Ep 6. Mussolini Pt I. Exploring the Undervalued Ties Between Mussolini and Hitler Pre WWII

You can listen to this episode by pressing play above. Or to listen to this episode on your preferred podcast app head to https://remedialpolymath.podbean.com/ and click on your apps icon.

Introduction

Greetings, salutations, and – just maybe – hello (depending on how you feel today).

Welcome to Remedial Polymath. If this isn’t your first time, welcome back; if it is, you might have just found your 4th favorite podcast.

After the last two exhaustive episodes, in which we examined the painful state of fishing, seafood, and the oceans in our today and now, it’s time for something a bit less miserable.

That being said, it’s not a “fun” topic. But I believe it isn’t as depressing because at least it isn’t a scary issue of the present moment. We shall instead peer into the past. It isn’t a history that is scary as much as it is – well – unusually hair-raisingly perilous on a global scale…? Maybe that’s a better term. At least, that’s how many people must have felt at the time.

And probably still should if history does indeed rhyme, as Mark Twain opined.

But we have not gathered today for that discussion. We’re here to examine a guy from the past whose name you probably know. But I doubt you could tell me much about him outside of some Jeopardy-level information – the cheap questions, mind you. Worry not; I am a self-proclaimed history nut who fancies himself well-versed on this time period, and I didn’t know too much either, just the highlights and maybe a sprinkling of some other “hey, did you know?” tidbits. There are probably reasons for this. More on that later…

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini.

I bet you recognize the last name. He was the Fascist prime minister of Italy from 1922 until 1943. He and his movement is what we’re going to inspect. Well, not just him. We’ll also discuss his bizarre similarity with, and effects upon, another guy whose last name I know you’ll recognize. And it won’t just be an examination of one man’s strange parallels and impact upon another man. Because this impact was an essential and oft-undiscussed ingredient that helped lead humans into the most horrific, haunting, and death-filled era we have ever created for one another.

Hmm. I might have to reconsider that whole non-miserable descriptive.

For this episode, we’ll take things up to WWII because everything takes a distinct turn after that conflict officially begins. That’ll be our next episode… And it will have more levity.

A short explication… part of the reason I initially hinted that this topic may be more upbeat, or at least less depressing, than the last is because I always found it fascinating how, when I learned about the demise of the Third Reich just how much this bald, gesticulating, little Italian fellow had really cost the Germans militarily (that was the “fun” part in my mind). He may have been some kind of macabre genius in getting himself into power and, after that expanding it, but when “the big one” started, he was a real useless pain in the ass. More than that, his hubristic idiocy truly helped the Allies win the war, specifically the USSR. But that incredible distraction, in turn, greatly assisted the US and Great Britain. I find that an overlooked and absorbing part of history. But as I researched and wrote, wrote and researched, I was drawn into other aspects of the pre-war story of these two people and their peoples, and how much Mussolini and Italy truly were the Mediterranean version of the rise to power of another gesticulating, undersized Fascist and his buddies. Except the Italian version happened before the Aryan one. Their stories were so similar, and one’s effect on the other so distinct (and, again, undiscussed) that I had to split this topic into two episodes. Trying to weave all this information, which is worthy of conveying, to back a single thesis seemed unproductive, if even achievable.

Why is this topic interesting? For a few reasons, really. One, we all like to imagine we know the basics of how this war and its main antagonist, Hitler, came to be. Two, we like to think we understand Italy’s involvement in the pre-war years, i.e., it wasn’t that important. They were “bad guys lite,” just like Romania and Hungary would become. They were second fiddle in the Fascist world. Third, it’s interesting because the first two points I just laid out are wonderfully incorrect understandings of the past, even for those who consider themselves somewhat decent understanders of the most significant – and most extensive – war ever to grace our planet.

What is also interesting is how much Mussolini and Italy get some kind of historical pass. Amnesia might be a better word. Why aren’t the exploits of Benito and his influence on another important regime discussed more (a regime that is talked about to no end)? We shall explore.

While they had their differences in what they thought Fascism should be, it is simply outright bizarre how much Benito and Adolf had in common and how much Benito paved the road for his eventually-more-powerful political brethren from the north to follow. Once the facts are examined, it becomes clear that the history of the Nazis would be very different had Mussolini not outlined this path for them to take, outlined what was possible, and how to get away with it all. The Nazis were not the wicked single-off abnormality we seem to remember them as. It is ridiculous how little we collectively comprehend and reflect upon this. What does that say about us? It truly is worth analyzing and understanding.

Welcome to episode 6 of Remedial Polymath and part one of our exploration of Benito Mussolini.

Let’s move forward.

Andiamo avanti.

———————–

Italy in World War One

Like most things involving WWII, it is best to start with WWI. We ought to review and explain Itay’s overall involvement in that conflict first. We will just have a refresher to remember the larger points so that we can focus on the little ones in a better light. How Italy found itself in both conflicts and on which side they decided to throw their lot in with is peculiar. With the right eyes, it is almost comical, if one can forget that these are World Wars we’re discussing.

The Great War. The War To End All Wars. The War of the Nations.

The First World War began in July of 1914. At that time, prior to things kicking off, Italy was a partner in the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. However, they decided to remain neutral when the kinetic conflict began. How a nation joins an alliance before a massive brawl but opts to sit things out when the actual fighting begins is beyond me. It reminds me of a joke I once heard concerning people fighting and uniforms… I can’t remember the rest.

Regardless, the Italian public and political factions within it eventually felt they should join the fight. They didn’t like sitting out this “great” war and were confused by their alliance with Austria-Hungary, their historical enemy. Plus, they were excited by the possibility of expanding their country by obtaining more land for themselves in the Alps and the Adriatic Sea, claiming these areas should be theirs because the people within them were primarily Italian speakers (Vladimir Putin is a current admirer of such language-based arguments for conquering and violence). If anything is certain, European nations, throughout their lengthy histories, often had their eyes on expansion and weren’t afraid to realize that desire through brutality. This war was no different, even if the barbarity was. America held the same desire throughout its history; do not doubt that; it just frequently came through negotiation (thank you, Napoleon and Tsar Alexander II). When it came to war to settle the issue, which it often did, the Americans’ conflicts were orders of magnitude smaller. Not to mention, the American time frame is a couple orders of magnitudes shorter, so there have been a whole lot fewer of these expansionary conflicts.

I relate all that to express why Italy saw more sense in switching sides, their honor be damned. They decided to deviate from their promises officially (or not officially, you could say) in a secret pact with Great Britain and France in 1915 called the Pact of London, in which they were promised the frontier lands just mentioned. So Italy, interestingly enough, turned its back on Germany in WWI in secret. What’s also interesting is how few people know this. Ask those around you about the history of Italy’s involvement in WWI. I doubt you’ll get many correct answers, especially in America (as to why Germany didn’t hold this against them later, with all of this European whining about the past to excuse your present actions, I am not sure anyone has that answer).

