Could Mussolini have redeemed himself?

jhuro

jhuro

I've always had a fascination with both Mussolini and Fascist Italy because unlike say Hitler and Nazi Germany, Italy is more ridiculed rather than despised, and Mussolini is often portrayed as a buffoon rather than evil. But it wasn't always this way for Mussolini. Although he was always considered to be a tyrant, Fascist Italy still garnered respect for its military and economic reforms in the 20s and 30s, and some of Italy's corporatist economics helped shaped the New Deal. Additionally, Mussolini didn't see eye to eye with Hitler in his earlier days, and he wasn't an anti-Semite. However, because of Italy's performance in WW2, Mussolini will always be known as a bumbling fool, a legacy he probably deserved.

Is it possible then for Mussolini to redeem himself in the eyes of history, and have a positive legacy, with a POD after Italy declares war on the Allies? Bonus points if he manages to hold on to power afterwards. I was thinking perhaps Mussolini could somehow switch sides while still holding on to power, but I'm unsure if the Allies were ever willing to let him surrender conditionally.
 

Johnrankins

No, after he tied himself to the Nazis he was toast. There was no way to get rid of THAT stench. Before then, sure. If he remained neutral he probably would have come out all right.
 

Toraach

Banned
jhuro said:
Is it possible then for Mussolini to redeem himself in the eyes of history, and have a positive legacy, with a POD after Italy declares war on the Allies? Bonus points if he manages to hold on to power afterwards. I was thinking perhaps Mussolini could somehow switch sides while still holding on to power, but I'm unsure if the Allies were ever willing to let him surrender conditionally.
Click to expand...
If Germans had won, he would have had a legacy of a great leader and the best friend of "glorious, invincible, leader of the Thousand Year Reich and the European Union" Adolf Hitler. Ok, but back to more plausible scenarios.


To looking how Mussolini might be treaten, we need to look how italian fascism was seen before 2WW, this was a legitimate and in eyes of many succesful and atractive ideology, especially in a context of economic difficulties during the great crisis.

If he had not engaged in this war, and later at some late moment took a part on an alied side, by "backstabing" Germany in a well choosen moment, he would be Roosevelt and Churchil's best friend, just like Stalin was :) But with that difference, that Mussolini wouldn't cause some cold war after the war, and remains a good buddy with the Alies, and his political system would be still atractive to war destroyed countries. Also he would a necessary to stoping communism and the Soviet Union during the early cold war.
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
The only way I can think of this working is if Hitler tries to pull off an "Abdication of Bayonne" on the Italian regime to replace it with something more Nazi-esque and co-operative after a (somewhat) more militarily successful Mussolini starts pushing back against German domination of the Axis; obstructing German goals and starting iniatives that Germany perceives as against her interests. The Italians resist heroically and "Clerico-Corperatist Facism" and "Nazism" get distinct reputations and a compare-contrast as Nazi policy is imposed in areas that the Germans take control over and the differences are loudly trumpeted by Italian propaganda, aided by the Brits.
 

Polish Eagle

You would need an Allied invasion of the Balkans, I think, in 1943. There were Hungarian and Romanian politicians open to switching sides, so if the Allies can liberate Greece and Yugoslavia, and those join them, Italy can turn on Germany with a reasonable hope of Allied assistance and without already having Allied troops in Rome dictating terms (and so not needing any cooperation from Benny).

So you’d want the Allies to commit to Churchill’s ‘Soft Underbelly’ approach, without actually invading Italy. Maybe if Greece holds on, and Anglo-American forces pour into Europe by way of Thessalonica?
 

Richard V

Sure Britain could surrender with Halifax in charge. After which Italy stays out of the German Soviet War. The Germans lose and a cold war begins between USSR and the western alliance which court Mussolini to join their side.
 

David T

Not after he joined the war. If he stayed neutral, it might have been different. He could even have sent volunteers to the Eastern Front--after all, Franco did so, and was getting foreign aid from the US in a few years...
 

sdgottsch

Max Sinister: Did he actually do something good that was neither government propaganda nor "at least I don't build gas chambers like Hitler"?


