Why did Mussolini show deference to the king of Italy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gideon
- Start date
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Gideon...
Its arguable that deference was given by King and Mussolini in equal measures. Italy was a complex phenomenon with Mussolini as head of Fascism which, although popular at the time left large sections of italy which, were not in full support of fascism and thus were represented by the King.
I think deference may have come from the fact that at heart Mussolini was a republican and it also gave historical and constitutional legitimacy to the fascist takeover in 1922.
The king remained popular and closely linked with the victory over Austria-Hungary and if there had ever been a serious problem between the two at the time IMO would have seen the end of Mussolini as his respect for the monarch and the fact that the Army and Navy remained loyal to the monarch.
The king was also not a dynamic personality or leader and was rather docile in his dealing with the somewhat enigmatic Mussolini. Fascist italy was somewhat unique IMO as it remained a dyarchy a somewhat schizophrenic mix between the old monarchy and traditions and the new Fascism and its modern ways. This is why there were portraits of both in all state buildings.
If one recalls the visit of Hitler in 1938 it was the King who rode in the state cars with Hitler and not Mussolini. At the end the King actioned the death blow to fascism but, IMO hashed the armistice with the allied powers in 1943 and, this IMO was the end of the monarchy which was abolished by popular vote in 1946
The complexity of italy, never seen before or since IMO, was also further complicated by the 'block of consensus' between fascism, the king and the pope. Mussolini did see alliance with Hitler and war with the western allies as his way of somehow breaking the control and breaking free from this block but, for all his intelligence and political savvy he failed to fully revolutinize italy to deminish the power of the two other institutions.
Fascism in Italy IMO was always on shaky ground and thus deference had to be given by Mussolini though, his upbringing may have actually made this easier and something he thought was necessary. Had the King been a stronger character and greater influence from the Pope arguably could have ended Fascism in italy before it started but, thats another question.
Mitch
Its arguable that deference was given by King and Mussolini in equal measures. Italy was a complex phenomenon with Mussolini as head of Fascism which, although popular at the time left large sections of italy which, were not in full support of fascism and thus were represented by the King.
I think deference may have come from the fact that at heart Mussolini was a republican and it also gave historical and constitutional legitimacy to the fascist takeover in 1922.
The king remained popular and closely linked with the victory over Austria-Hungary and if there had ever been a serious problem between the two at the time IMO would have seen the end of Mussolini as his respect for the monarch and the fact that the Army and Navy remained loyal to the monarch.
The king was also not a dynamic personality or leader and was rather docile in his dealing with the somewhat enigmatic Mussolini. Fascist italy was somewhat unique IMO as it remained a dyarchy a somewhat schizophrenic mix between the old monarchy and traditions and the new Fascism and its modern ways. This is why there were portraits of both in all state buildings.
If one recalls the visit of Hitler in 1938 it was the King who rode in the state cars with Hitler and not Mussolini. At the end the King actioned the death blow to fascism but, IMO hashed the armistice with the allied powers in 1943 and, this IMO was the end of the monarchy which was abolished by popular vote in 1946
The complexity of italy, never seen before or since IMO, was also further complicated by the 'block of consensus' between fascism, the king and the pope. Mussolini did see alliance with Hitler and war with the western allies as his way of somehow breaking the control and breaking free from this block but, for all his intelligence and political savvy he failed to fully revolutinize italy to deminish the power of the two other institutions.
Fascism in Italy IMO was always on shaky ground and thus deference had to be given by Mussolini though, his upbringing may have actually made this easier and something he thought was necessary. Had the King been a stronger character and greater influence from the Pope arguably could have ended Fascism in italy before it started but, thats another question.
Mitch
theBaron
Major
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10,361
The king was really more of a figurehead, wasn't he? I must also ask for clarification on characterizing Mussolini as a "republican", ie, a proponent of a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy), when really, he was a totalitarian statist. That is, he sought to implement a state in which there was no private sphere, whether in the economy or in the private lives of citizens, which is really antithetical to a republican democracy. He believed in a powerful, all-encompassing state, really from the beginning of his philosophical career, even as a Socialist. Wasn't it when he drifted from the Marxist idea of class transcending national borders to the ideal of a nation-based Socialism, in which each country may find its own version, that he was kicked out of the party and began to develop and pursue fascism? That's the main difference between his original ideology and the one he developed. The role of the state is still the same--everything within, and nothing without, the state.
Prost!
Brad
Prost!