But of course, the secrecy couldn’t last long; Germany would eventually realize what’s up. Another intriguing point is that Italy only had an army of less than 300,000 people at the war’s onset. It would subsequently balloon to over 5 million. Despite suffering 460,000 deaths and 955,000 injuries, their contributions seem slightly forgotten compared to the other nations in the war. Part of that probably stems from their switching sides, many military setbacks, and a general focus on the Western European powers (especially in the English-speaking world). It doesn’t help that the manner of their involvement in World War II takes precedence when looking backward in the current age because we just focus on the more significant and more recent conflict, and their switching of allegiances remains somewhat peculiar to us nowadays. But hey, maybe this information will be helpful when watching Jeopardy one day.

Now, it is time to examine our main characters. What follows is some of the information that convinced me I needed to separate this topic into two episodes, as there is oh, oh, so much we can talk about before we can speak of “The Good One.” And yes, that is actually a name used for WWII.

Enter: Benito Mussolini.

——————–

Mussolini and Hitler’s Early Experiences

The story of Mussolini is quite compelling. Even the early stuff is comparable to Hitler’s. And while he is only 6 years older, things just seem to have moved faster for him post-WWI. He also was never a failed art student. Nor was he imprisoned for a failed coup before coming to power. Although, should Benito have attempted to quickly rise to power through a failed drunken gathering at an Italian vineyard as Adolf did at his Munich Beer Hall Putsch, well, that’s just a movie I’d like to see. Hitler had a good bit of struggle after the war that Mussolini didn’t experience. This is part of the reason why Adolph’s timeline is a bit behind Benito’s. Although, to Adolf, that may have been a blessing more than a curse. For everyone else, it was most certainly a curse. Either way, they both did experience similar failures of the heart and mind after their challenging ventures in WWI.

When will we learn that the experience of war, as horrific and off-putting as it is to a man, only seems to assure more war for men in one way or another? That is not to say war isn’t necessary sometimes; it certainly is. It just seems to find a way to guarantee itself in the future through being allowed to exist in the present. The War To End All Wars, indeed.

Enough pontificating. Back to the odd warographies (yes, I made up that word and I like it).

Mussolini enlisted in the Italian Army in 1915. He fought as a sharpshooter and was a corporal. He became wounded and was discharged in 1917 due to his injury. As the war neared its close, Benito came home a devout anti-Socialist. Even though Italy was a part of the winning side in WWI, he still felt his country was gipped because he wanted more territorial expansion in the treaty and felt more should have been provided for his country’s eventual economic difficulties post-war. Basically, he thought that Socialism just did not adequately address the national unity and strength he felt Italy should have after this massive war that they were on the winning side of. He was furious. He desired something politically novel that emphasized authoritarianism and nationalism and was anti-the current political thinking of the day – namely socialism. He genuinely thought he had stumbled upon some kind of new political idea. The specifics of the political idea of the time may have changed; little else was a revolution. He thought it was. We can see now that the only thing untried was the name.

Let’s compare that WWI story to Adolf’s. Adolf enlisted in the German Army in 1915, within a year of Benito’s enlistment. He would serve in the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment and became a corporal as well. He was wounded, twice, and earned himself the Iron Cross (which readers about the Third Reich might recall was something he would never forget to sport in public as much as he could). Unlike Italy, Germany lost the war, and he – like many in his country – considered the Treaty of Versailles not only a mistake but a betrayal (mostly because few knew of the actual military situation on the ground except the generals who agreed to the treaty). Because of this, post-war, he believed strongly in extreme nationalism and anti-socialism. Of course, he also threw in vehement anti-Semitism because, in his twisted mind, Jews were somehow to blame for Germany’s loss and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He placed a lot of the blame on socialists as well. Hence after the war, he joined the political group he felt most aligned with, the German Worker’s Party (DAP), which would later become the National SocialistWorker’s Party (NSDAP), which we all know as the Nazis.

Isn’t it interesting that the word Socialist is in the name? It’s like some kind of sick ruse. Just as North Korea and Laos put ‘Democratic Republic’ in their country’s official names. Um, okay, guys…

Now, a whole lot of people enlisted to serve in WWI. Many of them were wounded as corporals, one imagines. I haven’t looked into it, but I doubt it’s a stretch to think those corporals came home pissed off at most everything, including how their countries handled things and the political structure of the day (apparently even those on the winning side). Yet, it tilts your head a bit when the warographies of the two primary European troublemakers of the next war of the worlds sound so similar.

While those parallels are interesting, they are not the similarity of experiences that matters most. Mussolini and Hitler both came home feeling an unfamiliar and gripping sensation that most didn’t return with, if any. Both felt that he was a man of fate with a set destiny to lead their country into greatness, a greatness that started with revenge for the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles.

There is no good answer as to why these men came home with such similar illusions of grandeur. Usually, corporals who held no positions of interest or power before a war don’t come home after minor roles in said war, one on the losing side and one on the winning, after injuries, thinking that providence had selected them to lead their people to greatness and were given some kind of divine hall pass to use mass violence in conquering and subjecting others in the fulfillment of this choosing from on high. Often, people come home scared and traumatized and never want to pick up a weapon for war again.

Maybe they didn’t see enough combat? But that’s doubtful. Maybe their injuries somehow influenced this? But that also doesn’t compute. Perhaps a lot of people came back like this, but we never heard from them? That makes more sense, so why did we hear from these two, why were they so successful? Because they yelled shit really well….?

Um…

Probably, it’s just fucking bizarre, and sad, and scary. They somehow accidentally were right and ready for their times and places.

Although no one would be ready for them.

———————-

Interesting & Important Anecdotes about Mussolini’s and Hitler’s War Experiences

Okay. Let us return to exploring Benito’s political story, which, as mentioned before, unfolded at a good clip faster than his hereafter hun homeboy (that’s Adolf, by the way; I figured it was worthy alliteration). Even before the war ended, Benito started advocating for a dictator to anyone who would listen. He believed the best thing for Italy was “a man who is ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep.” He believed this was the path to lifting the Italian population from their economic and political crisis. One has to assume this was also partly a side effect of his uber admiration of the Roman Empire, which once controlled a massive territory from his country’s capital. Soon after, he began giving public speeches suggesting he had himself in mind for this position. What happened is very interesting: early on, he gave a speech in Milan to people with all different sorts of political leanings relatively quickly post-war. But here’s the thing: they proved open to joining his nascent movement. In this speech, he outlined what kind of political system he was trying to create. I bet you can think of the name of this system.

You see, in the Roman Empire, some lictors (functionaries who would attend magistrates in public) would walk along with the dictator and other chief magistrates with a set of sticks all bound up into one larger object of sorts. The symbolism was that each stick was easily broken, but when bound up, it was very strong. These objects were called fasces. Mussolini liked this symbolism, so he called those in his fighting force fasci di combattimento (“fighting bands”). Hence, he – and us now – called this political movement Fascism, with the fasces as its symbol.

Don’t you just adore weird little anecdotes like that?

