Jump to content

Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ethiopia and Other Matters.

There is far too much detail here on atrocities in Ethiopia. This information would be better placed in an article on the Italian war in East Africa rather than in an page which proports, after all, to be a biography of Mussolini. Also I would like to see some better treatment on Mussolini's approach to foreign policy as a whole; in particular his clash with Hitler during the Dolfuss crisis in 1934 and the reasons behind the decline of the Stresa Front. More information, too, on Il Duce's social policy would be helpeful. The 'Facist Dictatorship' section is a mess: it needs to be split up into sub-sections, seperating out domestic and foreign policy. His attitude to racial policy might also be of some use, in particular his early perceptions of National Socialism. I seem to remember him saying if Nazi logic on this question were followed the only 'pure' race in Europe would be the Laps. Why, moreover, is there not more on the meeting in July 1943 of the Fascist Grand Council, surely one of the great turning points in his career. Instead we get a wholly unecessary section on his Jewish mistress. Overall I find this whole article at best second rate and suffering from some serious political and conceptual distortions. White Guard 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with you that the article IS an abomination. I'm the one whi placed it in the ""Start" class, after all. I would like to see every claim documented. But, is ain't gonna happne, since this is Wackipedia.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree about deleting the part on the "Jewish mistress". Stupid gossip. About the rest, it's been unprotected now so just change it if you think you can improve it. --MauroVan 12:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Stupid gossip? Please explain what you mean. Is it gossip that she was his lover? Is it gossip that she was Jewish? Is it gossip that she wrote an influential biography of him (much of it fawning invention), first published in English in 1925 and then in 1926 in Italian? Is it gossip that Mussolini corrected the page proofs? —Ian Spackman 11:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean that what we have here is YAIWIAZ (Yet Another Information Whose Importance Approaches Zero). Listing her in the See also section is more than enough. --MauroVan 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed this section. I will make further edits, but not if I am to meet with major opposition. White Guard 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My attempt to remove this has already been sabotaged without explanation. I will make one further attempt and then report the matter as possible vandalism. As I say, I can attempt no original additions if this is the kind of stupidity I have to face. White Guard 23:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) White Guard 23:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a large section of pure information based on your personal impression. That in itself is considered vandalism, a fact which you should be well aware of by now. Do it again, and by all means do have the lack of good taste to report is as "vandalism" (especially after calling me "stupid"). Do, as I'll just sit back and watch another one of you apologists get banned. Have a good day. Dahn 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

English is obviously not your first language: there is a world of difference between defining something as stupid and calling someone stupid. White Guard 23:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then surely you won't mind me calling what you are doing utter imbecility. Dahn 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Get a room, guys. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider the points I made above about the various absences and omissions in this article. The only proper criterion for inclusion in any biography is importance and relevance; otherwise the whole thing becomes hopelessly distorted. To have a whole section on one of Mussolini's mistresses and only a passing reference to the Grand Council of 1943 is absurd. There is a whole host of interesting-and relevant-information I could incorporate on Mussolini's foreign and domestic policy; but I am not now prepared to take the risk. It is quite obvious that-like so many others here-you have a quite extraordinary level of intellectual immaturity. I have certainly no intention of entering into any form of exchange with you on this or any other matter. White Guard 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Every now and then one meets the absurd type of person who, instead of writing down more information on other topics, decides to delete a whole section of perfectly valid things "to ballance things out". Such persons have an agenda to support, and some ideological guidelines to obey. It's good that you don't have an intention to "enter an exchange", White Guard, because continuing to simply delete text is basically signalling your way out of here. Dahn 00:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cranks

Well I see that the cranks have taken over this oage again. I've taken it off my watchlist as I usually have to do in such cases. Good day. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr Franco, I never though I would find us in agreement, but you are absolutely right. White Guard 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag, expert tag

I've removed both of these tags, since no justification was provided for including either of them. Please discuss the reasoning here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of treatment, as I have indicated above. Much needs to be pruned, and much needs to be added. However, no sooner had a started the preliminary work, than my editing was subject to what I would describe as a form of counter-attack, the first initially without any explanation whatsoever. I have been accused of having 'an agenda', whereas my only agenda, as a historian, is to serve the truth. But I do have a point of view, which I would never allow to 'pollute', if that is the right word, the pursuit of objectivity. However, for those who are interested, I will make my POV plain: I loath and despise Communism in all its forms. I have always found it richly ironic that Fascism has become a term of abuse, whereas Communism has not, as the contribution of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot to the sum total of human misery is at least as great as that of Hitler-if not greater, and considerably greater than that of Benito Mussolini, for all his many faults. I will make my point of view even plainer by saying I retain a residual sympathy for Mussolini, Fransisco Franco and Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera; I have none whatsoever for Hitler and I do not admire Fascism as a doctrine in the abstract, so to speak. My political inclinations are right wing, but of a conservative variety. I would not, under any circumstances, allow my POV to influence, in any direct sense, my historical work, and I have published on Mussolini, as well as other historical figures in academic journals without adverse comment.

However, this is all getting away from the point. I indicated above that this present page is a very poor contribution to the life of Mussolini. Here are the main points again;

1. There is far too much on Fascist atrocities in East Africa, which simply do not belong on this page.

2. There needs to be a clear separation between domestic and foreign policy.

3. Above all, what is needed is a clear account of the shifts in Italian foreign policy between the two Austrian crises, that of 1934 and that of 1938. We have to understand why, in other words, Mussolini moved from a deep distrust-and open contempt-of Hitler towards an alliance whch was against his own best interests and those of Italy. If you want to understand his original view of Hitler you could do no better than read his contributions to Il Popolo d'Italia in August and September 1934.

4. There is so much that could be said about his domestic policy, which does not appear here.

5. The evolutions in his social policy, with particular reference to the Jewish question, needs to receive a far better handling.

6. Ask most people what the great turning point in Mussolini's personal career was and I imagine the Grand Council meeting of July 1943 would figure very highly. Here it receives a mention in passing. Instead what do we get?: a whole section of tittle-tattle on one of his mistresses-not, incidentally, the most significant.

Overall there is imbalance and inaccuracy, and for these reasons I put on a NPOV tag, which, as a newcomer, I thought the most appropriate. Since my work is to be received with hostility and suspicion-even by someone with administrative powers-I then put on a subsquent tag calling for expert intervention. Both were removed. I do not now know what the way forward is to be. White Guard 08:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about NPOV, but the expert tag and, perhaps VERIFY tags, seem clearly appropraite to me.

What I usually do with philosophy articles (my real area) is put a citation needed tag next to just bout every non-obvious sentence that is not cited.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are only two things I agree with White Guard: any reference to Mrs Sarfatti should be deleted as unrelevant (indeed, it's worse than unrelevant: it's a subtle attempt to present Mussolini as friendly towards the Jews) and the article needs to be improved, even though there's no justification for any special tag. I urge White Guard to make bolder moves towards what he considers as an improvement. Editing is much better than criticizing and putting tags around, even if much more difficult. On the contrary, talking here is OK. --MauroVan 09:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He was heavily involved with her to the the extent that she dictated his foreign policy until 1935 (Richard Washburn Child). I think that's pretty significant. And I don't understand why there is such a huge drive to tar Mussolini with the brush of 'Anti-Semite' - Bosworth states that he was 'never strongly pro- or anti-Semitic'. cf. Hitler, etc. --Simplyw00x 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, not unrelevant--sorry, not to be a nit-picker, but that just bugged me.--Raulpascal 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As others have suggested, White Guard, it is better to add more information than to delete perfectly legitimate information. john k 13:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about we all agree to go away and re-read a serious biography of Mussolini before returning? (My choice is Denis Mack Smith’s, but the more of us re-read different texts the better the article will become) —Ian Spackman 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That'd be great, huh? Richard Bosworth's biography is, I think, meant to be the best in English. john k 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add oc:Benito Mussolini

Thank you oc:User:Joao Xavier

Have done. —Ian Spackman 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It says Mussolini is "In office"? What?!

