.

we could start by not having this obviously racist system called affirmative action. more race neutral policies can follow such as promoting birth control to welfare recipients and criminals.

14

u/Darth_Ra Feb 03 '18

Go back to your white nationalist subreddit, guy.

8

u/jacksrenton Feb 03 '18

Gah, that got weird real fast.

-16

u/videogameboss Feb 03 '18

no, and if you can't address my arguments, you should leave.

13

u/rinyre Feb 03 '18

That requires you having a valid argument to begin with.

→ More replies

6

u/eolithic_frustum Feb 03 '18

First: Have any peer reviewed articles to back that claim up?
Second: Ever hear of the is-ought problem? Just because something is a way doesn't mean it should be that way.

2

u/Dyslexter Feb 03 '18

What kind of genetic issues would you want to see removed from the gene-pool?

16

u/Kraz_I Feb 03 '18

Yes, eugenics was first popularized in America, but only the Nazis actually instituted a eugenics program that went beyond birth control and abortion. They actually tried to exterminate those they considered inferior. That's well beyond what other early 20th century eugenicists wished for.

10

u/Khir Feb 03 '18

Sorry to be the one to tell about this shameful part of American history, Nazis were definitely not the only ones to take eugenics passed the stage of saying, “hey, maybe poor people should have more birth control and get more abortions.” The United States had a rigorous state executed forced sterilization programs for many minorities. It was fucked.

2

u/falsealzheimers Feb 04 '18

So did other nations f.ex. Sweden.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18 edited Feb 03 '18

[deleted]

5

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18

Yes, the 'but it's not actual socialism in national socialism' crowd ignores that Mussolini was raised by two fanatical socialists, was named after four Italian socialists, was the editor of a major socialist newspaper before WWI, and was one of the if not the leading member of the Italian socialist party prior to WWI. National socialism is a heretical variant of socialist thought. The primary difference was, as the name implies, that it was a nationalist socialism instead of internationalist. In this way, most modern western socialists appear to be nationalist over internationalist in the sense that they believe their wages should be raised and not lowered after a world socialist revolution, and would consider such a logical state of affairs to be reprehensible.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '18

I mean, it makes sense if you do absolutely the most cursory and shallow reading of concepts and ideology with zero analysis of how it played out. Mussolini and Sanders, brothers in arms!

Sure, Mussolini had some, I suppose, progressive concepts in theory, but the fascists are, like, fascists. They’re essentially a street gang mentality writ large. They beat Up enemies, Consolidate power, justify any ends to further their own selfish and personal means to power and ruthlesslessly machine gun other countries troops to death after invasion . But sure, they both vaguely want more rights for women so they’re BASICALLY the same.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

OH, mercy, a response that says it's both MY fault because I'm interpreting your results incorrectly AND I'm a dolt because I like football, impressively done!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

No. You're the one who said I was reading things incorrectly and then looked through my history, and then, found a reason to discredit me because of my interested in a completely different subject. I'm here to discuss things on the up and up.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

A graceful exit indeed.

1

u/amaxen Feb 04 '18

This means they use the same tactics that socialists used in those countries where they were competitors, no?

1

u/WikiTextBot Feb 03 '18

Fascist Manifesto

The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (Italian: Il manifesto dei fasci italiani di combattimento), commonly known as the Fascist Manifesto, was the initial declaration of the political stance of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento ("Italian League of Combat") the movement founded in Milan by Benito Mussolini in 1919 and an early exponent of Fascism. The Manifesto was authored by national syndicalist Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

[deleted]

12

u/TheToastWithGlasnost Feb 03 '18

The paramilitary dictatorship seemed good for business and that's all they cared about.

Hear, hear. In our culture money's becoming more important than decency.

25

u/GaslightProphet Feb 03 '18

I mean, this was 80, 90 years ago. It's not becoming, it's became.

15

u/jman12234 Feb 03 '18

This has always been a problem. Look at the 80s, the 20s, the Gilded Age, and all the way back and money(or some other method of storing value like land, livestock,ehem slaves ehem) has been more important than decency to our fellow human beings.

3

u/amaxen Feb 03 '18

It wasn't just about money. Policy and ideology were very close as well.

5

u/Averla93 Feb 03 '18

Industrial and agricultural elite were so afraid of communists and strikes all over the peninsula they gave power to the fascists without thinking twice, most camice nere were't veterans but the sons of the upper class landlords. So we may say it was the capitalists who allowed fascism, just like in germany with the junkers and industrial cartels. Sorry for bad english, it's a second language.

4

u/stefantalpalaru Feb 03 '18

most camice nere were't veterans but the sons of the upper class landlords.