Of course, had the passage of time progressed differently, one could see socialists claiming the same representation for their movement, and I doubt many would object to the vague symbolization. But Socialism appeared first and went a different route symbolically. The Soviet Union put a hammer and sickle upon blood red for their movement/country. They apparently wanted the world to know they grow food – and make stuff as well – while possessing blood in their veins. I kid, but as I related earlier, it’s continually outlandish how political leaders come along and believe they have found themselves something novel or unique. Beware of that, history seems to tell us.

Hungry for another weird anecdote? Here you go. It seems that Mussolini – who, by the way, was an ardent Socialist pre-war, but that’s not this story – got his political start in 1917 after being discharged due to injury by working as a journalist. This was while the war was still happening yet after it became clear that Russia had to leave the conflict due to their own little internal altercation concerning Socialism (they descended into a civil war that would end the rule of the Tsar and put them on a path toward the USSR). In part because of that, Benito’s aim was to publish pro-war propaganda so that Italy would stay in the fight and not back out like the Russkies did. He wrote for Il Popolo d’Italia out of Milan. Apparently, he would also send Italian army Veterans to beat up those who wanted Italy out of the war. Unfortunately, this would prove to be a dry run for what he would do later with his Fascist blackshirt units (stay tuned for more on that). The Guardian (a prominent British publication) tells us that “He was also willing to send in the boys to ‘persuade’ peace protesters to stay home.”

So not only was this his foray into politics and persuading others on a large scale, but it seems it was also his first taste of using threats of violence – or actual violence – to put his fingers on the scale and help secure his aims. For this, he was paid £100 a week. The conversations aren’t perfect because it’s Italy, but that is roughly $11,000 a week in today’s money! Why relate this information in pounds, you ask? Because it was MI5 that hired him to do this. British intelligence, not wanting to lose Italy as a fighting ally in the war, were the ones who initially fanned the flames of the political fire under Mussolini that would eventually become a partisan firestorm. Would he have been the same person or eventually had the same influence upon his country and brother-from-another-mother up north? Probably, but who knows? History is weird. But this in no way helped the course of things.

It can be sensed; another anecdote is required.

In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin made his now infamous trip to Hitler’s Bavarian retreat, the Berghof, to “secure peace in our time.” Oops. While there, Adolf regaled Neville with a war story about how he was at a battle at Mein crossroads in northern France in 1918 and Pte Henry Tandey – the most decorated private soldier in the entire war for Great Britain – came across an unarmed Hitler, pointed his gun at him, but spared him as he was without a weapon and harmless (at the time). “That man came so near to killing me that I thought I should never see Germany again… Providence saved me from such devilish accurate fire as those English boys were aiming at us,” is what Hitler was reported as saying to Chamberlin. He apparently even pointed out a painting on the wall of his study depicting a battle at Mein Crossroads in 1914 with Pte Tandey in the foreground (it was later confirmed by The Museum of the Green Howards that it indeed hung on his wall). In 1940, a journalist approached Tandey outside his bombed Coventry home, and I believe showed him a photo of a younger Hitler, and asked about his alleged encounter (this was not the first time he was aware of what Hitler said or was asked about it). He responded, “If only I had known what he would turn out to be.” He, of course, wishes he had killed him.

To be clear, the details are very murky here, and much is disputed about the matter, especially concerning the dates and whereabouts of both parties. How would Hitler remember the look of the man who spared him and peg it to be this particular soldier? It seems he recognized him from this painting, but it’s a painting and a memory from a stressful situation. How would Tandey remember the look of one of the dozens of unarmed German soldiers he decided to not dispatch with near that crossroads? It doesn’t matter in my mind. As crazy as this sounds, we should probably take Hitler’s word for it that some British soldier at some point declined to shoot him while unarmed. To have this painting of “the enemy” in his study and share this somewhat humbling story – with another head of state nonetheless – strikes me as odd for this egomaniac who was uber-proud of his military service unless a story like this did unfold. One has to think it wasn’t some random lie without any factual foundation, even if the specifics can’t be confirmed today.

The point is that not only were Hitler’s and Mussolini’s WWI warographies similar enough already, but it seems reasonably certain that Great Britain played a part in securing their future existence as war-hungry dictators. One via cushy employment and the go-ahead to be a lying thug, the other through one of its soldiers not killing him when he easily could have. This is not my attempt to “throw shade” on Great Britain, just to make you scratch your head and say, “wait, what happened?”

History is weird, and for these two, fucking bonkers.

———————-

Early Political Post WWI Experiences

Speaking of bonkers, let’s look further into Benito’s post-WWI political story. Mussolini began improving at giving speeches and organizing energetic and appealing rallies. He certainly valued the theater of these events over any underlying truth or convincing philosophy within his speeches. He was relatively young, still had a strong (if not a bit stocky) physique, and knew how to use his body and loud voice to be a powerful orator (does this sound familiar?) His ardent supporters would wear black shirts at these events. These black shirts would essentially become Fascist squads or militias that were loyal to him. They went by the creative name, the blackshirts. That’s just a name formed by a good old-fashioned, inventive Italian artist right there. By 1920, these militias were rounding up socialists and happily burning down their union or party offices. Many people whom these Fascist s saw as being in the way were humiliated, beaten, or even killed. They had no qualms with attacking government institutions or basically anything they saw as leftist. This was a scary time for Italy in more ways than one, and Mussolini and his blackshirts took advantage of the fear within the populace in more ways than one.

Now would be the time to provide some proof of how Hitler’s public speaking style was akin to Mussolini’s in the way they used theater, gesticulated and yelled, abandoned the need for truth, preyed on people’s fears, and incited hatred in others. However, this doesn’t feel necessary. If you have decided to take in this podcast and are unaware of how Hitler gave speeches, that’s what YouTube is for. Also, you probably don’t exist. Either way, they were eerily similar in how they gave public speeches, how central it was to spread their message, and how it helped bring newcomers to their cause – seriously whirling them up along the way.

Moving on. Slightly…

In 1922, there was talk of a general strike from what remained of the trade unions. In August of that year, Fascists went out into the countryside and destroyed buildings occupied by socialists, among other fear tactics used. Mussolini said that if the government didn’t stop the strike, he would. At a massive rally in October in Milan, he exclaimed, “Either the government will be given to us, or we will seize it by marching on Rome.” It seemed he wasn’t kidding around, and the now sizable followers of Fascist s in Rome started “marching.” However, it was sizable for a crowd but not anything close to what one would think would be needed to essentially overthrow a government. Estimates put it at around 30,000 people. King Victor Emmanuel III probably felt trapped by the Fascists. He also probably feared violence (which seems like a total overreaction in retrospect, or at least something he could have attempted to stop), so he appointed Mussolini Prime Minister at the end of October, even though Mussolini stayed in Milan the whole time of this march. He was the youngest Italian to ever hold that position. Very quickly, he used his secret police to terrorize those he didn’t like, outlawed labor strikes, and, within five years, consolidated his power and transformed Italy into a one-party dictatorship.