If you look under his picture, it says "Prime Minister of Italy", and then under that in bold font it says "In office". I can't find where to edit that out, but it's blatantly obvious that's false, so it should be removed. -NorsemanII 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think I get it. It says "In office" and then below that gives two dates. That should be "In office: date1-date2" The way it's set up right now is extremely confusing. -NorsemanII 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not going to weigh in on this thing at all, just wanted to point out that the last link under External Links, The Jewish mother of Fascism, a title just begging to be read, does not lead anywhere. Edit to your heart's content. 24.12.45.64 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I have fixed the link. -NorsemanII 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Badoglio's name is misspelled

There is a typo. "Replaced by Badolio" should be "Replaced by Badoglio"

Cultural depictions of Benito Mussolini

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When was Mussolini shot by Violet Gibson

The article currently says Mussolini was shot by Violet Gibson on 8 April 1926, however, some sources have differing dates, the source for the date in the article was published on the 8 April 1926, so it seems unlikely this was he date of the assasination attempt.

6 April 1926

7 April 1926

I have changed the date to 7 April 1926 as that seems the most likely.


I didnt add this to the main article because I can not remember the episode but there was an X-files episode in the fifth or sixth season where there was a woman who was a genie or something that could grant people wishes but they would always backfire if they were selfish. At some point mulder finds a stack of photos with her alongside past victims, one of which is Mussolini. Its a hoot but not a particularly profound reference. The cultural section seems a little thin for a dictator made fun of in so many circles.

There was a character on the BBC comedy program "the Young Ones" who bore a profound resemblence to Mussolini

death of benito mussolini

mussolini was horribly mutilated before/after his murder. The flesh was peeled off his face and skull. However I am unable to verify this as I was an eyewitness.

wasn't he taken into the town and his body beaten by the crowds?


What? Don't you mean you WEREN'T an eyewitness? -Barcode711, anonymous user

Knight of Malta

For whoever keeps removing the category tag which identifies BM as a member of the Order of Malta, please have a look at the following link. He was a grand cross. Please stop removing the tag. http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/nazi/duce.htm Russophile2 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Balcony photo?

Why are their no photos of any of Mussolini's balcony addresses in this article? --NEMT 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

-Someone put up an animated gif. of it, it looks really nice to, there should be more of those.

POV introduction (dictator)?

If it is POV to call Joseph stalin a dictator(as some editors think) then most likely it is also POV to call Mussolini a dictator.--Staberinde 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a more neutral term should be applied, like "autocrat" or "chief of state" (though I am unsure whether these would apply due to Italy having a separate monarch during the time) should be substituted.--NEMT 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
False dilemma. Here's the real issue: They were both dictators or the concept has no meaning and should be

completely abandoned. It does have a meaning which is determined by its use (obviously) and it will NOT be completely abandoned. Two errors are worse than one. The fact that some ideologiaclly motivated radicals control the page on Jospeh Stalin and prevent a perfectly accurate term from being used does not logically (or morally or epistemolgoically) justify not using the accurate term to describe Mussolini. Stalin was a dictator (witness purges, cult of personality, paranoia and annihilation of even closest advisors arbitrarily). So was Mussolini. So was Saddam Hussein. So was Pinochet. It's obvious. So was Pol Pot. So was Mao. So is Castro. What's the problem? POV-pushing results when people try to mitigate, revise, or otherwise play semantic games to try to reverse the common historical judgement. BTW, this is extremely common in Wikipedia for obvious reasons. But allowing it, because of tyrnnay of the majorty, for one article, does not jutify allowing it for others. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinochet left office without incident after being defeated in a democratic election. --NEMT 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Pinoshit was not democratically elected but installed by a military coup-d'etat backed by the Cia. The democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, was overthrown in that coup and many were killed and injured. He retained power through terror, kidnappings, torture and other anti-democratic means. He may not quite fit with some of the others, but he was not a liberal democrat by any stretch. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Your view of a complete lack of middle ground between democrats and dictators is quite shallow. --NEMT 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Straw man. I don't hold any such view. My point above was obviously that Pinochet, for example, may be not quote fit into the category of dictator. I may even be willing to grant that much.... But that doesn't take anything away from my fundamental argument. There ARE dictators. And many people on Wikipedia don't want to accept the existence of that fact at all when it comes to their particular side of the idelogical divide. That is all that is really going on when people refuse to acknowledge such obvious cases as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, etc.. But this semantic BS is discussed all the time here. Use what you like. It will almost certainly be changed by the next crop of editors that comes along in a few months and decides that "autocrat" is too POV or something. Words, in themsleves, can have no POV. Only speakers communicative intentions can have a bias in a context of utterance. If I pronounce the morpheme "socialism" with a certain tone of voice in the midst of a group of US conservative, they will take it as an insult (or as something neagtive in any case. If I say the word "socialismo" with a slightly different tone of voice in the midst of a group of Italian left-wingers, they will take it as a compliment (or respond with some other positive reaction). Either Mussolini was the prototypcal dictator or the word has no meaning at all. If I say "dictator" what pops into most people's minds is almost certainly "the little German fellow with the weird moustache" and "the fat, bald guy who ruled Italy with an iron hand", "the Russian guy with the big moustache" and so on. Thus would have to be verified exprimentally, but I have a string suspicion that it would turn out approximately true. So the word obviously has meaning, and, in fact, Mussolini is part of the meaning of the word itself. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The Stalin page is a disgrace, BTW. Not a good model anyway. Nuts!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Another bizarre coincidence. This story pops up today in the New York Times about Pinochet heart attack. I'm experiencing so many of these coincidence in the last months that, if I weren't such a dogged atheist, I would think I have special powers. But there can be no such nonsense, since I can predict nothing and hence make no money or otherwise take advantage of such abilities. Just contant coindences (sometimes quite frighthening actually) which sometimes drive me to the point of near-lunacy, since there is no rational explantion, no point or meaning to them that I can see, and nothing I can do about them. Here's the lead, BTW:

Former dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet was hospitalized early Sunday after suffering a heart attack and is in serious but stable condition, the Santiago Military Hospital said.

LOL!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
In fairness, we can both agree the New York Times, in its infinite wisdom, likely doesn't consider Stalin a dictator. Additionally, being a dictator is determined by the methods in which power is maintained and asserted, not how power was acquired. --NEMT 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Mussolini himself stated publicly that his rule was a personal dictatorship, therefore I can't see how this opinion could be considered POV. The world totalitarianism (totalitarismo in Italian) was used by the Fascist ideologues to describe (in a positive meaning!) the nature of that regime. --MauroVan 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini as soldier in World War One

Hello everyone. I have made some alterations to the "Birth of fascism" section relative to Mussolini as a soldier in the First World War. I hope you like them and I look forward to receiving comments. Cheers, --Jimbolone 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done. --NEMT 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not well done. Not done, actually. Mussolini was not a sniper. I have read his war diary, and he doesn't say that. There is not a single scene of sniping in that book. And he could not have lied easily, because each diary entry was published on his newspaper the day after, so checking what he was writing there was quite easy at that time. Mussolini was an infantryman in a Bersaglieri regiment. He was an ordinary infantryman on the Italian front, and his combat experience was similar to other infantryman in W.W.I trenches. The only difference is that the Italian front was not in the muddy Flanders but on the rocky Alps. Sniping, however, is never mentioned. Btw he was in charge of a mortar when he was wounded. I wonder why such details can't simply be taken from the Mussolini entry in the Italian Wikipedia, which is far more detailed than this.--213.140.21.227 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph states that Mussolini was "captured and hung near Lake Como by Communist Resistance units". This is not so. He was captured and shot. His body was subsequently brought to Milan where, together with that of his lover, Clara Petacci, it was hung upside-down. However, I saw no possibility of editing this slight error, and it would be good if someone in the know could take care of it. --Jimbolone 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I've done it myself. That is, I've changed "hung" into "shot". --Jimbolone 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

manoony kamoony

what's this mooney business about eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.98.36.253 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Similar to Groliers