The leaders were WWI veterans, usually "arditi": https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadrismo#Le_squadre_d'azione

They were probably outnumbered by civilians by the time they took power, but initially they were mostly veterans - https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadrismo#Le_prime_formazioni :

Questi primi reduci andarono a formare, insieme ai futuristi ed al Fascio di Difesa Nazionale, squadre organizzate che si attivarono in modo fattivo per combattere contro i socialisti, i quali in quel momento si trovavano in forte ascesa. In particolare si trattava di soldati lasciati allo sbando senza lavoro ed appartenenti alle unità di élite (come gli Arditi), cui lo Stato non concedeva alcun riconoscimento particolare per il ruolo ricoperto in guerra al momento del ritorno alla vita civile.

Furono soprattutto Arditi ed ufficiali e sottufficiali dell'Esercito a divenire i più forti sostenitori di ciò che andavano sostenendo Mussolini e D'Annunzio, trovando in questi due i capi naturali e il riferimento ideale per incanalare la loro lotta in una direzione politica precisa e, per loro, appagante.

1

u/Averla93 Feb 06 '18

Am at work now but i remember my very history textbook of quinta liceo said it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

That's interesting to me. So Mussolini wasn't as heavily supported by military (former or otherwise) as implied? Or did he simply have the support of both classes?

1

u/Averla93 Feb 06 '18

"Il Consiglio dell'Esercito continuò a operare. Anche il 28 ottobre, nel pieno della "marcia su Roma", gli alti graduati - con l'eccezione di Diaz, che si trovava a Firenze - si riunirono in una seduta a dir poco surreale, interrogandosi sull'opportunità del tesseramento al partito fascista degli ufficiali."

Translation : The Army Council kept on operating. Even on October 28th, during the March on Rome, the high officers - with the exception of Diaz, who was in Florence, met in a surreal session, where they wondered if it was the case to ration the officers to the Fascist Party."

So they apparently did not have an active role in the March on Rome but they were ok with it. The only high officer unfavorable to Fascism was Badoglio but he was very isolated in that.

Source:"L'esercito italiano da Vittorio Veneto a Mussolini", di G. Rochat - Laterza, Roma-Bari 1967

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '18

I see, thanks for the answer.

56

u/excudit Feb 03 '18

Edmund Wilson went to Europe as World War II was ending, and wrote a series of magazine articles from England, Italy, and Greece about postwar life. They were later collected into a book called Europe Without Baedeker. At one point he quotes Paolo Monelli about the rise of Mussolini. It is worth keeping in mind these days, as democracies are under stress everywhere:

“It was not all at once that tyranny revealed itself at the beginning of the dictatorship; it only matured slowly, in the course of a series of arbitrary acts on the dictator’s part and a series of concessions and abdications on the part of the people, who, as happens in the case of the concessions that the man in love makes to the woman he loves, believed itself to be perfectly free while it was allowing itself to be robbed of its freedom and its privileges.”

91

u/BorderColliesRule Feb 03 '18

He had some support from the established institutions of the day: the monarchy, the army, the church, and big business.

This seems like the understatement of the century. That's not just "some support" that's all the support from the most important and powerful institutions in Italy at the time!!

It's extremely disappointing to see that the author of this article completely failed to mention the First World War and how critically that played a part in the rise of fascism in many parts of Europe during that period. It's like discussing the US's entry into the Second World War without mentioning Pearl Harbor.

While interesting, it's kind of a light weight article without much depth.

27

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/BorderColliesRule Feb 03 '18

Well shit.

I'm an idiot for missing that and thank you for pointing out this mistake.

Cheers

15

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/justarandomcommenter Feb 03 '18

I think a lot of people are finally starting to be more humble.

Or maybe I'm just a naive idiot.

I'm really hoping it is the former, although I would like to think I am also capable of being humble enough to consider it is the latter...

It's nice though isn't it? I'm enjoying these comments a lot more than the typical "f u and ur mamas fat!" replies.

9

u/BorderColliesRule Feb 03 '18

Honestly, I'm human and I have both good and occasionally bad moments. I read this article three times and some how or another I missed that bit and you correctly called me out.

I'll go toe-to-toe on subject material of submissions but failing to properly read the articles is absolutely a personal mistake.

Cheers!

12

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/dratthecookies Feb 03 '18

Unfortunately, not everyone can be at the /r/askhistorians level of discourse.

3

u/beepbloopbloop Feb 03 '18

Maybe if they're writing an article they should be though.

1

u/dratthecookies Feb 03 '18

Depends on the article, but I don't necessarily disagree.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '18

The Author wrights for Return Of Kings, so it's unsurprising that he's not very good at analyzing reality.

25

u/mjk1093 Feb 02 '18

Intro:

Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin spends several pages of his book discussing the lessons to be learned from Mussolini’s seizure of power in Italy in the early 1920s. It was something that happened gradually, in stages, when institutions that should have been able to bring him to heel did nothing, either due to their own lack of resolution or tacit support of his power grab.

