How "bad" was Italian fascism?

Hi all,

We think fascism as Nazism this day, crazy people wanting to kill all non-white people.

However, I remember hearing that Italian fascism was rather more inclusive, with no discrimination against Jews until way later.

So, basically, how bad was it before the war? Let's say, we're in 1932, how are things?
 
Bad in what way? In how oppressive the government was? In how unsuccessful its policies were?
If it's the first case, which from the OP I guess it's the case, then it's easy to say they were better than the Nazis. But "better than the Nazis" means "drier than water" here. They murdered approx. 20% of Libya's population in an attempt to quell a local nationalist uprising. The Italian secret police, OVRA, was not as bad as other secret police services like the Gestapo, NKVD, or Kempeitai, in terms of how pervasive its effect was on civilian life or how cruel and murderous - but they were still the secret police service of a dictatorship. In fact, the Germans specifically modeled the Gestapo after OVRA. There was also everything they've done after 1932. In Ethiopia, when the war was not advancing quickly enough, Mussolini authorized the use of chemical weapons against civilian areas, killing possibly thousands. After occupying Ethiopia, Italy enforced racial laws on the country. In 1938, of course, they enforced Nuremberg-like laws over the Jews in Italy proper. During the war, Italy committed pretty horrid war crimes against the Slavic populations it controlled in its part of Yugoslavia, starving thousands in death camps.

Fascism initially was a reaction to 2 things:
1. Rising left-wing forces that threatened revolution during and after the Biennio Rossi.
2. Italy's unsatisfactory rewards for its sacrifices during WW1.
Both of those are pretty bad from the get-go. In the first case, fascism was basically intended as a mechanism to employ violence against the opposition in the interests of maintaining the privileges of a small wealthy elite. That's why the King agreed to make Mussolini PM after the March on Rome rather than quell the movement. In the second case fascism is a nationalist, imperialist, militarist movement, intent on expanding Italy and making it into an empire. But not only did Mussolini want to grab a few territories, he thought war itself was good as it united the people and allowed the best of humanity to emerge via self-sacrifice for the nation. Mussolini allowed this to guide his foreign-policy, which was ruinous for Italy as this kind of thinking led the Duce into believing that the invasions of Ethiopia and Greece - two countries with very little strategic or economic value, and that Italy was not properly ready for war with - were actually good ideas.

Overall if you're actually asking about 1932 specifically, than it's a bit harder for me to tell just how bad they were at that particular point. I will say however that like the Nazis, the Italian Fascists got more repressive, tyrannical, and racist as time went on. I mean, in the first couple of years or so of their rule they were basically still adherent to constitutional norms etc., but after that began political assassinations and organized repression, that got worse as time went on and as the fascists deepened their control of the country. You can see it aesthetically, too - Mussolini started to wear ever-fancier military uniform in the 1930's, as opposed to the ordinary suit-and-tie he wore as PM in the 1920's. Ultimately, it got to the point in which the previously mostly liberal foreign policy of Italy turned into unabashed expansionism, and domestically repression was always growing. Economically, fascism was not exactly delivering either (despite the propaganda of "the trains run on time") - Italy was a far cry from an industrial powerhouse that can wage expansionist wars while still keeping its own population well-cared for. I think this is because the Fascists, unlike the Nazis, started out more modest, without any intention to acquire half of Europe or eliminate world bolshevism or whatever, they "only" wanted to rule Italy and to fix what they thought was wrong. But they got worse as time went on. Ultimately, I don't think that was because Fascism started out well but was later corrupted, I think the wars and the repression were an inevitable conclusion of fascist ideas, it just took a while to materialize.
 
So, basically, how bad was it before the war? Let's say, we're in 1932, how are things?

My general impression is that domestically, the Italian fascists repressed civil rights to the same level that the Warsaw Pact socialists did through out the cold war.

This meant that participation in the regime was "highly encouraged", but not truly mandatory. Those vocally opposed to the regime faced harassment via loss of employment, licenses etc. Various forms of imprisonment were options for those who remained vocally opposed and were influential. Though imprisonment could well include a few deaths in custody disguised as "accidents", or from the actions of "outraged patriots" it was no where near like the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

Where the Italians Fascists and Warsaw Pact socialists differed was that the Italian Fascists were willing to make attempts (however clumsily) to build an empire via invading Greece and Ethiopia. Aside from lip service regarding the need to export socialist revolutions, the Warsaw Pact socialists not only never invaded anyone, but even their commitment to revolutionary exports was largely token. In contrast, Italy made huge commitment to establish a Phlangist government in Spai
n.