(Copied from archive by RF) A school-kid emailed Wikipedia that this article has many segments very, very similar to Groliers. True? http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html -- Zanimum 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, how much do we have to rewrite? MBlume 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not the case. I added a great deal to this artcile which is borrowed from the Italian Wiki article on fascism. NONE of that material (Ethipeoan genocide, anti-socialism is even mentioned in that Groliers artcile. It's nonsense. --Lacatosias 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually said school-kid is probably correct. Give him this:


After I pointed out to another editor (User_talk:Kinneyboy90/Archive_2#Mussolini) in June that this JVM article (now attribute to SearchBeat) was copied from us, I assumed that this would be wrong. But it does look as if http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html was copied en bloc to form the bulk of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benito_Mussolini&oldid=238378 - the oldest surviving copy (note that using "previous" takes you a year into the future - and implies Mav149 worte the article - which is not the case). The author of the Grolier article "Denis Mack Smith - Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford University" seems to be a noted scholar in the field - not likely to plagarize us. The third article we are supposed to have copied [6] is an almost straight lift of Groliers - replacing "He was hung" with "They was hung" to match an illustration.

Of course it is just possible that DMS is the original anon IP, but it does look like a little tweaking is in order. And yes, some of the phrases have survived over 2000 edits. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50 21 December 2006 (GMT).

Wow, that's amazing. A school kid IDs copyvio content that doesn't get wiped out after 2000 edits. Geez. I'd let Signpost know if it weren't so embarressing. Anyway, I'll send a thank you email to the person who emailed us. -- Zanimum 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I check this site http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Mussolini.html, it fasle in information and misleading


Alessandra Mussolini and Alternativa Sociale

Alternativa Sociale is not a neo-fascist party. It can be collocated in the extreme-right wing, but it's not neo-fascist. Fascist and neo-fascist parties are forbidden by Italian Constitution.

I just added more information relating to the Matteoti Crisis, I am re-reading one of my fav books, the Denis Mack Smith biography. I would like to know what the original writers think of my addition, and hopefully will not delete it. I hold a BA and MA in History and have been teaching it since 00. -Malax 3/6/07

I agree with you about the Denis Mack Smith biography. I ended it realizing that I had less grasp on what Italian Fascism was as a coherent ideology than I had previously imagined. A sign of a good book! Nonetheless I don’t quite see why A Mussolini would want to have anything to do with a party which which was not in some clear sense a successor party to that of her illustrious namesake. She has hardly done a lot to distance herself from him! Essentially, once the Blair-mirror-image moderniser Gianfranco Fini had re-positioned the MSI as merely post-Fascist she was obliged to split. Certainly fascist parties are outlawed in Italy, just as fraud is legally discouraged in the UK. I suppose we could call it a follower of the pre-post-fascist tendancy. But simply neo-fascist does seem simpler. —Ian Spackman 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What would Denis Mack Smith know about Benito Mussolini? Nothing his not Italian nor knows the true about him. A least my mother who meet him and my grandmother was was president for Mussolini. I know more then him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.156.17 (talk)

"My grandmother knows it all"

This bio is incorrect and misleading. My mother meet Benito Mussolini and my grandmother was president for Mussolini.

You don't need a BA and MA in History, you need to know people who knew Benito Mussolini in person to get your facts right, degrees do not mean nothing.

The King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini in an attempt to prevent a communist revolution in Italy. He did not appoint himself, thats fasle information.

On October 29, 1922, King Vittorio Emmanuele III (1869-1947) phoned Mussolini to come to Rome and form a government. http://www.comandosupremo.com/Mussolini.html

Mussolini was in no way relate to Hitler or was not influence by him, this information on his bio is fasle, its the other way around. The hand gesutre was Mussolini idea, Hitler copy him. Arm cloths was Mussolini idea, Hitler copy him. ---- I am right here

Adolf Hitler had been inspired by Mussolini's achievements and once he gained power in Germany he sought a close relationship with Italy. In October 1936 the two men signed a non-military alliance. ---- I am right http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmussolini.htm

Mussolini did not escape to German controlled Austria, fasle information.

The truth was Benito Mussolini was helping the poor people in the South of Italy, he was going set up business there, which they had a big disgreement. The Italian partisans arrested Mussolini and Clara Petacci, and both were killed.

On April 28, 1945, Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci, were arrested again by Italian partisans by Lake Como. http://www.comandosupremo.com/Mussolini.html

  • Dell'Utri: ho i diari di Mussolini

http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cultura/200702articoli/17867girata.asp It says he dead on 27 April 1945 not 28. His body was taken to Milano on 28 April 1945 for display.

In recent interview with young Italian, they stated he was the greatest Prime Minister of all time.

I listen to my mother, father, uncle, anunt who know him in person. You can write a million books on Benito Mussolini. Authors have not spoken to him or interview him, they have no fact and no proof, just gossip.

Benito Mussolini really stood for law in order

  • He did not like kids been abuse or beating up
  • He was aganist man beating ladies
  • Crime came down in Italy
  • Unemplopyment went down
  • Againist strikes
  • Improving the Italian economy and bringing stability
  • Trains run on time
  • Againist prostitution

The people who did not like Benito Mussolini have given him a bad name. Instead he was a good man with a good heart.

They did a inteview with young people and they stated Benito Mussolini was the greatest Prime Minister in 2007. RAI International has did a bigraphy on Benito Mussolini, which is 100% spot on in information in 2007.

To me his not real a dictor. The current government's around the world are doing the something as Mussolini today. Hitler was a dictor.

Heres correct bio

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.156.17 (talk)

