[fuser]

In ww2, when allies successfully invaded and put their boots on Italian peninsula, whole Italy was in a mood of pessimism. In fact, soon Mussolini was overthrown and Italy simply refused to fight, it took a brutal German occupation to bring them back in the fight and that only reluctantly.

So, after all these years (over 20) and rhetoric about Italian Nationalism/corporatism and building a strong "United Italian nation", what went wrong that Italians didn't even wanted to fight for Mussolini's Italy, contrast that too WW1, in which after the disaster of "Caporetto", whole of Italy was united as never with numbers of volunteers going through the roof.

Note : I know this thread could easily be an historical debate but still I prefer this sub forum for it.

[Daktoria]

I'm half Italian, so hear me out on this.

Fascism doesn't fit Italians.

We're a very passionate people, but we aren't workaholics. We aren't Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We aren't militarists bent on world domination. We love the arts, and we need to live enjoyably. We have more industry than the Greeks, but we're not Germans. We need to live organically where we can relate with each other personally rather than just as an arbitrary nation.

Case in point, it's really no surprise that Italian unification took so long before WW1. Even after that, Italy switched sides from being convinced that its positions against Britain and France were more vulnerable than its position against Austria-Hungary. Italy didn't have any identity to gain from fighting Britain or France either, but A-H still held Italian ethnic territory.

I don't want to say Italians are opportunists, but in turn with being artistic, we need to be somewhat defensive in how we handle ourselves. There's usually a lot more show than go when it comes to Italian demeanor. It's one of the reasons we get labeled as melodramatic guidos.

Believe me, I hate that. I especially hate the (obtuse) Italian criminal stereotype.

[Preston Cole]

Like Daktoria said, Italians seem to be more focused on maintaining a smaller community (ergo the widespread Mafia clans) rather than an organic national community, which also explains their rather poor performance in the war, especially in Libya (they'd have been completely ejected from Africa if it wasn't for Rommel). Mussolini genuinely tried to instill fascism into the consciousness of Italians, but the Monarchy, the free-living mentality, clan-based allegiances and an only recently unified Italy all hindered his progressive efforts. He only managed to expel one of those hindrances from Fascism, the Mafia, for a little while. He was the only Mafia-fighter in history to almost completely exterminate a domestic Mafia, I might add, which just makes him even more badass.

I think that the only way he could have made Italians more fascist is by pulling off some brutal purges, setting up comprehensive networks of Gulags and simply terrorizing the population into accepting the New Italy like Stalin did. He was never willing to do anything like that because he lacked the brutality of Hitler and Stalin, as evidenced by his occasional objections to the use of violence. He was a badass hardliner willing to butcher enemies of his state (not that the Ethiopians didn't deserve it), but still a spaghetti-eater (no offense to Italians intended; I love spaghetti).

[Daktoria]

I think that the only way he could have made Italians more fascist is by pulling off some brutal purges, setting up comprehensive networks of Gulags and simply terrorizing the population into accepting the New Italy like Stalin did.

Who do you believe Mussolini should have terrorized?

[Preston Cole]

Who do you believe Mussolini should have terrorized?

My point is that a new totalitarian regime which people don't fully believe in will require Stalinist terror to function to its full capacity. Obviously I don't condone that crap.

This is why Italian Fascism was less successful than German fascism was. The Nazis didn't encounter much opposition from ordinary Germans because they were looking for strong patriotic people to lead them out of rough times. The alternatives were democracy or Marxism. Italians, on the other hand, were more apathetic to the surge of fascism because their liberal-democratic crisis was limited to the Marxist threat and a corrupt state and parliament that no longer cared about the people.

[Rei Murasame]

My view was that Italy's regime felt its heart waver after actually being exposed to the rigour of warfare. Rather than falling back onto an economic cushion, what happened was that Mussolini's regime compromised the structure of the fascist state by actually suppressing - or at least, sharply circumscribing the negotiation powers - of the very guilds that had elevated him to power.

This is why during the Salo Republic phase, Mussolini had to actually promise a second time that there would be 'fascist socialisation' carried out, because the first time it had stalled. The second time it still stalled. Either it was Mussolini's regime causing it to stall both times, or the Italian people just were not able to reconcile themselves to the fact that wages will not rise as fast during a war as they do before a war.

Japan's socialisation process was much more successful because Japanese fascists did not suppress the Sanpo units when the war started, and so no one could credibly complain that they were being worked to death while the war was underway.

[Jackal]

Aside from the social problems already covered in this thread, many other things went wrong for Mussolini. Keep in mind that after a war, most dictators end up getting deposed anyways, so losing the war surely did not help his situation.

First, things may have played out differently had he not been condemned by his Western "friends" (Great Britain, France, etc) in the League of Nations for the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Not to mention that Abyssinia was not a resource rich area to begin with, so it seemed as though it was an overall strategic failure in the long run. Prior to this, Mussolini was one of the most respected world leaders at the time from all sides.

Second, while Mussolini did a very good job with his agrarian policies, he did not do well to balance those policies with industrialization ones. Even after the agrarian policies were implemented, I believe Italy was still importing massive amounts of food to feed its populace.