By 1925, he became known as ‘Il Duche,’ which simply translates to ‘the leader.’ This isn’t unlike ‘Furer’ for Adolf, the title he would later take for himself. This word also translates to ‘leader’. These two men were just fountains of imagination…

The similarities between the unfolding of these events and what the world would witness a few years later and just slightly farther north on the European continent is creepy. And now, we also enter the world of not just similarities between these two men and their movements but an actual attempted reproduction of what Mussolini did by Hitler and the Nazis. This is the moment that something else begins. Mussolini – unwittingly for the moment – started paving a road of sorts that the Nazis would learn from and follow. Getting to the destination may take longer for them, but we all know what eventually happens.

Back to the stories.

Prior to the Munich event in question, a couple years before, actually, in 1920 (everything moved slower, it seems, up north), the socialists in Bavaria had called for a general strike, just like what happened in Italy. This created a lot of political turmoil, vexation, and reconsidering for many, among numerous other events that aren’t worth going into now. Just know that things got tumultuous and fluid politically. It was this absence of a strong government, the perceived void of respected power, and the factional fighting between socialists and others that the Nazis wanted to step into.

One thing to note. It is known that in 1923, Hitler would write Mussolini about the ‘march on Rome.’ He wrote about it in congratulatory terms. It is interesting that, during the 20s, Mussolini wasn’t impressed with Hitler. He claimed that Mein Kampf was ‘boring’ and deemed Hitler’s ideas ‘course’ and ‘simplistic.’ That’s not important to this story; it’s just interesting.

So while we don’t possess direct evidence that Hitler and the Nazis were 100% copying Mussolini and his ‘March on Rome,’ we know he wrote him to congratulate him on it, so he was impressed by it and the success it created. We know the ‘March’ happened a year before the ‘Beer Hall.’ We know they had newspapers in Bavaria and could follow the progress in Italy. We know the Nazis liked the Fascist ideas Benito espoused. I think it’s safe to say what the Nazis would try to pull off was an attempt at their own recreation of what Benito pulled off. Hitler tried to do his own version of what Mussolini had done. I think that’s clear. That’s just me, though.

So what happened?

It was Munich, 1923, and Hitler and his fellow Nazis were pissed off at the Bavarian government and essentially the whole state of things in the German-speaking world. They were good at continually expanding their horizons of things to be pissed off at. They wanted to topple their government, first the Bavarian one and then onwards to Berlin, and they wanted to do it now. Inspired by Mussolini and his approach (I’m sticking with that assertion), they decided to see if they could recreate it, with Hitler being their movement’s leader, figurehead, and necessary firey speaker. But instead of kicking off this endeavor via a large public speech that would be communicated to very many all over his country with the backing of tens of thousands of comrades placed within the capital city, the Nazis thought smaller, more local, and felt like alcohol was a necessary ingredient of the spectacle (which is slightly amusing considering that Hitler basically didn’t drink – unless it was a small glass of wine with sugar added at special occasions – and he considered drunkenness a deplorable state while also hating cigarettes passionately). It seems that at this time, the Nazis were indie-label Fascist s, while Mussolini was already signed to a major.

So the Nazis, in their wisdom, chose a beer hall in Munich that could hold around 3,000 people to begin their coup attempt. But because it eventually wasn’t successful, except in maybe gaining a few hundred supporters within the hall, it is known as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch instead of the Munich Beer Hall Coup. It’s also endlessly peculiar how they sat back and asked themselves, “How can we topple our government after a passionate speech?” that they came to the conclusion of drunks. Again, indie-label act. Bavarian, no less.

On November 8th, Hitler struck. The Nazis marched on said beer hall and seized both the police chief that was there as well as three important politicians who were apparently putting a few back. Hitler ran in, shot his pistol into the air, and attempted to force these men to support his proclamation of a national revolution and called upon those listening to follow him to Berlin (a la the ‘March on Rome’). He also gave an energetic speech about how and why everyone else should follow him. He was able to effectively seize the beer hall and threaten these men because he had his armed paramilitary group there with him, protecting the outside and inside of the beer hall. They were known as the SA but are remembered more for their other name – get this – the brownshirts. If you don’t think they liked what they saw in Italy, I have nothing else for you. They seriously didn’t even try to hide their copying of Mussolini. The blackshirts became brownshirts. Just wow.

Back to the Beer Hall.

It was a lack of foresight to almost silly proportions. After those men made their proclamation to Hitler, at the end of a gun, they were allowed to leave without escort. Rookie move. As soon as they could, those men disowned him and what they had said and had Hitler arrested. He would soon thereafter be sentenced to five years in prison. However, he would serve only nine months in a plush prison in an old castle, replete with his own large room and access to a library and visitors. This is when and where he would write Mein Kampf. And while this Beer Hall Putsch was a failure of the moment, it made Hitler and the Nazis international news. His prison sentence would give him the time and space to write his book, which translates to “My Struggle,” which would eventually sell many millions of copies in Germany and become a central part of Nazi propaganda.

History is weird. How different things could have gone if he had been forced to serve his complete sentence or not sent to such a congenial prison? Yet, that’s not how things shook out…

Now it is time to glance at some of the other pre-WWII activities of this dictator, Mussolini, who thought he had created a novel and divine approach to government that relied on ruthless totalitarian rule and the active demise of your “enemies.” Again, I can’t stop thinking about how laughable it is, how much this man believed he had uncovered some unexplored manner of government, and how much a diminutive mustachioed Austrian would also believe it. But hey, as J.K. Rowling penned, “Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.” Yay for Fascism and all the fear that would be created towards that name.

Strong sarcasm…

Another almost uncanny similarity between these two men – or probably just more plagiarism that one would have of the other – can be seen in their proclaimed desired approaches to foreign policy. It soon became apparent that Mussolini’s foreign policy relied heavily on the doctrine of “Spazio Vitale,” which translates to living space. He thought that Italians needed, and were unrighteously deprived of, more geography to live and thrive on. Wow, what a novel idea never practiced before by a country or empire. Just fantastic stuff. Of course, one person apparently stunned by Benito’s transcendent expansionary concept was Hitler, who would write in Mein Kampf that the Germans needed, and were rightfully owed, Lebensraum. That word also translates to living space. See what I mean about plagiarism when you discuss these two? Regardless, Mussolini wanted to expand what was under his Fascist rule and, if not put Italians into those lands, then at least exploit them for Italy and the power of his Fascist rule.

It is hard to express in anything less than a novella the amount of wickedness, murder, weirdness, and mistakes Mussolini made before WWII. There also were some successes (through Fascist eyes) and, early on, some impressive and miraculous achievements (through the eyes of others who weren’t living in Italy). So here are some of the aforementioned highlights.

———————–

Pre-WWII Military Endeavors of Mussolini and what the Nazis Learned

Now, we will look at some of the boots on the ground, more military-related events. We shall get to more similarities and influences related to thought, philosophy, and policies between the two men and movements afterward. There are many ways to peel this onion, but this feels best. Who knows if that is so, but I wanted to share that.

Pressing ahead.