Funny non-sense written in a funny language (I thought my English was bad! I feel better now). :-) Please, anonymous contributor, less pro-Fascist rubbish and more useful contribution to raise the quality level of the page. --MauroVan 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Pro-Fascist rubbish? As opposed to your Commie rubbish is that it? And please do not mock another's attempts at English, that is not how things are done at Wikipedia. That comes close to a personal attack, another of that kind and I'll report you. - Izzo
I just feel I need to add there's nothing wrong with being Pro-Fascist. If someone referred to themselves as Pro-Socialist or Pro-Conservative, would you hold it against them? No, is the answer. Fascism was just another political movement, and Hitler's actions should not be used as a slur on Fascism. Hitler was a Nazi, not a Fascist, and if you want to insult Fascism, at least study Mussolini and then make educated criticisms. Thankyou. Matt7895 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, quite. To quote Il Duce himself : "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. ... The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value." I would say that's more than enough to form a judgement of the nature of Fascism, and those who find it an attractive political doctrine, wouldn't you?
As for the person writing above - I would never criticise his use of English, but he does need to understand that the fact that his grandmother knew Mussolini does not give him any special authority or ownership of any article about the man - and as he rightly points out, neither does someone's claim that they have an MA in History. Verifiability is what counts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen Burnett (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
While I would certainly question the factual validity of many of the claims of the previous pro-Fascist author, I would also question the validity of many of the claims made in the article - for example, the Early years in power section is jam-packed with various claims, and seemingly no sources whatsoever.
Unless this article is meant to be a simple example of anti-Fascist propaganda, it is academically an embarrassment.
As to being pro or anti liberal; this is frankly irrelevant to such a discussion. Liberalism is a political concept rather than a religious one, and simply arguing that someone is wrong because they opposed it is frankly akin to calling someone a heretic.Corinth 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, nobody mentioned religion before you did, so I'm a bit bemused by your last point. The previous comment said that Fascism was "just another political movement"; Mussolini's quote is simply an illustration of what kind of political movement it was, and we are entitled to form a judgement of it on that basis. --Stephen Burnett 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I made the religious inference because you used a subjective argument (that anyone who opposes liberalism must be, by definition, evil/wrong/flawed) to make a point of fact in the same way that a religious zealot would use an article of faith to make theirs - and how they would form their judgments. As such, you're welcome to your opinion, but in itself it's pretty worthless in rational debate.
All of which would tend to explain why this article is such a disaster; because posters are more interested in including their judgments and less interested in including the facts. Corinth 14:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I made the objective statement that the nature of fascism was best illustrated by a quote by Mussolini himself. That statement is a fact. Any inferences you drew of religious zealotry, on the other hand, were entirely your own, so please resist the temptation to tell me what I'm thinking. Considering that any account of the rise of fascist movement can scarcely avoid describing its absolute opposition to liberal values and influences, the point is in any case so far from being a matter of opinion, and so self-evident, as to be barely worth making. --Stephen Burnett 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

This is absurd. Are we seriously going to have this crap locked on the article? This is more than mis-information, it is blatant vandalism. From the Amazon description of the book used as a "source":

Drawing on freshly discovered material--including correspondence previously unavailable outside academia--the talented writer and journalist Nicholas Farrell has created a revelatory biography of the Italian fascist leader and dictator. How did Mussolini manage to take power and hold on to it for two decades? What inspired Churchill to call him "the Roman genius" and Pope Pius XI to say he was "sent by Providence"? And how did Mussolini successfully curtail democracy without using mass murder to stay in command? Farrell answers these questions and more, focusing particularly on Mussolini's fatal error: his alliance with Hitler, whom he despised. Anyone interested in history, politics, and World War II will encounter an intriguing and startling picture of one of the 20th century's key figures.

Odd, that there is nothing in there about Homosexuality espically a relationship (homosexual) with Adolf hitler (even in the description it says Mussolini despised him). This is nothing but absolute character attacks and defamation. I propose that it be removed immeadiatly, and if it is not, I will remove it as soon as semi-protection is off. If it is returened, I'll damn well want to know the reason why. - Izzo

A few Comments

I've a few comments on the article, but I won't claim to have the expertise on BM to make the revisions and, bearing in mind some of the astonishing, embarassing vitriolic rants in this discussion page, I'm not keen to get too deep into it. However, my tuppenceworth.

1. As mentioned earlier, 3 pictures of Mussolini with Hitler is a bit much. One would make the point.

2. The information on the formation of the Facist movement at the start of the section on BM's WW1 service seems misplaced.

3. The section on the invasion of Ethopia causes me some problem. It is long, detailed and POV (in tone, as much as content) and the English and punctuation aren't the best. It probably should be cut down and properly re-written, but in the mean time at least some better puntuation and line breaks.

4. Please keep the discussion page polite.

Epeeist smudge 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A Bit Slanted

After reading over this article a couple of times I have come to the clear conclusion that the author(s) have written this article with bias. While I am far from a pro-fascist, as a historian I feel that it is imperative to create an accurate picture of the events as they happened rather than a judgmental summary of a man's life. Many statements in use quotations to mock the legitimacy of Mussolini's reign in Italy--and the immeasurable effect it had on the nation.
Are we really supposed to believe that an entire nation was duped/scared into the support of a dictatorship minus a couple of anarchists/socialists? Instead, I think some sections should be added on the real image Mussolini had as leader. We must look at the way he utilized the cult of personality as a legitimate/effective leadership style. Are we to forget that Mussolini's main goal was to make Italy a prominent and autocratic nation? Are we to leave out that Italy was the least effected by the Depression of 1929 because of such policies? Or that he was voted Time Magazine's first ever Man of the Year? It is clear that the author is much more educated on the life of Hitler than that of Mussolini, as the generalizations s/he makes relate to Mussolini's blind allegience to Hilter (far from true). In effect, Mussolini was a fascist, Mussolini had no Final Solution--only a goal of continued nation building (See, Stanley G. Payne).
One thing is clearly left out, his political policies put the value of the state over the value of the individual. It is unfair to clump Mussolini in with Hitler and call it a day. There were many positives (massive technological and international growth/provided sense of nation that was absent) AND negatives (limits on individual rights/freedom and exchange of ideas) that resulted from Mussolini's rise to power and they should both be presented without mocking tones and belittling summaries. To have this article present a better understanding of the how/why Mussolini came to power I think there should be a section added about Mussolini's cultural influences and strategies employed during his reign. For example: the use (seemingly Catholic) ritual in everyday life, the images of speed (planes/trains), fashion/the ideal mother/modern woman that was largely expressed through film. Mussolini also used iconization: he was IL DUCE not Il Duce you could collect your own Mussolini head (like heads for paperweights) as well as the cult of technology and progress so ingrained in his support of the Italian nation.
For in reality "Mussolini was a skilled and ruthless tactician who sought to maximize his options and to leave an out for himself at all times—and at any cost to others or to the ideological purity of the movement he created. But as a statesman, he pursued the traditional goal of his liberal predecessors—the international recognition of Italy as a great power—by new ideological means" (See, Claudio Fogu). I spent much more time here than I meant to, but I do hope my comments are taken to heart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoppingkit (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Education Program

Mussolini's educational programs during his fascist reign should be included in this article, and I encourage anyone with the proper sources and background to add it on. Student Remark 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop demonizing atheism

Benito Mussolini was not an atheist. The two sources in the article that call Mussolini an atheist are pro-Roman Catholic. Fools like John Pollard should be punished for trying to demonize atheism[7]. The website http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_vatican_in_world_politics_chpt_9.html is a Catholic website. These two ridiculous, nonsense and stupid website should be removed. And, of course, Benito Mussolini was a Roman Catholic. I have found two reliable sources which shows Mussolini was religious [8][9].

User:Devraj5000

From Mussolini, Denis Mack Smith, 1981
"From his father he had learnt to be a thoroughgoing anti-clerical. He proclaimed himself to be an atheist, and several times tried to shock an audience by calling on God to strike him dead"
"In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity and goodness ..."
"Another continuing constituent of his creed was manifested in his vitriolic attacks against the Church, which he accompanied with provocative and blasphemous remarks about the consecrated host and about a love affair between Christ and Mary Magdalen ... Socialists who believed in Christianity or accepted religious marriage should be expelled from the party."
As Professor Mack Smith is widely recognised as an authority on Italian history and the author of the best English biography of Mussolini, I think we must accept that Mussolini was indeed - as he himself stated - an atheist. --Stephen Burnett 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"In Nietzsche he found justification for his crusade against the Christian virtues of humility, resignation, charity and goodness ..."

This shows that Mack Smith is a Christian who wants to demonize atheism. This also shows that Smith does not understand anything about the great work of Nietzsche.

