[Far-Right Sage]

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

By appeasing conservative factions such as the royalists, the House of Savoy, and the Vatican? I maintain that these were necessary compromises at the time which were more a result of the failures of Italian society and mindset rather than any personal failure of Mussolini. Certainly no one would say that Hitler lacked any will, yet even he had to scale back Aktion T4, the national euthanasia program, upon the powerful protestations of Clemens August Graf von Galen and others within the German Catholic clergy.

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

He did wait. Italy remained neutral upon the German invasion of Poland and given the relatively weak state of the military compared to the German and some Allied forces, Italy didn't declare war against the United Kingdom and France until the German conquest of France was already close to completion, with a limited invasion into southern France (to have a legitimate claim to a French zone of occupation and the French colonies in North Africa).

Franquist Spain was nationalistic, but was also a conservative-authoritarian government which shared some of the sentiments of the Axis, but did not serve (and was never intended to serve) as a revolutionary force in Europe, similar to Salazar's Portugal.

From the Italian perspective, the decision makes a great deal of sense. France was all but defeated and the only "Allied" power which remained was Britain, which was being run off the European continent and faced imminent siege. What exactly was the big risk taken? This was a year before Operation Barbarossa and a year and a half before the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

[Potemkin]

By appeasing conservative factions such as the royalists, the House of Savoy, and the Vatican? I maintain that these were necessary compromises at the time which were more a result of the failures of Italian society and mindset rather than any personal failure of Mussolini.

Stalin was facing similar problems in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Guess what happened to those anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin forces in the late 1930s?

Certainly no one would say that Hitler lacked any will, yet even he had to scale back Aktion T4, the national euthanasia program, upon the powerful protestations of Clemens August Graf von Galen and others within the German Catholic clergy.

Yet this didn't stop him from extending the T4 program into the Holocaust from 1941 onwards. And when certain traditional conservative elements tried to remove Hitler from power towards the end of the War, guess what happened?

No, there was simply something flabby about Mussolini.

[Far-Right Sage]

You raise some valid points, Potemkin, but it brings up an interesting question of the quality of men as opposed to the countrymen they seek to rule. Stalin was successful in Russia and the Soviet republics, as well as Hitler in Germany, but could either man have tamed Afghanistan or the United States? Oftentimes in history we see great leadership saddled with countries which stifle its operational potential. The fact that German society is completely opposite in its regimentation from way back and comparing the overall German performance to the Italian performance in World War I, long before Mussolini and Fascism, there seeems to be much credence to such notions. The Italian society was simply more disorganized, less united, more clannish, more corrupt and inefficient since centuries past.

[Potemkin]

The Italian society was simply more disorganized, less united, more clannish, more corrupt and inefficient since centuries past.

All the more reason for Mussolini to launch a bloody purge of Italian society, from top to bottom. I believe the turning point came in 1924, when the murder of a prominent Italian journalist by Fascists led to a public outcry, which threatened to shake the foundations of Mussolini's regime. Mussolini backed down, and never again attempted to purge Italian society in any thorough-going way. I suspect that neither Hitler nor Stalin would have backed down, but would rather have redoubled their efforts.

[Preston Cole]

I suspect that neither Hitler nor Stalin would have backed down, but would rather have redoubled their efforts.

Hitler himself was far more ballsy but the prominent industrial conservatives still kept him in a leash. The 1934 purge doesn't begin to compare to 30s Russia.

The difference between Fascism and Stalinism is that Fascism is built upon an already-laid structure of patriotic will and national solidarity which only becomes shaky when liberalism dominates it, while Stalinism is a wholly artificial - no offense, Potemkin - tool meant to infuse unnatural values through widespread terror. Fascists don't engage in this sort of domestic terror because they don't need to; some will stick to what they already have (Franco) and others will genuinely attempt to lay Fascist values on top of already existing nationalist ones (Hitler, Mussolini to a lesser extent).

[Far-Right Sage]

All the more reason for Mussolini to launch a bloody purge of Italian society, from top to bottom. I believe the turning point came in 1924, when the murder of a prominent Italian journalist by Fascists led to a public outcry, which threatened to shake the foundations of Mussolini's regime. Mussolini backed down, and never again attempted to purge Italian society in any thorough-going way. I suspect that neither Hitler nor Stalin would have backed down, but would rather have redoubled their efforts.

Fair comment. Perhaps Mussolini was less confident in his own ability when arrayed against others with an almost messianic dedication. If men such as Roberto Farinacci or Alessandro Pavolini held the reins, one could wonder if that key failing of the Italian government would have remained the same.

I, for one, am glad my people had such a resolute and unwavering gent, the steel-tipped hammer of the masses

[Ombrageux]

Mussolini may have been "flabby" or simply an organic, conservative leader. Italy did not become much under him, but nor did it have quite the totalitarian tyranny nor the national disasters that befell the Soviet nations under Stalin and Germany under Hitler. He was, as far as dictators go, a fairly moderate one like Franco. His only mistake was getting sucked into a war on the wrong side.

[Potemkin]

Fair comment. Perhaps Mussolini was less confident in his own ability when arrayed against others with an almost messianic dedication. If men such as Roberto Farinacci or Alessandro Pavolini held the reins, one could wonder if that key failing of the Italian government would have remained the same.

When I watch newsreel footage of Mussolini strutting up and down on a balcony, folding his arms across his chest and jutting his chin forward, it is clear to me that this was a man who was trying to hide something - his own inner weakness and self-doubt. This self-doubt, ultimately, is why he ended up as Hitler's puppet and why he cut such a pathetic and pitiable figure in the last few years of his life. Would Hitler or Stalin have ever ended up like this? I seriously doubt it.

[starman2003]

Stalin was successful in Russia and the Soviet republics, as well as Hitler in Germany, but could either man have tamed Afghanistan or the United States?

The Romans and nazis tamed even the most determined independence movements, even though neither could devote anywhere near their full resources to it.

Oftentimes in history we see great leadership saddled with countries which stifle its operational potential.

I doubt Nasser or Saddam Hussein qualify as great leaders, but both certainly had imperial ambitions, frustrated by inept militaries. See Pollack's Arabs at War. Arab culture was highly inimical to mastery of modern warfare, which showed....