Third, Italy had pretty piss poor military doctrine compared to the other major European powers.

[albionfagan]

Mussolini was, essentially, an imbecile.

He was a skilled propagandist but some of his political moves and military ones were so shockingly poor that he can only be thought of as an idiot.

[starman2003]

I believe Italy was still important

Importing? So were other industrialized european nations.

Third, Italy had pretty piss poor military doctrine compared to the other major European powers.

Personnel was definitely a weakness. Commanders and rank and file were often poor.

[Dave]

All of this ideological mumbo jumbo is meaningless.

Nothing went wrong. The problem wasn't Mussolini or fascism, the problem was Italians. They fought poorly and incompetently in the First World War as well.

Southern Europeans aren't as cohesive and self-sacrificing as Northern Europeans. The likely reason is that clans and village inbreeding was never stamped out in Southern Europe, so people there had trouble feeling ties to something bigger than their local concerns. After all, why should Italian soldiers lay their lives on the line for Il Duce and Italy rather than go home to the family farm?

I've posted this before but I guess you guys are more interested in Occam's Butterknife than Occam's Razor.

[Jackal]

Importing? So were other industrialized european nations.

Yes, I corrected it.

Other industrialized European nations were indeed importing food but Italy was not anywhere near as industrialized as them. When you focus more on developing agricultural policies instead of industrial policies and are still importing just as much, if not more, food than your industrialized European counterparts then this creates a significant problem.

[starman2003]

Like Daktoria said, Italians seem to be more focused on maintaining a smaller community (ergo the widespread Mafia clans) rather than an organic national community,

This in fact was nothing new. Look how diverse and even antagonistic the various inhabitants of the Italian peninsula were from about 500--250 BCE. But the Romans sure changed that.

Mussolini genuinely tried to instill fascism into the consciousness of Italians, but the Monarchy, the free-living mentality, clan-based allegiances and an only recently unified Italy all hindered his progressive efforts.

Add to that the holy screwballs.

He only managed to expel one of those hindrances from Fascism, the Mafia, for a little while. He was the only Mafia-fighter in history to almost completely exterminate a domestic Mafia

Which says something about the efficacy of fascism vis a vis US democracy....

I think that the only way he could have made Italians more fascist is by pulling off some brutal purges, setting up comprehensive networks of Gulags and simply terrorizing the population into accepting the New Italy like Stalin did.

Right.

He was never willing to do anything like that because he lacked the brutality of Hitler and Stalin, as evidenced by his occasional objections to the use of violence.

He was too wimpy. A real leader wouldn't have shrank from doing what he had to do, to ensure the success of what he believed in. Who cares if there's much loss of life(?)--anyone archaic or dumb enough to oppose a better system (like monarchists or catholic clergy) is no great loss.

[Far-Right Sage]

He was never willing to do anything like that because he lacked the brutality of Hitler and Stalin, as evidenced by his occasional objections to the use of violence.

I disagree with this. The use of paramilitary squadrons and general militarization of Italian political life, the Blackshirts, the "love of death", this all came from Mussolini and Italian Fascism, which would not have been made possible elsewhere, in Germany, in Romania, in Spain, (what developed in Asia is a different story), without the words and actions of men like Gentile and Roberto Farinacci in Italy.

[starman2003]

I disagree with this. The use of paramilitary squadrons and general militarization of Italian political life, the Blackshirts, the "love of death", this all came from Mussolini and Italian Fascism, which would not have been made possible elsewhere, in Germany, in Romania, in Spain, (what developed in Asia is a different story), without the words and actions of men like Gentile and Roberto Farinacci in Italy.

OK Mussolini had the means, but evidently not the will to go as far as others.

[Far-Right Sage]

The will or the ability? The Italian military had structural and technical problems for reasons that had nothing to do with Mussolini or the Grand Fascist Council. If razing Athens was viable and what it took to gain a resounding victory in the Greco-Italian War, I have no doubt Mussolini would have had the iron will required to complete the conquest.

[starman2003]

The will or the ability?

I was referring to the internal situation; a possible stalinist type overhaul of Italian society.

[Potemkin]

I have no doubt Mussolini would have had the iron will required to complete the conquest.

Mussolini lacked the iron will even to complete the conquest of Italy.

[Political Interest]

Mussolini was stupid to have aligned himself with Hitler. It is true that in the 1930s no one would have known that the Germans would possibly have lost. Even still, why did he not do what Franco did and simply wait before choosing a side? If I am the leader of a country my policy would always be to avoid war at all costs.

[Preston Cole]

Colonial ambitions into British-held territories, British sanctions because of his closeness to Germany, Hitler's support of his expansions into Albania and Yugoslavia, plus the desire to eradicate democracy off the face of Europe with the Axis.

He could have survived the war neutral and sided with NATO (Italian contributions to the Axis struggle weren't that fruitful in the first place); that would indeed have been preferable for fascism's sake.

[albionfagan]

His standing aside when the Anchluss was completed was almost as pathetic as British appeasement.