User:Devraj5000

Ah. OK, now I understand. Everyone who says things you don't agree with is part of the Christian conspiracy. They're all in it together. Thank you for making it clear. --Stephen Burnett 11:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What source could possibly prove his religious belief one way or another? Mussolini in general didn't tend to have personal beliefs beyond what he thought was practical for his own advancement, so this argument be like wondering if Mussolini himself truly and privately believed in a left wing or right wing philosophy. He changed to suit what would give him more power, it seems to me. To conclude, I don't believe that the wikipedia article can make a stance on his religious beliefs because his public life is our only source, and it provides contrasting answers. -KingPenguin 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not actually one of the people anxious to fill in a box marked "religion"; I think that what people do is more important than what goes on - or what they claim goes on - inside their heads. Perhaps you should ask those who want to fill in the box why it's so important and if we need to have it. --Stephen Burnett 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trains running on time?

Shouldn't there be somewhere in the article where they mention the myth of Mussolini making the trains running on time? I'd say it's a big part of his legacy. I'd put it in myself, only I don't know where would be the best place to put it. Angrist 07:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Speech gif

I think this gif image, [[Image:Mussolini1.gif|thumb|left|222px|Mussolini giving a speech]] should be made into a movie file which can be played/paused. Firstly it is annoying to have a looping video playing while you read an article; secondly, the gif format is not really appropriate for this sort of material. Cheers Suicup 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini's Education

This entry mentions NOTHING of Mussolini's educational background. Could someone with at least some knowledge of it include something? From what I gather, Mussolini was rather well-educated.

Mussolini murrdered

Mussolini was murdered, do to the fact that he never got a trial. And it was not carried out by the government. Sure he might have been executed if it had not been for this. Chris H 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He was not murdered because there was a death penalty sentence isuued by the CLN.Leo Valliani confirmed it.The italian partisan where also recognized as part of the Regio Esercito( Itlaan Royal Army) .User : Lucifero4. Who is CLN-Communist scum. There was no "death sentence" from the royal government. Provide a link. John celona 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The photographs of Mussolini hanging upside down after his execution does not look like meat-hooks. It looks as though he was hung from some kind of roof construction, with feet tied together. Meat hooks sounds biased. --PeterKristo 10:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini and religion

Indro Montanelli in his book STORIA D'ITALIA wrote that he recived the baptism as choil.In 1927 he married Rachele in fornt of a priest after some year of civil marriage User : Lucifero4. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:35, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Ethiopian Campaign

Sorry to let facts spoil a good "joke", if that's what it was, but the Ethiopians were not "armed only with spears, clubs and rocks". It is perfectly true that they were poorly trained and completely unequipped to fight against modern aircraft, bombs, poison gas and armaments, but they they did have an army of sorts, with several hundred machine guns. They also had some slow elderly aircraft and a few bombs, although I can't find any mention of them having been used against the Italians.

The lengthy campaign in Ethiopia was largely due to the fact that Mussolini, in order to assure himself of a crushing victory, had deployed large military forces - about 10 times what was thought necessary by one senior officer - with little or no detailed planning of how they were to be supplied or what they were to do when they got there. He had also appointed a commander - De Bono - who decided that a slow cautious campaign was necessary. He was of course subsequently replaced by Badoglio, who was authorised to use terror tactics against the population.

(ref Denis Mack Smith, R.J.B.Bosworth.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Burnett (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Death

Is the paragraph about Hitler's death really necessary for this section? Murderbike 00:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PoV pushing in part of the article dealing World War II

The parts of the article dealing Italy in World War II are full of nonsense, talking mainly about Italians defeats and "poor performance everywhere", giving very flawed image of Italy in World War II by not explaining things properly, (and I don't want to hear stereotypical nonsense about "What Italian achievements?") such as the convoy battles, Italian divisions in North Africa post early 1941, or battles on the Eastern Front (the fact that the Italian expeditionary force was defeated in the end doesn't hide the forces performance and achievements). These parts of the article need some serious rewriting. --Kurt Leyman 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini also imprisoned on La Maddalena Island?

I have heard first hand accounts of Mussolini's imprisonment, for a time, on the small island lying close off the northern coast of Sardinia. Heard from the son of the farmer whose farm supplied vegetables to the prisoner and his captors. Duration unknown, exact timing unknown. I see no mention of it here, and I've been unable to find any independent references. Anyone else? 184.179.76.71 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing new and well known: Mussolini was brought from Ponza to La Maddalena and kept there from August 7th to 27th, 1943. Afterward it was moved again to Campo Imperatore in Abruzzo, since there was danger that the allies could kidnap him and bring him to north Africa. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Racist?

Mussolini a Racist? But several italian "gerarchi" were jewish themselves! Italy has never been anti-semitic like many other nations... it's not casual that the numbers of the jews deportated in the concentrations camp are very low, if confronted with other axis powers. Fascism was, above all, "in love" with italianship... and the jews were seen firstly as italians, not as jews. (forgive my english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.68.212 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

POV of opening?

I know a lot of people have been working on this article and there is a long list of settled clowns but it seems to me the overall result is an opening apple pie that shows that this fellow Mussolini was a fine leader and managed to get a lot of poon. Sure, there is a brief mention of censorship and propaganda, but then look at all the domestic accomplishments! The admiration of political leaders! The daring rescue from prison! I realize that there are people who still revere the man, but this barely suggests that he is controversial, let alone widely reviled. You have to keep reading a lot further to find the political violence, the police state, the imperial invasions, the Nazi-backed puppet regime. All of this is in the article, but hidden. Maybe someone who's been working on this article already could take a crack at rewriting the opening to provide at least a bit more balance.Prodes111 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The opening does not once mention that Mussolini was a dictator (a salient aspect of his role in history!). Skinrider (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No-one is a dictator at Wikipedia. This is a POV word and not allowed. To be serious, this is of course a complicated issue. Yes Mussolini was an authoritarian ruler, but until the war he was hugely popular and there was very little opposition to his regime. Compared to his contemporaries he was, until 1943, a fairly benevolent dictator. Between 1922 and 1939, for example, a grand total of nine people in Italy were executed for political crimes. Compare that to the bloodbath under Stalin, or to Hitler or Franco. And his regime did have considerable accomplishments, compared both to the liberal regime that preceeded it and to the postwar republic, both of which were corrupt and slothful by comparison. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
lol, nice. But to address the serious part of your response, I think it would be safe to insert the phrase "and a dictator of Italy" after the current phrase "was an Italian politician" in the article opening. After all, at least half the article describes Mussolini's dictatorship --- section 3 specifically states that "Mussolini obtained dictatorial powers for one year" and "This is considered the onset of Mussolini's dictatorship", and section 4, entitled "Building a dictatorship", is all about Mussolini's actions as a dictator. A leader does not have to engage in a bloodbath to be a dictator. He only has to have supreme power. Skinrider (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At Dictator we read: "In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality." Did Mussolini meet these criteria? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If he didn't meet these criteria, then all uses of the word 'dictator' should be removed from the article. If we refer, at any point in the article, to Mussolini as a dictator, then it's reasonable to also add that word to the article's opening. Skinrider (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The largest part of this article is titled 'Building a Dictatorship'. Degrees of brutality are not relevant in deciding whether this term applies to him. He is an iconic dictator; it should be mentioned in the first sentence. --Cammacleay (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Skinrider (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The challenge with Mussolini is the same one historians face when dealing with Italian Fascism in general... It is extremely hard to place neatly into boxes or categories. Having read every work the man ever wrote, it is clear to me that he lived a life full of contradiction and struggled daily with the dual lives he led. Part of the thread above is of primary importance when discussing this man and point in history. When compared to his contemporary "dictators" Mussolini is less dangerous, brutal and overall less hated. His calendar is perennially the number one seller in Italy to this day! His unique place in history is his contradiction; it is amongst the accomplishments listed in the text, his legacy. The POV is accurate because attributing the democratic propaganda term "dictator" to the entrance to the text sets an unfair table for unbiased readers searching for a true picture of the essence of Mussolini. --user:Martillaro 13 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.244.13 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, wasn't sure where to put this. But on the article, it states that Benito improved public transport. It is probably worth noting that Benito did nothing to improve train services. As QI pointed out "The only train he made run on time was one carrying himself from Milan to Rome run on time so he could become Prime Minister. All other improvements in the Italian transport system happened before he came to power" - 23 August 20:35