Mussolini really wanted more of that living space mentioned before. As early as 1923, which truly is wild, he ordered the bombing and subsequent occupation of the Greek island of Corfu. He claimed this was in reaction to the killing of an Italian general, which did happen but still remained an odd overreaction as there is no clear proof the Greeks were involved. There was evidence that it could have been the Albanians. Either way, he risked much over the death of one man. Clearly, this was just an excuse to try to grab Corfu for himself.

Interestingly, the League Of Nations intervened to settle the dispute, and Benito eventually gave in and couldn’t expand Italy at all, at least not then. He couldn’t get what he wanted and what he made such a stink over, to the point of bombing his neighboring country, risking so much in post-WWI Europe. Remember that, because Benito certainly did not. This was seen by the rest of the world as much ado about nothing (or at least much ado about a little thing), and Benito, for the moment, caved.

That same year, as Mussolini’s henchmen were gearing up to kidnap and kill the Socialist deputy Matteotti, who was the best critic of Fascism in Italy’s parliament, Benito launched the second Italo-Senussi war. That war took place in what is now Lybia. This is a tumultuous and an often ignored and forgotten piece of history. Italy had been in Libya since 1911 as they tried to expand and control what they saw as rightly part of their empire. Still, things really switched gears into something new in 1923 – 1932 when Mussolini had a say in things and started the 9-year war we now name the Italo-Senussi war. The Senussi Order were the central indigenous rebels within Libya, and the war is considered to have ended when their leader, Omar al-Mukhtar, was captured and killed. Of course, that unfortunately isn’t when the monstrosities ended for this desert land south of the Italian peninsula. We will refrain from breaking down this conflict too much, but let’s just say when you learn some of the specifics of it, you will be disgusted and fiercely wonder why – if you are like me – you have never been taught this information.

Information from this war is a little sketchy. Both sides resorted to horrible manners of fighting that would leave the Red Cross paralyzed with disbelief (had they been let in). It is estimated that between 83,000 and 125,000 Libyans were killed by Italian colonial authorities under Mussolini (who, laughably so, was against colonies earlier in his career). Many more were displaced. The historian Ilan Pappe gives us an estimate; he believed that the Italian military killed half the Bedouin population in question. This was done either directly in military confrontation or through disease, starvation, and – get ready for this – through their imprisonment in concentration camps. You read that right: concentration camps.

After this war, the Italians started to send their people into what is now called Libya; it is estimated that Mussolini sent 150,000 countrymen to settle the land. Mussolini asserted that this was not just a civilizing mission by the Italians (which, of course, is a prominent argument of Colonialists); he claimed that since Italians were heirs to the Romans, they had a right to govern and influence the Mediterranean. It’s interesting to point out that Hitler has not been the only one to espouse this odd logic of Mussolini, his convenient misreading of history, and the wacky rights it bestows upon one. It still exists. Benito was undoubtedly not the first person to justify creating a conquering and militaristic present and future through what happened in the distant past; he won’t be the last. That lamentable manner of thinking has not left us. Again, Putin seems to be a big fan of this logic, but that’s a podcast for another time…

Let’s touch on the jolting CC phrase just used: concentration camps. While one shouldn’t let their mind jump to the images and realities that this phrase conjures up for us, those of the realities of the Holocaust brought on by the Nazis, it isn’t horribly far off from that. Here is what we’re comfortable saying happened: the Italians erected some 300 miles of fencing along the Egyptian border to cut off the Libyans from resources. After that, it is estimated that between 100,000 and 110,000 children, women, and elderly people (and, interestingly, 600,000 animals) were moved to concentration camps in the Sirte desert. 16 concentration camps, in the end, were built, and tens of thousands eventually perished due to having to live in these camps.

I know, I know.

I said this episode wouldn’t be as depressing as the previous ones. But I learned about a lot of this while creating this episode. I still find a bit of solace in the fact that this is a subject in history books as opposed to a subject happening at this very moment. I hope you do, too, but it sometimes feels like a stretch.
Yet, I feel justified in relating this information precisely because I never knew it before. And I bet you didn’t either, not to this extent. This has happened for reasons one in the Western world could surmise and unknown reasons as well. So, for a moment, let’s examine one reason why this information has been quasi-forgotten.

In his book from 2020, Genocide in Libya: Shar, A Hidden Colonial History, Ali Abdullatif Ahmida addresses much about this issue. Ali is a Libyan-American scholar who has studied and recorded much of the oral history of the Libyan people because very little of it has been written down in an “official” manner. While not perfect, this puts him in an excellent position to reveal much of what happened and what has been hidden from the average Westerner.

Ali puts forward a good argument that Mussolini’s instructions basically resulted in a deliberate policy of mass killing and organized famine to extinguish an entire people and culture. After this was a campaign to erase the historical records so that news about the quasi-genocide would not reach the wider world. It seems they were careful to destroy much of the material and historical evidence related to the camps they created and the despicable movement of so many Italians into Libya as they sought to develop La Quarta Sponda d’Italia or the “Fourth shore of Italy.” This, in part, is why not much is known or talked about today regarding the Italian Fascists moving and killing some 80,000+ Lybians.

Step back and think about that for a moment. Outside of one having some clinical mental issues, people rarely do things they believe are wrong or immoral. This is even more true for groups of people. It can be hard to wrap one’s mind around, but usually, when people do something, even something that all other people would consider immoral or just plain obviously wrong, the person committing the act does not think it is wrong. Even if the act is needless violence. Usually, people believe what they are doing is correct and justified somehow, no matter how twisted what they’re doing actually is. It is very irregular for adult humans to do something and actively understand it is wrong, again, outside of having a broken mind. To learn that the Italians destroyed records and historical evidence as well as suppressed news of their actions is really infuriating. It is also confusing. How were so many people convinced to do this? Yet, this destroying of records does explain our amnesia of these events a bit and almost makes you hope that Mussolini was sick in the head because the other option means you’re dealing with an absolute monster of a human. Yet it was a large group of people who he was able to get to participate in this. This wasn’t normal behavior, even for people at war. They didn’t know if they could get away with it or if it would work at all if they could treat others (mainly civilians) in this depraved manner. So they experimented, did their best to hide it, and experimented with ways of hiding it.

It’s all perplexing, to say the least.

But Benito did not hide what he was doing from everyone. Would you like to know with whom the Italians were eager to share what they had done within Libya?

Give up?

Oh, sadly, I am pretty sure you have guessed correctly.

While there was much destruction of records, some did sneak through, notably Italian-sponsored Arabic language newspapers and publications from that time. From them, we know that in April of 1939, in an official visit to Tripoli, Field Marshal Hermann Göring met with the Italian colonial governor-general of Libya, Italo Balbo. That is correct; the Italian Fascist s wanted to show their Nazi Fascist friends precisely what they had done. Italo Balbo succeeded a man named Pietro Badoglio. He was the architect behind the original plan to put people in concentration camps so as to erase their lives and culture, making room for people who “mattered.”