Brad
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
I think as I mentioned that Italy was a complex phenomenon and my reading of Mussolini and his role has shown he was a republican at heart which, is why I stated it. It may seem a paradox to some but, I think for your own understanding of this you should address authors such as Alberto Acquarone et al. From my reading of this and several other authors work was more to do with his upbringing and family. I also thought Mussolini was expelled from the party in Oct 1914 for advocating rather strongly, italian intervention in the war???. He also, founded Fascism in 1919 but, due to his dubious socialist past, republicanism and anti- clericalism aided electoral defeat
Its also worthy to note as you have raised Fascism that, Italy was very different in terms of what is commonly understood as a fascist state. Italy was totally different to Germany for instance, the fascist german state was 'absolute' Hitler was the leader and was able to create a fascist state. Mussolini, however, due to the 'block of consensus' was limited in what he wanted to do and could do. Quite simply, without approval there would have been no fascism in italy.
The 'block of consensus' also restrained the power of Mussolini Yes, as a mark of humiliation and revenge he removed some of the Monarchs powers after being refused to ride with Hitler in the visit to Italy (mentioned in another post) but, his power was very limited in comparison with Hitler and Stalin. He was head only of the government (like a prime minister) not the state absolute. so, it was not like Germany or russia. The Werhmacht, after the death of Hindenburg swore an oath to Hitler so, IMO italy was not a true fascist or totalitarian state like Germany and Russia (russia, only a totalitarian state, germany both).
Mitch
Its also worthy to note as you have raised Fascism that, Italy was very different in terms of what is commonly understood as a fascist state. Italy was totally different to Germany for instance, the fascist german state was 'absolute' Hitler was the leader and was able to create a fascist state. Mussolini, however, due to the 'block of consensus' was limited in what he wanted to do and could do. Quite simply, without approval there would have been no fascism in italy.
The 'block of consensus' also restrained the power of Mussolini Yes, as a mark of humiliation and revenge he removed some of the Monarchs powers after being refused to ride with Hitler in the visit to Italy (mentioned in another post) but, his power was very limited in comparison with Hitler and Stalin. He was head only of the government (like a prime minister) not the state absolute. so, it was not like Germany or russia. The Werhmacht, after the death of Hindenburg swore an oath to Hitler so, IMO italy was not a true fascist or totalitarian state like Germany and Russia (russia, only a totalitarian state, germany both).
Mitch
Last edited:
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
perhaps in the modern sense of the Italian nation- and even then, imo, that statement would be somewhat of a stretch. Italy has historically been a hotbed for all sorts of political models- Rome?? etc
Cheers
CC
theBaron
Major
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10,361
Mitch, I recommend to you Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", for its discussion of the phenomenon of fascism and its manifestations in various countries. One point that he makes is that where fascist ideas took root, they produced slightly different variations, depending on local conditions. It's a new model for looking at the movement and placing it among other political philosophies that have emerged from the Western philosophical tree. The various forms of Marxism and its descendants actually agree on enough questions that it's more accurate to say that they represent related animals, in much the same way that the cats are all related to one another, that they share the same basic design.
I'll concede the details on Mussolini's break with the party, I have to go back and re-read his history, though it still shows that his break was because of an abandonment of the internationalist ideal, in my opinion. He was on the path to the ideal of a national state that enclosed all aspects of society. Granted, he may not have achieved the same level of totalitarianism that the Nazis did in Germany, or the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, and their satellites, but that may lie with the character of the various branches of the Italian people that were gathered into the national state in the Risorgimento. I agree with you, his power was based much more on the consent of the people, not in our English Enlightenment sense, that there were free elections, but that they didn't rise up and remove him, until he had made his bad choices and led the country into a disaster.
Congratulations, too, on a great topic for discussion! It's a good counterfactual to think about what might have happened if Mussolini hadn't actively participated in the war. Could he have lasted, as Franco did, in a neutrality benevolent to Germany and serve as a counter-weight to the Allies?
Prost!
Brad
I'll concede the details on Mussolini's break with the party, I have to go back and re-read his history, though it still shows that his break was because of an abandonment of the internationalist ideal, in my opinion. He was on the path to the ideal of a national state that enclosed all aspects of society. Granted, he may not have achieved the same level of totalitarianism that the Nazis did in Germany, or the Communists in the Soviet Union, China, and their satellites, but that may lie with the character of the various branches of the Italian people that were gathered into the national state in the Risorgimento. I agree with you, his power was based much more on the consent of the people, not in our English Enlightenment sense, that there were free elections, but that they didn't rise up and remove him, until he had made his bad choices and led the country into a disaster.