I agree that the opening section of this article does not meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards. The fact of only listing positive achievements of any political leader would be suspect, since everyone has their faults, but this is especially egregious in this case given that it is not a representative selection of his deeds while in power--so at least we can strive for balance. And yes, by the criteria given above, he was a dictator. I've marked the section for POV until this dispute is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.73.158 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the guy tried to take over (unsuccesfully) my country (Greece) after greatly underestimating its power and after the Germans finished the job he prety much STARVED and EXECUTED us to death.Okay we did blow up a few of his supply bridges and convoys of his troops but he had it coming.Speaking on behalf of my ancestors, the introduction should read "upressive JACKASS OF A DICTATOR and a completely FAILED conquerer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.132.213 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mussolini a sniper?

Mussolini fought from 1915 to early 1917 in a Bersaglieri regiment. He wasn't a sniper, he was a fusilier, an ordinary infantryman. I have read his war diary and there is no mention of sniping. Later in the war Mussolini was trained to use a trench mortar, and he was in charge of a mortar squad when one of the shells they were shooting at the Austrians misfired and Mussolini got wounded. So I can't see where that bit of information comes from. It is not in the Italian entry on Mussolini, which is thoroughly documented. I do not think that MS Encarta is a reliable source when it comes to this kind of details.--213.140.21.227 17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are totally 100% correct. That is insanity to suggest that the crafty editor of newspapers was also a trained sniper. I have over 10 biographies on Mussolini ranging in time and scope and none of them mention him being a sniper. I have updated the World War I section and used legitmate references from a British Ambassador who was a contemporary of Mussolini, Ivone Kirkpatrick. Mussolini is too fascinating a figure to be left to such shoddy citing and crazy claims. It is time to clean this page up!!! (24.12.91.197 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

The Missing Brother

The importance of Arnaldo, Mussolini's elder brother, in the ascent of the Duce is not mentioned in this entry. Arnaldo was the only person that Benito really trusted, and he was the liason between him and the Vatican (Arnaldo being a devout Catholic, unlike his former Socialist and atheist brother). I think there should be an entry on Arnaldo Mussolini, and something should also be added to this entry.--213.140.21.227 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

censorship

The section dedicated to Mussolini as a soldier in the first world war has been drastically altered, and I find no mention in the discussion section of any intended modification of the much longer paragraph that was there before. --Jimbolone 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The "foreign policy" section seems to have been partially copied from [10]. Other sections should probably be checked for copyright problems. The Groiler's encyclopedia article is cited as a source elsewhere. This is mildly inappropriate, as Wikipedia should finding independent justification for fact in books written by historians, not pointing at competing encyclopedias. -- Beland 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC) frevkopfjvprejpvjrefpvpmvpfjpivmpfmrbpvi[mfpivp[ifmrpvmfpimvpfmpvibfpvpbifpvofpovpbogrm

Mussolini the Socialist

This article states: "He left the army an anti-socialist in 1917"

This is nonsense. Mussolini was and always stayed to be a socialist. However during the first world war many former leading internationalist-socialistic comrades suddenly proved to be much more nationalist than they claimed before. (Search for info on the internet about the betrayel of the second internationalist conference). This let Benito to the conclusion that socialism needed and should use the strength of nationalism. That is how he became a national socialist in the true meaning of the word. So what he really became in 1917 was anti-internationalistic-socialism. He let go of the internationalistic part and not of the socialist part of his believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.225.74 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(from France) if ever the anonymous propagandist of 29/11/07 at 11:13 had a basic historical knowledge, or if he ever had under the eyes a copy of 'Il Popolo d'Italia', the paper that Mussolini created in nov. 1914 with French (diplomatic) and Italian (bug business) financial's help, he should know that from that time Mussolini stopped to be a socialist. These 29/11 statements are nothing but a childish attempt to tell us the same old story, socialism equal fascism... 194.254.169.6 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) L. Nemeth

If so many people are leftist these days, why wouldn't we remind them socialism killed many millions more people than fascism and nazism? Truly - mankind still isn't able to learn on its mistakes... 85.89.184.212 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Break with Socialists" section amounts to nothing more than two cherry-picked quotes from one ancient source. I am not disputing that Mussolini broke with the actual Italian socialISTS (in distinction to the belief of socialISM, some core values of which he retained), but this section needs much expansion, if it even deserves to be its own section at all.

But, moreover, this entire article seems haunted by the fear that someone might think some ridiculous notion that all current-day Socialists are little Mussolinis. This is obviously false and would be a huge exaggeration, but the fact is that Mussolini was a socialist for a long time, and even after he broke formally with the socialists and stopped believing in the vitality of a Socialist party, he never really renounced many of the tenants of socialism. The tenor of his fascist socialization obviously overlapped with socialism on economic grounds. This is indisputable. To suggest that Mussolini did some sort of complete political 180 and left everything he believed in behind is ludicrous. Not even the stupid college students who run from everything vaguely "right wing" would believe that. It's like suggesting that if a U.S. politician switched parties from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa), then the guy must have renounced a belief in representational government and voting, since the party he left believed in representational government and voting. The point is, Mussolini's brand of fascism had enough in common with socialism that to suggest that Mussolini stopped believing in many tenets of socialism is incorrect. He broke with the actual socialISTS, and believed that the doctrinal package of "Socialism" was ineffective, so he gave a fascistic overhaul to his core beliefs (but did not throw these beliefs out and start over).

However, this is wikipedia, so I don't expect anything remotely "left wing" to be cast in a bad light. Only a moron would interpret acknowledging Mussolini's continued socialist beliefs as an attack against contemporary socialists, but I guess many of the caretakers here are indeed planning for a future when everyone is a moron. Don't worry, fellas, I must admit that the masses are getting ever more dumbed-down. The spin and propaganda is working. Pretty soon you'll be able to call Stalin a right-wing extremist too, if you can't spin him into a misguided saint instead. 66.82.9.59 (talk)

Internationalist Socialism versus Fascist Socialism

Many people condemn Mussolini for his dictatorship and the violence of fascism. But most people do not understand that before he conquered Italy the International Socialists where planning a revolution orchestrated by the Russian communists. These Russian communist had by this time already many hundreds of thousands people killed in Russia during and after their revolution. The fascist have never ever been as cruel as them, not by a long shot. If Mussolini would not have taken control, than the internationalist Socialists would have turned Italy into a bloodbath. The fascist prevented this, but it was impossible to do this in a friendly way against such a violent enemy.

These remarks show a very shallow knowledge of Italian history 1918-1922. No mention of the fact that Mussolini left the Socialist party because he was given money by powerful Italian industrial cartels (Agnelli, Ansaldo, Perrone, weapon-makers who were in favor of Italy joining the war as it would bring them huge contracts), so Mussolini's opposition to the Socialists started well before the strikes and protests that started after the end of the war. Besides, the Socialists were one thing and the Communists were another, quite different, thing. Saying that "International Socialists where planning a revolution orchestrated by the Russian communists" is proof of a big misunderstanding of what the real relations between Socialists and Communists were in post-war Italy (btw the Italian Communist Party was born in 1921, and that party had strong connections with Moscow; but it didn't exist as an independent organization before that year). Moreover, the diffusion of socialist ideas was caused by the ruthless exploitation of Italian workers and peasants carried out by the Italian middle- and upper-classes, an exploitation which was heightened during the war (imagine going on strike because of low wages in a moment when factories were busy producing machine-guns, mortars, armoured cars, military trucks, etc.--they immediately sent the Army to repress any protest), and was definitely not something remotely controlled by the Bolsheviks in Moscow.