It doesn’t stop with Göring either. Heinrich Himmler, the infamous chief of the SS, also visited Libya in 1939 and saw firsthand the results of what Mussolini had done. Himmler, in case you were not aware, was the one who went on to set up the Nazi extermination camps and conceived the idea of the “Final Solution,” which is what we now call the Holocaust. And to put an evil cheery atop the deprave sundae, we also know that Italo Balbo went to visit Adolf Hitler himself in 1938 in Germany. These field visits and constant communication between the two country’s political elites were followed by books, conferences, and seminars. The Italian colonial experience in Lybia and Ethiopia (more on that soon) was known, studied, and, it seems, celebrated in Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII and the Holocaust.

You do not have to buy into Ali’s total deconstruction of Eurocentric scholarship about this period, in which Italy carried out something that was sort of Fascist -lite compared to what the Nazis afterward did, to connect the dots of this disturbing pattern. We know what the Italians did in Lybia and Ethiopia, we know that the Nazis studied it, and we know what the Germans eventually did. It’s as if Hitler saw what Mussolini had done in Africa, contemplated with a smile, and said to the world, “hold my beer.”

Excuse the humor. It can be hard to learn these things.

Now, let’s turn to another endeavor Mussolini went on before “the big one” started: his frightful exploits in Ethiopia that have been hinted at.

The first thing to understand is that this wasn’t Italy’s first time in Ethiopia. At the end of the 19th century, essentially all of Africa was controlled by European countries. The only independent countries were Ethiopia and Liberia. Italy wanted to expand its African empire, which was much smaller than other European empires (they were jealous and embarrassed by this fact, one imagines). They wanted to extend their presence in the Horn of Africa. In March of 1896, the Italian forces invaded Ethiopia near the town of Adwa. The Italians thought they’d roll over the Ethiopians, yet they were decisively beaten to the point where they left the country alone afterward. Sure, the Ethiopians outnumbered the Italians significantly, but a defeat of a European country by natives in Africa was still rare, no matter what the numbers were. Italy intensely felt shame because of this and never forgot the “insult,” even though they were the invaders. So, in addition to wanting to expand their empire in Africa, Mussolini, even though it was 40 years later and he had no personal memory of the event, felt he had a score to settle for his country (again, Putin would love logic such as this, in addition to the other sicko this episode centers around).

So, in all of his woeful wisdom, Benito decided to invade Ethiopia in 1935. The war would “officially” end in 1937, and this time, they successfully subjugated the locals. However, that doesn’t mean everything went to plan, and there were kinetic attacks and killings for a couple years after that. It wasn’t all for revenge for Adwa, either. The Great Depression hit Italy hard, and Ole’ Benny Boy (as I like to imagine him being called by his colleagues behind his back) believed controlling Ethiopia’s vast resources and opening a new market for Italian goods would help the economic woes at home.

Additionally, he felt that annexing this land would solidify their African empire into one larger entity, thereby making modern Italy into something more resembling the Roman Empire of old, which he irrationally reasoned was their God-given privilege. He also wanted to give his people some kind of rallying point that would solidify support for the Fascist regime. It was a corrupted culmination of many considerations on his part.

What Mussolini ended up doing to the Ethiopians was macabre. It’s tough to read and write about because of how vile and heartbreaking it was and because – yet again – I had no prior knowledge of it and know many others do not as well. That last point is infuriating indeed, not only for the Ethiopians but also because this conflict influenced world history godawfully. To keep things straightforward, we shall explore some of the main points from this war instead of diving full in and getting too distracted or depressed. I say that now, at least…

While we can’t know for sure, the estimates concerning the number of Ethiopians that died at the hands of the Italians and Benito’s orders are around 250,000 people by 1938, out of an estimated population of 12 million. The Italians claim they had about 3,000 casualties (which doesn’t mean killed, as those injured or MIA also are casualties). However, that’s considered an underestimation for political purposes, and their number was probably around 8,000 casualties. Still, that’s quite the discrepancy…

Even more startling than the number of people killed is the manner in which many of them died. With Mussolini’s permission and oversight, the Italians combined old-school savagery with new-school technologies to rain terror upon the people of Ethiopia. That word is used on purpose, as they literally dropped terror from the skies in ways worse than bombs. We also know that the Italian troops would often destroy civilian living spaces to look for combatants and – let’s face it – to just instill dread in the populous. They fancied themselves as superior, cultured individuals facing people who were “Indignant and vindicatory… uncivil and barbarians.” Ole’ bat-shit Benito felt this supremacy of civilization and race entitled him and his forces to be as immoral and benighted in his quest for conquest over innocent people far from his home.

It is intolerably ironic how, throughout history, those who feel better than others think it is okay to act worse than them to prove the point.

The Italians would go on to use decapitations, castrations, and burning of civilian living spaces to accomplish their goals. It should be noted that the Ethiopians also used similar terror tactics in a few cases. But one can at least comprehend that as a response to what their invaders did. Of course, they didn’t have a chance of actually responding in kind; they didn’t have the technology, weapons, or calamitous creativity to even imagine the tactics used upon them.

Mussolini and his soldiers had such things.

They went on to use aerial gas bombings and open grave executions (where a large hole would be created in the ground, and then people would be shot to then fall into the grave, which would then be plowed over with soil to hide what happened and to just be more efficient). There are some horrendous stories from this war, such as when, in one day, in one battle, it is estimated that the Italians killed over 30,000 people (which were probably mostly women and children). It is remembered as the Addis Ababa massacre.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol clearly bans the use of all chemical weapons, mustard gas included. Italy signed it. Mussolini himself signed the fucking thing.

In Ethiopia, they decided they did not care about such promises; they were too sophisticated – and too white – to be beholden to such promises in Africa and dropped mustard gas on their “enemy” in tremendous amounts. Between 1935 and 1939, they shipped 617 tons of this hellacious weapon to Ethiopia.

Mustard gas is what is called a “blister agent.” It causes severe and immediate skin, eye, and respiratory issues. It literally blisters these parts of one’s body just by casual contact in the air. It hangs close to the ground as well, increasing its efficacy. Without a gas mask, one will suffocate if substantially exposed. With a gas mask, you can still be damaged. There is a good chance that if you survive, you’ll have devastating long-term effects such as respiratory issues and a highly increased chance of certain cancers.

My great-grandfather encountered mustard gas in WWI. It was a non-lethal exposure, technically. From that day on, though, he consistently had GI problems, was unnaturally skinny, and was always sick. He had to eat extremely bland food for the rest of his life or otherwise would pay the price of intense bathroom-centric pains. He died from this at the age of 52. He never met his son’s wife, my grandmother, let alone his grandchild, my father. Mustard gas killed him some 25 years after the war ended. His story was not uncommon.

Let’s put it this way: Hitler was so terrified and disgusted by what he witnessed of mustard gas as a soldier in WWI that he forbade his troops from using it in WWII. God damn Hitler was against it. It was too cruel a weapon for the dude who decided to cosplay the Prince of Darkness. Think about that…

Benito had no such misgivings and dropped it on the Ethiopian civilians from his airplanes, knowing the effects and knowing the people couldn’t defend themselves. He declared his eventual vicious victory “the most gigantic spectacle in the history of mankind.”