Congratulations, too, on a great topic for discussion! It's a good counterfactual to think about what might have happened if Mussolini hadn't actively participated in the war. Could he have lasted, as Franco did, in a neutrality benevolent to Germany and serve as a counter-weight to the Allies?
Prost!
Brad
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Brad..
I have read the book. I did not however, think it was very good IMO it was very flawed IMO and, hardly produced startling or groundbreaking conclusions.
I thought on its release it may be good but, its not rocket science to discuss or attempt to reveal, that there was more to fascism than oppression, genocide and bigotry!!! and, that there were differences in german and Italian fascism (some of which we have discussed earlier and has been around as a theory for many years) or, that in the political and social atmosphere of the time that Fascism offered something 'new' looking or seemingly progressive.
I think Goldberg jumped from Rousseau to Hitler and Mussolini to Bush and everyone and their dog in between to hold his argument and it failed IMO
I think once one strips away the rather idiotic appearance popular history holds on Mussolini its arguable with some conviction that he could have held power for quite some time like Franco et al he was not without political intelligence.
I think we should thank Gideon for asking the question which allowed this discussion to progress
Mitch
I have read the book. I did not however, think it was very good IMO it was very flawed IMO and, hardly produced startling or groundbreaking conclusions.
I thought on its release it may be good but, its not rocket science to discuss or attempt to reveal, that there was more to fascism than oppression, genocide and bigotry!!! and, that there were differences in german and Italian fascism (some of which we have discussed earlier and has been around as a theory for many years) or, that in the political and social atmosphere of the time that Fascism offered something 'new' looking or seemingly progressive.
I think Goldberg jumped from Rousseau to Hitler and Mussolini to Bush and everyone and their dog in between to hold his argument and it failed IMO
I think once one strips away the rather idiotic appearance popular history holds on Mussolini its arguable with some conviction that he could have held power for quite some time like Franco et al he was not without political intelligence.
I think we should thank Gideon for asking the question which allowed this discussion to progress
Mitch
Scott
Major
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,058
theBaron
Major
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10,361
I haven't tracked down the sources myself, in reading and re-reading "Liberal Fascism", but I will have to go back now and analyze the extensive notes Goldberg includes in his book.
However, the central theme of the book, and one which the HNN reviewer doesn't really address, is that the traditional model of left/right in describing modern political movements is not accurate, especially when it associates American conservatism with fascism, when the intellectual roots of American conservatism are rooted in the English Enlightenment, whereas fascism's roots go back to Continental philosophers, and that there are more resemblances than differences between the ideologies traditionally labelled as fascist, and those lumped together under Marxism.
The main test to indentify these relationships is in their respective roles for the state and the individual. The ideal we inherit from our English philosophical forbears is that the individual is the focus, and the state exists to serve him. The fascist ideal is the other way 'round. The state is supreme over the individual. Now, after that distinction, we can certain differentiate between various fascisms as they arose around the world. Italian, Japanese and German fascism defined the state as a community based on ethnicity, while Marxists replace ethnicity with economic class. But as I think I said before, it's useful to think of these philosophies as we would animals, when it comes to classifying them. Fascism is a genus, and the various forms are species. But fascism is a different genus from the genra that arose from the English Enlightenment. For me, Goldberg's model is the most important point of the book. I agree that it is more accurate than the "left/right" model traditional to academics for so long.
Prost!
Brad
However, the central theme of the book, and one which the HNN reviewer doesn't really address, is that the traditional model of left/right in describing modern political movements is not accurate, especially when it associates American conservatism with fascism, when the intellectual roots of American conservatism are rooted in the English Enlightenment, whereas fascism's roots go back to Continental philosophers, and that there are more resemblances than differences between the ideologies traditionally labelled as fascist, and those lumped together under Marxism.
The main test to indentify these relationships is in their respective roles for the state and the individual. The ideal we inherit from our English philosophical forbears is that the individual is the focus, and the state exists to serve him. The fascist ideal is the other way 'round. The state is supreme over the individual. Now, after that distinction, we can certain differentiate between various fascisms as they arose around the world. Italian, Japanese and German fascism defined the state as a community based on ethnicity, while Marxists replace ethnicity with economic class. But as I think I said before, it's useful to think of these philosophies as we would animals, when it comes to classifying them. Fascism is a genus, and the various forms are species. But fascism is a different genus from the genra that arose from the English Enlightenment. For me, Goldberg's model is the most important point of the book. I agree that it is more accurate than the "left/right" model traditional to academics for so long.
Prost!
Brad