All in all those remarks are nonsense. Mussolini was a ruthless dictator, who carried out an aggressive and imperialistic international policy. One might mention the censorship, the elimination of dissidents, the colonial wars, the role played by Italy in the Spanish civil war, and then what Italians did in the Balkans during W.W.II (the Yugoslav and the Greeks found the Nazis more manageable!).--213.140.21.227 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak as if fascist methods are incompatible with socialism and tender that as proof Mussolini was no long a socialist. That thinking is fundamentally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.251.182 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He was executed by firing squad, not assassinated

In the article "execution by firing squad" his execution is even listed as an example! --84.220.25.149 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Benito Papito was assassinated by the very definition of the word; "Assassination is the targeted killing of an individual who is in a high-profile position. An added distinction between assassination and other forms of killing is that the assassin has an ideological or political motivation."
The fact that he was murdered by a firing squad does not change the fact that communists assassinated him based on him been of a high-profile position, fueled by political and ideological motivations.[11][12][13] Wikipedia can't be used as a source for another article. - Animagentile (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Definition of assassinate from Merriam Webster

You seem to have forgotten the fact that it must be a sudden attack to be an assassination. A firing squad isn't exactly secret. DDSaeger (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very narrow definition of the word. The OED gives "To kill by treacherous violence." So he was assassinated. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While he was high profile he was not in a position of power as he had already been ousted as Italy's leader. I do not think that "assassination" is the correct word and "execution" could imply that his death was ordered as the result of some kind of trial. I think "killed" is probably the least evocative word but does not have the same description of the manner in which he died. I think the most accurate phrase is "summary execution" as this shows that his death was extra-judicial and is not as evocative as "assasination" which relies on the POV that his killing was treacherous. --Aimaz (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you had good reasons for changing it. I prefer "summarily executed" to "assassinated". Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with "summarily executed" as well. However, that change seems to have been reverted. Animagentile, reasons have been provided why this might be more appropriate - why exactly do you prefer assassinated? DDSaeger (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't keep changing it back. Summarily executed is clearly the better term. --John (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Summarily executed is correct. I remind that Audisio has a written order from Raffaele Cadorna, Jr. to execute Mussolini.User talk:Lucifero4.

"bloodbath" of -24

The article claims that "The militant members of the party were angry that only a few dozen had been killed and a bloodbath ensued, causing thousands of casualties" following the assassination of Matteotti. I can't find mention of this bloodbath anywhere else, nor is there any citation for the statement. Can someone clarify this? Also, can you be more specific? Was the bloodbath against socialists, communists and/or anarchists, or just civilian Italians in general? Was the bloodbath ordered by Il Duce, the military leaders, or did it "just happen"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.170.14 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Anteo Zamboni

Anteo Zamboni, the boy that was lynched by the mob, was actually innocent, it says that in one of my books on Mussolini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.61 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

expansionism for militarism

I thought I better explain the reason for such a change in the intro first. Since Italia irredenta was an important part of the ideology of Italian nationalists under Fascism and obviously we have the building of the Italian Empire, "expansionaism" covers both of those things, as well as the obvious means in which the Empire could be formed in the first place; by military force. - Gennarous (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Atheist

So, wait-why are we being so ginger about labelling Mussolini an atheist? I mean in the information bar on the upper right hand side of the article. I suppose that he may have had some conflicting views on religion, but the overwhelming point of view that he espoused was that he was an atheist, and that is conceded by this very article. It is also conceded in the textbook "Contemporary Europe" by James Wilkinson and H. Stuart Hughes.

http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Europe-History-10th-Edition/dp/0131841769

It seems that the authors of the article know that most people-especially impressionable kids-just check the info bar on the right for quick info, and in keeping with wikipedia's liberal bias, they don't want to admit that one of the worst politicians and biggest killers of all time was an atheist. According to wikipedia's liberal point of view, all of the most evil leaders of history were Christians, and this doesn't fit the liberal narrative. Wikipedia can be laughably liberal, and this is ridiculous. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)



I have added Mussolini to the atheist category due his anti-clerical and atheist views shown in early writings and then in private even after his supposed "conversion" to Catholicism. It is highly likely if not certain that Mussolini did not believe in God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.160.105 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I know Mussolini recived the baptism as an infant so following the canon law is not an atheist but a catholic,but he didn't belive in God that is sure. As I know in 1927 he married Rachele Guidi in front of priest years after his civil marriage with Donna Rachele, this decision of a religius marriage was done before the Lateran Traty. (User:Lucifero4)
Found this sourche through Google books which seems might be the source used for the citation in that section [14] Outomus (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini was catholic, but in adolescent age he matured some doubt about the religion, after studying Nietsche toughts. When became leader of fascism he had retreived his faith. Although fascism made use of anti-clerical people in his squadrons. His last script confirms that:

"It is not the faith that comes at dusk one that keeps me going, is the faith of my childhood and my life that requires me to have to believe, even when I right to doubt.[...]I believed in the victory of our arms, as I believe in God, our Lord[...]" from "letter to Italian people" http://www.ilduce.net/lettera.htm

Moreover the fascist doctrine contained, for want of Mussolini, a lot of Catholic references and the Popes Pius XI, Pius XII and Joannes XXIII taught that Mussolini was "the man of Providence" and "the most big man I knew, and certainly among the most deeply good". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.49.26 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, don't put up your anticlerical sh... and read about his beliefs in the article. Thank you, all remember that a mass murderer can't be a true Catholic - rather some kind of a sectard. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
He's right you know. Catholics can't be mass murderers. They're too busy being paedophiles. They leave the mass murdering to the baptists... Joking aside I think the religious views part of this article needs some counter views added. I mean I don't doubt he espoused Catholicism partly for political gains, but also some of his biographers were probably a bit biased like this guy above me that I made fun of.89.210.189.119 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that catholics always want to pass of thier worst as Atheists? He was (like Hitler) were catholics. Whether or not he privately was an Atheist doesnt matter. No one can look into your soul and see what you truely believe. But if you were baptized. If you negotiated the with the vatican so that the vatican could get its own state. If in turn they baptized you and that helped you politically. I am sorry, but you my friend were a Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Mussolini was a self-described Atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it hilarious, yet foolish, that somebody could type "Whether or not he privately was an Atheist doesnt matter". When you're talking about a person's religion, you are talking about something that is personal and core to a person's identity. That said, what matters isn't how other people viewed him, but how he viewed himself. Mussolini viewed himself as an atheist, which history has generously proven to us.

Then again, perhaps I am asking too much in requesting Wikipedia to be factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.169.31 (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) In response to another user, Hitler was a follower of Germanic neo-paganism and the occult. Try reading a book at least once in your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.169.31 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference 24 is incorrect

The sentence ending with footnote 24 should be entirely deleted, for the referenced article (footnote 24) makes no mention at all of Dollfuss. Also, the article gives no origin for the alleged quote about 'pederasts'. So please delete that entire sentence (section 5.1). 67.78.143.226 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll move the ref so it doesn't refer to Dollfuss, but there is no reason to remove it wholesale. The article is a whole is referenced--how does it fail to meet the criteria for being a RS? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
67.78.143.226, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make? Are you trying to say Mussolini and Dollfuss were not allies before the nazis had him killed? If so, you would be incorrect. - Gennarous (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Word

There is a missing word in the first sentence: Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (July 29, 1883 – April 28, 1945) was an Italian who led the National Fascist Party and is credited with being one of key figures in the creation of Fascism.