With Italian media outlets twisting the truth behind the reasons for the war and how it was conducted, Mussolini rose to a new level of popularity at home and gained acclaim within Italy. He also felt – in some manner of thought that is unfollowable – that it avenged Italy’s mistreatment by the stronger European powers that occurred at the close of WWI. For entering into this war, the League of Nations tried to send a message and enforced sanctions on Italy that obviously did little to abate Benito-n-gang. He was vehemently upset by this and played the victim card, with the dominant powers being the actual bad guys in his mind and words. As he put it, in Ethiopia, Italy was just attempting to “bring civilization to backward lands, build roads and schools[, and] diffuse the hygiene and progress of our time.” This is why history is stranger and crueler than fiction; he actually related it to bringing “hygiene” to a foreign independent country while concurrently dropping mustard gas on their people.

A true baneful bitch, that one.

What’s complicated about this is that we all are taught and are conditioned to the story of evil surrounding Hitler and the Nazis. It is part of our present-day zeitgeist. It is so wicked, so implanted in us via the media, history classes, etc., that it is almost dreamlike to think about. We’ve made it so black and white, so abnormal, that we unwittingly have dehumanized and decontextualized what happened. It is almost like we say, “Yeah, Hitler was the devil; the devil does evil stuff; what else could be expected?” But then you study Mussolini and this period, this man and his effects, that it blindsides you somehow. You’ve no conditioning for these facts. It is uniquely unsettling. Why isn’t this in the zeitgeist?! Do you mean he wasn’t that unusual? (we also somehow do this with the Japanese to an extent; however, that story isn’t unknown as much as it just feels farther away from us in some ineffable way)

Consider this, it took until 1995 for the Italian government and former combatants to admit that they used chemical weapons in East Africa. For generations, much was not admitted to or spoken about concerning the time of Mussolini and his people leading up to WWII. The slaughter in Libya and Ethiopia and how it was achieved conflicted with this collective memory we have of Italy during this time so much that even those who were there couldn’t bring themselves to correctly remember what occurred. And I am not sure it is so easy to say they and us were lying. We’ve somehow brushed this under the communal rug. Sure, the Italians worked hard to keep a lot of this from public view, then and well into the future, but I think this goes further than that. Others have done the same for them as well, probably unknowingly most of the time.

It fucks with our understanding of ourselves to think that Hitler, the historical boogieman of modernity, was following a playbook from someone else. Someone without a world-class industrial powerhouse at their back, someone not armed with fierce new technologies, someone not fed by a populous people with a knack for efficiency and a strong work ethic. Maybe it could have been stopped? It seems like it could have been at least slightly contained. We don’t like such introspections.

Hitler wasn’t cosplaying as the prince of darkness in his mind; he felt he was doing right by his people, who were superior, and he was justified in doing anything in support of that feeling. It’s nauseating, but that’s what happened. But his ideas weren’t all his own, especially at first and regarding what he would say publicly. He had already seen another do similar actions in “support” of his people and seemingly not be condemned. Why couldn’t he?

He must have had such thoughts.

———————–

Philosophical Influences of Mussolini on the Nazis

I apologize, but it doesn’t end there. Let us now look at what we know about Benito’s philosophy and non-military actions and how they affected the Nazis. Again, covering everything isn’t necessary or productive, so let’s look at some of the main points, especially regarding race.

The first thing to acknowledge is that a large part of the reason behind this episode is to shine light upon the overlooked relationship between these two men and how Hitler, history’s ultimate boogeyman, wasn’t alone – or the first – in his path of hellish destruction. When we examine this, I feel it challenges our understanding of our collective narrative and capabilities. That is uncomfortable but beneficial. However, they weren’t lock step, Adolf didn’t follow the path Benito laid completely and this needs to be pointed out. Also, as WWII neared, Hitler began to have more influence on Mussolini as opposed to the other way around. One must also remember these men were ardent nationalists, and what they felt was best for their country or their race (in their minds) came first. It’s also intriguing (and even slightly humorous) to see where they disagreed.

You’ll see…

What is interesting to point out is that in terms of race and right-of-conquest, Mussolini did not harp on their relationship nearly as much as Hitler did over the entire pre-WWII time. Hitler was always obsessed with this topic in a way Mussolini was not. Don’t misunderstand; Mussolini did have some strong opinions on race. He felt that the European civilizations were the most advanced and developed in the world, giving them the right to expand and subjugate others. He didn’t get as severe and specific in these sentiments as Hitler did, though. But what Hitler personally felt was different than what the Nazis thought they could actually get away with when they were just starting to grow their brand in Germany. This is where Benito probably influenced them the most, showing them what kind of international pushback might be expected.

Mussolini enacted laws for his troops in Ethiopia (and I think Libya also) that they were to stay separate from the locals and were prohibited from developing personal relationships, or even just having sex, with Ethiopians. This was essentially made illegal for the Italians as it was seen as debasing themselves (there was very little success with these rules, by the way). He also considered the Slavs, notably nearby in the Balkans, as inferior whites and had no problem in desiring to take their land. But race was not central to his conception of Fascism or Italian nationalism in such a specific manner, as long as people were white Europeans, “civilized,” and followed his moral code. And while he proclaimed that Italians were a superior people, he also gave himself a lot of wiggle room over the years. He allowed himself to be amorphous and change his decrees and speeches about race depending upon the year, who he was talking to, or how he felt. He clearly did not mind contradicting himself; it happened all the time.

However, there was an important aspect of Italian Fascism that Benito stressed before the Nazis did that, while different than the Nazi philosophy, appears quite similar and seems to have had an impact on the route his hun-homeboy would take. Mussolini promoted the idea of creating a ‘New Man’ as a response to what he felt was the demographic and moral decline of his people, especially compared to other nonwhite groups in Italy’s vicinity. He envisioned a new social order in which the Italian people would essentially become a warrior society that was hierarchical and racially pure. He felt that humans of different races were not equals and that, therefore, their rights should not be equal. This would include those within Italy as well as without. It presumed the result for the collective was more important than anything that happened to individuals in “improving” the collective. Funny how much his enemy Stalin would probably agree with that last point…

Front page of an Italian newspaper on 11 November 1938: In English: “The laws for the defense of race approved by the Council of Ministers.”

Those who Benito felt were socially degenerate and could not be a ‘New Man’ included homosexuals, ‘career’ criminals, alcoholics, the mentally ill, beggars, gypsies, and ethnic minorities such as Slavs (and later, Jews, but that wouldn’t happen for some time actually). Mussolini publicly stated the aims of organizing in this brutal way, an overarching goal of constructing a society directed toward war and territorial expansion. Italy would have to pursue a “war of existence”‘ against other people to conquer and expand their deserved “living space.” Mussolini began asserting ideas like this in the 1920’s, pretty quickly after gaining complete control of the government. An important moment in this regard was his Ascension Day Speech on May 26th, 1927, in which he made numerous announcements concerning race and demographics. This made quite a stir internationally. The New York Times published the entire speech.