One good thing, he was successful with the Pontine Marsh mosquito issue for a time...granted the land reformation issue didn't get distributed well
 
Last edited:
Fletch

Fletch

Richard V said:
Sure Britain could surrender with Halifax in charge. After which Italy stays out of the German Soviet War. The Germans lose and a cold war begins between USSR and the western alliance which court Mussolini to join their side.
Click to expand...
Britain would not have surrendered with Halifax in charge. A peace treaty and a surrender are two different things.
 

lukedalton

As said, once the war start will be pretty much impossible him being a succesfull leader post-conflict except in an axis victory scenario; if he remain neutral and join the allies later, he pretty much hit the jackpot and he can't be isolated diplomatically like Franco in OTL.
The only possibility that he can have at least a better image, is if he negotiate the italian surrender and he get killed by the nazi when they occupy Italy becoming something akin to a martyr of italian independence.
 

DAv

Max Sinister said:
Did he actually do something good that was neither government propaganda nor "at least I don't build gas chambers like Hitler"?
Click to expand...

He invested heavily into an environmentally-friendly train engine that was fuelled by various plants, including herbs. He came so close to making the trains run on thyme.
 
Last edited:
Historyman 14

Historyman 14

I honesty find it hard. Mussolini did one thing, and one thing right: Being the first Fascist leader of Europe in Italy. Beyond that, he was a bag of hot air.
 

Miguel Lanius

Banned
Max Sinister said:
Did he actually do something good that was neither government propaganda nor "at least I don't build gas chambers like Hitler"?
Click to expand...

He came this close to ending the Mafia, I hear.

I heard that the reason Mussolini failed to get stuff done is that despite the propaganda, the fascist state wans't that totalitarian in practice. I mean, it was Italy, and there were a lot of people and conflicting interests and stuff, and general italian desunion from a nation recently-unified. In other words, Mussolini could't just order people to do shit for him and expect it to get done, he had to deal with them and their issues and such. Italy was never the totalitarian country Mussolini wanted.
 
Livius wannabe

Livius wannabe

I can't imagine him being seen like that after 1940. And even then, Ethiopia would still be a stain.

Of course, if he remained neutral and died soon thereafter (he was sick OTL), his flaws could be outshined by the colonial wars waged by his successors.

EDIT: I don't think there was anything in his personality that could push him to seek humanitarian recognition. Anything would be by accident.

EDIT2: As Indro Montanelli put it, there were three Mussolini:
  1. The revolutionary, full of passion and ideas
  2. The dictator, concerned about holding to his power
  3. The strawman, after having become dependent on Hitler for his survival
Anything of this sort could not occur during phase 3.
 
Last edited:

Anarch King of Dipsodes

Once having joined Hitler in the war in 1940, Mussolini has forfeited any chance of holding power after an Allied victory.

He could however redeem himself somewhat as a historical figure by leading Italy over to the Allied side in 1943.

OTL the other Italian leaders deposed him in a sort of palace coup and then, after making contact with the Allies, declared Italy's changeover; they got no conditions on it, but the Allies did accept Italy as a "co-belligerent" and recognized the King and Badoglio as the government of Italy. However the changeover was bungled, and most of the Italian forces dissolved or were destroyed by the Germans, while the Allies gained much liess than they could have.

We'll suppose that Mussolini gets a fit of conscience in spring 1943, turns against Hitler, and also recognizes that Italy must get out of the Axis or be destroyed - basically the same position as the King/Badoglio faction. He also recognizes that he can't hope to retain power after Italy has joined the Allies. But as his last act, he can make the changeover as decisive as possible, and get the Allies as far ahead as possible.

So he contacts the Allies to propose Italy's changeover (with the support of the leaders who OTL deposed him so they could do it). And he admits frankly that he's screwed up big time, and will be Out once the change is done. This will be his last act for Italy. He has also realized that HItler isn't just a really ruthless tough guy, he's a monster, and Moose feels he should help as he can to bring Hitler down.

If Mussolini did that... it wouldn't save him, but it would greatly improve his place in history.
 

RyuDrago

Historyman 14 said:
I honesty find it hard. Mussolini did one thing, and one thing right: Being the first Fascist leader of Europe in Italy. Beyond that, he was a bag of hot air.
Click to expand...

In fact, in the end was a dictactor. Even if he could have keep Italy neutral or never sign the racial laws he wouldn't have deflect from his positions. Do we ever heard of dictators in the 20th centuries that willingly decided to step aside for greater good of the country or similar?

A dictator by principle will never make amends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top