It should say "one of the key figures," not "one of key figures.

HisPowr4U (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)HisPowr4U 5/11/08

Noted and fixed. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Extra Word

In the sentence, "Mussolini's face looked as if it he had significant pain..." I believe it should read "Mussolini's face looked as if he had significant pain..." or "Mussolini's face looked as if he was in significant pain...". Or it could all be removed since most the information in the Death section has no reference or bad references, but I suppose thats just Wikipedia. At least add some "It is believed..." or "It has been reputed..." --67.168.101.115 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove "it" and you're done. Da Baron (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascism was appropriated by Mussolini to label the movement he led to power in Italy in 1922, but was subsequently generalized to cover a whole range of movements in Europe during the inter-war period. The economic conditions of the period were the main feature that increased the attractions of the Fascists. Although Mussolini's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. In spite of Italy’s war debts and problems of reconstruction, wages remained at their pre-war levels. In such circumstances, the working-class voters were attracted to the left-wing parties in the hope of pressing for wage claims. Some of these people took action on their own behalf by striking and occupying factories. Consecutively, people who owned property and feared Socialism were encouraged to support extreme parties.

User:Subtank 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another extra word that needs to be clipped occurs in "Chambers in in Cesena". Please remove the redundant 'in '. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.169.38 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alex2006 (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mussolini's Roman Empire

I read a book that's now out of print, called Mussolini's Roman Empire, it cast a lot of light on diplomacy between Italy and Nazi Germany. Hitler and mussolini had several direct meetings in which they spoke about their plans and ideals. The interesting thing is that though mussolini could speak some german he was no good with comprehension so much of Hitler's words most likey went w/o any kind of understanding. Mussolini refused to use a translator and probably didn't understand half of hitler's words. Da Baron (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)hi how are you

Mussolini and the Mafia

Why doesn't this article address his dealings with the Mafia? It's an interesting aspect of Italian Fascism:http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_267.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.220.249 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mafia in the fascist period was suppressed violently and there were no more reports of mafia activity until the period of migration from southern Italy to America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.49.26 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

In the section "Conquest of Ethiopia" there is a section that describes how European powers such as Britain maintained their African colonies by "brutal" means. I did not think that a very fair assessment, and so checked the source, which turns out to be a website called Counter Currents. This is not an academic/ historical source, but more of an online polemic. Within the Counter Currents article in question, the reference to Africa and British brutality (Kenya in the 1950s) didn't even take place when Mussolini was alive, so how can it be said to be relevant to the context of Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia?

I feel it is a real failure of Wikipedia's mission for articles to be sourced in such an ideological fashion, and for shoddy sourcing like this to be used.Stevirv (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

This is more of a request for future expansion than a correction, but at the moment I'm searching for propaganda under Mussolini and the only mentions I've found (through my admittedly quick reading) are the licenses required by papers and one to the concept of propaganda in the opening paragraph. Did Mussolini have a specific ministry of propaganda, like Hitler? Faux scholar (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


remove "TIMMAY!!"

it is obvious vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.255.25 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


In sentence: Mussolini's once-ubiquitous propaganda machine lost its grip on the people; a large number of Italians urned to Vatican Radio or Radio London for more accurate news coverage.

In this sentence: urned

Should be changed to turned Figlinus (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini's missing daughter

Mussolini's youngest daughter has been airbrushed out. Anna Maria Mussolini 1929-1968 suffered from childhood polio. She appears to have only been famous through her family but she does deserve a mention. She should not be confused with Anna Maria Mussolini the wife of Romano and sister of Sophia Loren. Can someone authourised put her in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.72.111 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

"There was even some Jews in the National Fascist Party" This has been bugging me since I read it and it needs to be fixed. -08:35 ET, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"favour" inthe scentance "While associated with socialism, Mussolini's writings eventually indicated that he had abandoned Marxism and egalitarianism in favour of Nietzsche's übermensch concept and anti-egalitarianism," should be spelled "favor".

Spanish Civil war

This section is far from being neutral because it fails to mention that the Republicans were the democratically elected government and that the Nationalists were attempting a coup d'etat.

The reference to propaganda is misleading because when read naturalistically it implies that Italian military support in Spain was morally justified.

"Italian military help to Nationalists against the anti-clerical and anti-Catholic atrocities committed by the Republican side worked well in Italian propaganda targeting Catholics."

Incidents of "anti-clerical and anti-Catholic atrocities" are not cited and these alone are not the reason for Italian fascist support of Falangist rebels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.32.165 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment that intervention on the side of Franco ended any hope of reconciliation with Britain and France is quite simply incorrect. Despite Mussolini's aid since July 1936 the British attempted throughout the period to reach reconciliation with Italy e.g. with the Gentleman's agreement. At times, repproach with Italy looked likely. At msot, Italy's intervention soured relations between her and Britain only slightly. Odin (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation required

There, Hitler told him that unless he agreed to return to Italy and set up a new fascist state, the Germans would destroy Milan, Genoa and Turin.

There shall be a citation here, this is quite an obscure statement. Where is this documented? I hope we are not saying now that we have to thanks Mussolini for having avoided bombing Milan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierino23 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We currently have a link for Alessandro Mussolini. This page was deleted, please remove the link. Also we mention his father's political views. I do not see a direct citation to back up that he was a Socialist, Anarchist, Republican. I found some evidence of the Socialist, Anarchist (no citation), but the Republican is shakey. Are we talking about an Italian Republican Party that would have been active in 1883-1901 or the American Republican Party that was only know internationally for freeing slaves and fighting racial injustice in the south? I smell bias here from a view point that may not realize that the progressive movement didn't happen until 1912. Let's be faithful to History, clarify what republican party he would have leaned towards and cite it. This is the section showing early influences by his father, so I say 1883-1901 would be the years in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micawiki (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the addition of another external link:

http://robertod.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/despot-of-the-week-7-benito-mussolini/

This is an extensive and informative article about Benito Mussolini that merits consideration for a link.

210.8.191.97 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Doctor D210.8.191.97 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5

--Mais oui! (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

yes this is important and needs to be addressed. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.214.185 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So should he be in Category:British spies? Our article might also want to mention what the crown got for that money -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(from France) it should be known in England, nowadays, that Mussolini got start in right wing politics in 1914 -in no case 1917- after having received a huge amount of money, not only from italian bug business, but also from France. The referential article has been published more than ten years ago, in Italy : Luc Nemeth, « Dolci corrispondenze. La Francia e i finanziamenti a « Il Popolo d’Italia » 1914-1917″, Italia contemporanea, n. 212, sett. 1998, pp. 605-616. 194.153.110.5 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistress' diary: Mussolini was a fierce anti-Semite

This Israeli site: [JP] tells that Mussolini was a fierce anti-Semite.Agre22 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Mistress' diary: please take care

I do not want to change the part concerning the Mistress diary by myself but I'd like someone qualified to do it.My point is that Fascism at the beginning was not anti-semite. Simply it was not an issue for them. There were a good number of italian jews between members of Fascist party at the beginning. Furthermore for several year Mussolini used to have an influential lover that was an italian jews too (which is not a tipical antisemite behavior :D). Claretta Petacci in her diary report these speeches of Mussolini in which he claimed to be anti-semite (and several other things) in order to present himself not as an Hitler follower but as the leader of that weird coalition. He was a poor megalomaniac but this claims, even if they comes from himself seems to be inaccurate. Corrado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.155.76 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benito_Mussolini/Archive_2&oldid=1136559407"