While his views on such matters became known worldwide at the time, they significantly affected those within the Weimar Republic (Germany’s government). Apparently, the German population became very interested in Italy’s views on supporting and enlarging the demographics of a pure (and superior) race, cleaning themselves of undesirables, and then expanding their living space with war if necessary.

I will quote an absorbing and lengthy research-based paper from Patrick Bernhard from the Department of Archaeology, Conservation, and History at the University of Oslo. The paper is titled Blueprints of Totalitarianism: How Racist Policies in Fascist Italy Inspired and Informed Nazi Germany. You may find a link to it in the references from Brill.com.

“As Hitler’s statements in public speeches and private conversation reveal, the Nazis relied on Italian Fascism to project their own vision of a future German Volksgemeinschaft, or National Socialist community. This vision of a new, harmonious society was based, just like Mussolini’s notion of the ‘New Man’, on racist, anti-democratic, and nationalist ideas. Between the 1920s and the early 1940s, Hitler often praised the exemplary manner with which Mussolini combatted his political enemies and the Jews – his praise for Mussolini was a consistent element in his thinking.”

The critical takeaway from that quote is that the Nazis used the Italian philosophy and success to project their own visions of a future Germany. Benito didn’t give the Nazis their ideas, but in some weird way, he gave them permission to pursue them aggressively. And while I believe Mussolini when he spoke about the ‘New Man’ and revitalizing the Roman Empire, from doing all this research, it is also apparent that he didn’t feel this issue in the manner that the Nazis did. He switched his opinions often, didn’t include Jews until the Nazis had the upper hand in terms of power, and – outside of his horrible exploits in Africa – did not pursue many tactics at home in service of these ideas. He is not let off the hook. He was a deplorable human. But I think, for this issue specifically, he helped to create a monster much worse than himself.

History is weird.

This weirdness can also be shown in some of the opinions Benito expressed during this time, which showcase his inconsistencies of thought and his differences with the Nazis. One was about the Aryan race, which he did not find to be a race at all. And he probably had a point. In 1934, he said this; “But which race? Does there exist a German race? Has it ever existed? Will it ever exist? Reality, myth, or hoax of the theorists? Ah well, we respond, a Germanic race does not exist. Various movements. Curiosity. Stupor. We repeat. Does not exist. We don’t say so. Scientists say so. Hitler says so.”

He also wasn’t so keen on this Nazi idea of themselves being a “Master Race.” Of course, he relied on his obsession with ancient history when he said in a 1933 speech, “Thirty centuries of history allow us to look with supreme pity on certain doctrines which are preached beyond the Alps [the Nazis] by the descendants of those who were illiterate when Rome had Caesar, Virgil and Augustus.” It is also interesting that in 1943, Mussolini regretted the Manifesto of Race, which he apparently agreed to in 1938 just to enhance his relationship with Germany. He said he was far from accepting Rosenberg’s myth on this issue. He vacillated a lot on this topic, but his influence was undoubtedly for the uber-worse over time, regardless of his personal opinions or what he said when it was too late.

This is not the only aspect of the philosophical influence of Mussolini on the Nazis that we can examine. It is probably the most important, though, as it is what we think of first, usually, when we examine the atrocities the Nazis would commit. Picking apart others isn’t necessary. I think good enough evidence has been put forward to showcase the influence exerted by the Italians on the Germans. An influence we shall now always be affected by. An influence that maybe could have been reduced if not stopped by other nations, other people, had they had the will or foresight.

————————-

Conclusion

There is no specific single goal related to how one should interact with their understanding of the past from this episode. It goes without saying that there should not be a negative altering to how one thinks about Italians or Germans, just potentially a rethinking about one particular Italian and one particular German and their relationship with each other, each other’s political parties, and their relationship between their actions and the rest of the world. My research into this subject, undoubtedly, has led me to the belief that Mussolini had an outsized and questionably undiscussed influence on what Hitler and Nazism would become and do to Europe and the world. Maybe you come away with a completely different reading of history. That’s more than acceptable. But the true hope is that now you’ll be aware of the actual historical realities of this time, which most people do not possess through no fault of their own, and can then come to whatever conclusion you’d like.

This non-possession of the historical realities of this time, a time so often examined and very important to the collective human narrative, eats at me. Why aren’t Libya, Ethiopia, concentration camps, and mustard gas commonly known or taught?! I am not sure what the conclusions should be in terms of this. It seems to probably be related to a few factors. One is the fact that the Nazis would do such horrific, world-shattering things to all around them while in the process of taking over most of Europe, that they, of course, would be the focus of anyone looking backward. But I think there is also an aversion to exploring the stories we just went over, whether consciously or not. I think that’s a dangerous error. When we look at the events of these years, we somehow gain solace by telling ourselves that Hitler and the Nazis were seriously atypical, anomalous demons. We do this to such an extent that we believe nothing like them came before or can come again. But we’ve just seen that something like them came just a few years before and not from far away. This challenges us in a way we don’t desire. The simple black-and-white WWII movie with good guys and bad guys becomes more confusing; it takes on colors never seen before. The comforting simplicity is ruined, a new nuance is introduced, we aren’t prepared for it, and we don’t enjoy it.

It suggests that the manner in which history unfolded could have gone differently; maybe it could have even been outright stopped. Things didn’t have to go like they did. Perhaps we – those from the world who would become the Allies – could have done something to improve the course of history. Maybe the horrors of WWII did not have to occur.

Maybe we’re partly at fault also.

You come to your own conclusions. But that’s why I think this subject is worth exploring in detail. I also believe just visiting interesting, unrecognized, or consequential stories from history has an inherent and undefinable value all of its own.

I would like to end with one thought, though. As said in the introduction, as Mark Twain supposedly expressed, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Mussolini and Hitler were not aliens; they were humans, and something like what they created could happen again. Other humans in other nations did not act quick enough to stop them – especially Mussolini – when they could have. Just remember that when you see such people as Putin and co. using twisted, vile, illogical reasoning to invade, slaughter, and try to conquer their neighbor because people there speak Russian, or were once under Moscow’s rule, or have resources that properly belong to Russia more so than the natives. Sure, it might technically not be your responsibility to try and stop such things when you’re an ocean away. But what happens when it’s allowed to transpire? Who could Putin be inspiring to do the same, or worse, should he get away with it? What escalation of atrocities and geographies could be next? What can history tell us about what could happen now?

I don’t know where the line is, and I am not advocating that countries become involved in any foreign conflict or issue they deem immoral. Still, it is clear that history shows us – the story of Mussolini and Hitler shows us – that often not intervening in the horrors of a leader’s or country’s actions, even when they don’t directly affect you, can guarantee another one much worse will learn from that and create a scenario that will affect you. Or maybe even affect everyone, just as Hitler did.

The lessons of history are not perfect teachers for the present moment or for the future, but lessons are always in there, nonetheless.

Lessons are real.

History is weird.

Written by Sean Brna