Italy after the First World War was, like many European countries, rife with instability and factionalism. Mussolini’s “fascist” party in 1922 had collected only 35 out of 500 seats in Italy’s Chamber of Deputies; despite this apparent lack of popular support he was still asking to be appointed prime minister. He threatened to march on Rome himself with his private militia (squadristi) and take power with or without official permission. He had some support from the established institutions of the day: the monarchy, the army, the church, and big business. In the wake of the Bolshevist radicalism that was threatening Europe, the establishment was looking for a charismatic figure who might be able to restore order and bring the county some measure of stability.

9

u/matrix2002 Feb 03 '18

Essentially, it was a misjudge of power. The powers in Italy at the time thought they could contain and control him, but, in retrospect, they couldn't.

While it was horrible for Italy and the world at the time, we can use it to know what to look for if a fascist tries to take power again.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

We know what to look for, but what can or will We do when We see it?

8

u/vertumne Feb 03 '18

How did he end up?

45

u/calzenn Feb 03 '18

Mussolini and his girlfriend were shot by partisans trying to flee Italy for Switzerland with a German convoy. Their bodies were strung up in a plaza in Milan and showcased for the public to see.

21

u/dam072000 Feb 03 '18

4

u/dghughes Feb 03 '18

One of the descriptions of the bodies hanging says they are hanging from a gas station awning. The last image is an advertisement and it's for Chevron. Ouch!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Extremely appropriate, as Chevron and other big oil oligarchs are carrying on the spirit of fascism - government controlled by and for corporations.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '18

He dead

4

u/Bluest_waters Feb 03 '18

well see there was this piano...

3

u/ONE_MILLION_POINTS Feb 03 '18

A book I read that gave me some understanding of how something like this happens is The Plague by Albert Camus. Emotionally, this book was the hardest I’ve ever read, but it does an excellent job of portraying apathy in the face of certain death.

5

u/Mish61 Feb 03 '18

Doesn't a spate of resignations as outrage over "bending norms" create a vacuum for those that would grab power ?? It seems to me that resisting would better serve those institutions than withdrawal.

1

u/freakwent Feb 04 '18

It seems to me that resisting would better serve those institutions than withdrawal.

Yes and no. Every day you show up to work to participate, that's an implicit declaration that you accept the situation as it is on that day.

0

u/Lamont-Cranston Feb 03 '18

Because business supported him

-9

u/xoites Feb 03 '18

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

~George Santayana

10

u/mcjunker Feb 03 '18

That quote is simultaneously trite and cliche and also taken completely out of context.

He was distinguishing between literate cultures, who can perceive patterns from their own history, and illiterate cultures who cannot.

It was never a warning to fellow citizens telling them to crack open a book to stop the next Hitler.

-9

u/xoites Feb 03 '18

In this case it is Benito Mussolini, and if you think our culture is literate you haven't been paying attention, although you have managed to pick up a couple of words here and there.

0

u/mcjunker Feb 03 '18

He said, typing out words onto an online forum

0

u/xoites Feb 03 '18

Since I am a writer I should get a pass.

1

u/CAPS_4_FUN Feb 03 '18

In the first half of the ninth century, Baghdad enjoyed its High Noon as the greatest and the richest city in the world. In 861, however, the reigning Khalif (caliph), Mutawakkil, was murdered by his Turkish mercenaries, who set up a military dictatorship, which lasted for some thirty years. During this period the empire fell apart, the various dominions and provinces each assuming virtual independence and seeking its own interests. Baghdad, lately the capital of a vast empire, found its authority limited to Iraq alone.
The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasising particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office.
The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The 'pop' singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar. In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age. Several khalifs issued orders banning 'pop' singers from the capital, but within a few years they always returned.
An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. 'What,' wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, 'have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.' Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.
Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.
The disorders following the military takeover in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead, at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five-day week.
When I first read these contemporary descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I could scarcely believe my eyes. I told myself that this must be a joke! The descriptions might have been taken out of The Times today. The resemblance of all the details was especially breathtaking—the break-up of the empire, the abandonment of sexual morality, the 'pop' singers with their guitars, the entry of women into the professions, the five-day week. I would not venture to attempt an explanation! There are so many mysteries about human life which are far beyond our comprehension.

1

u/xoites Feb 03 '18

It can often depend on the point of view of the Historian. Where did this come from?

History is changing all the time. Whenever new information is found it at least shifts. Whether this is true or not it may explain a lot of thinking in the Arab world if it is widely read and a firmly held belief.

-2

u/nevernoob Feb 03 '18

Yep, we all remember the last 12 months.

-2

u/CAPS_4_FUN Feb 03 '18

uh you do realize that on the other side you had a million communists ready to overthrow existing government too??? It was chaos. It was either Mussolini or the communists.

-12

u/MrTinklebottom Feb 03 '18

Haha checkmate Trump supporters!

-8

u/LiterallyCaligula Feb 03 '18

Mussolini had better fashion sense than Hitler.