 
My general impression is that domestically, the Italian fascists repressed civil rights to the same level that the Warsaw Pact socialists did through out the cold war.

This meant that participation in the regime was "highly encouraged", but not truly mandatory. Those vocally opposed to the regime faced harassment via loss of employment, licenses etc. Various forms of imprisonment were options for those who remained vocally opposed and were influential. Though imprisonment could well include a few deaths in custody disguised as "accidents", or from the actions of "outraged patriots" it was no where near like the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

Where the Italians Fascists and Warsaw Pact socialists differed was that the Italian Fascists were willing to make attempts (however clumsily) to build an empire via invading Greece and Ethiopia. Aside from lip service regarding the need to export socialist revolutions, the Warsaw Pact socialists not only never invaded anyone, but even their commitment to revolutionary exports was largely token. In contrast, Italy made huge commitment to establish a Phlangist government in Spai
n.

So an authoritarian regime with a will to get social compliance in the people if I get that right?
 
However, I remember hearing that Italian fascism was rather more inclusive, with no discrimination against Jews until way later.

Mussolini was a pragmatist and believed that overt racist rhetoric and laws would alienate foreign markets and allies, and potentially stir domestic dissent. He was particularly conscious of this around the time of Hitler's rise to power and feared being tarred with the same brush, so he made a lot of pronouncements against racism circa 1932-33 - contradicting his earlier and later positions (including on eugenics - this occurred elsewhere too, for instance the British Eugenics Society reacted by publicly disavowing any policy of compulsory sterilisation in 1933). There was no codified racial discrimination against Jews in Fascist Italy until 1938, but there was organised covert discrimination from at least 1930 (in hiring practices in the civil service and academia, for instance). Racism was complicated for Italian Fascism because there was a pregnant concept of racial conflict between "Aryan and Mediterranean races" within Italy - so there were Fascist polemicists from Northern Italy who saw their Southern Italian colleagues within the Fascisti as racially inferior.
 
My general impression is that domestically, the Italian fascists repressed civil rights to the same level that the Warsaw Pact socialists did through out the cold war.

This meant that participation in the regime was "highly encouraged", but not truly mandatory. Those vocally opposed to the regime faced harassment via loss of employment, licenses etc. Various forms of imprisonment were options for those who remained vocally opposed and were influential. Though imprisonment could well include a few deaths in custody disguised as "accidents", or from the actions of "outraged patriots" it was no where near like the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

Where the Italians Fascists and Warsaw Pact socialists differed was that the Italian Fascists were willing to make attempts (however clumsily) to build an empire via invading Greece and Ethiopia. Aside from lip service regarding the need to export socialist revolutions, the Warsaw Pact socialists not only never invaded anyone, but even their commitment to revolutionary exports was largely token. In contrast, Italy made huge commitment to establish a Phlangist government in Spai
n.


Well, exporting the ideology is not necessarily evil in itself. At the same time Italy "exported" Fascism to Spain (Spain had its own version is more to the truth and Italy supported a like minded regime) Russia tried to export communism to Spain - just Russia failed - Russia also "exported" communism to the (later) Warsaw pact states through military means - other got lucky and away: Finland, Austria, Yugoslavia to a degree , Greece,...

But the topic is Italy here - so I remain quiet fro rthis point on;)
 
This is very difficult
How to define fascism as "Good one" ?
Depends of eye of beholder, Compare to Nazi Germany was Mussolini Italy a good one, until Mussolini met that "little annoying Austrian", from there it went down hill...
USA consider allot of dictatorships a Good one, if they fight communism, even if thousands citizens died in the process.

Back to topic
Was fascism Italy a "good" one ?
Allot of Historians consider Mussolini Italy as the least terroristic of the three totalitarian states of it time (the other are The Third Reich and USSR)
Mussolini almost destroyed the Mafia, He not persecute the Jews (until meetings with "little annoying Austrian")
But he oppressed brutal the liberal political opposition and free thinkers, His Army commit atrocity during colonial wars in 1930s.
promote the racial segregation between Italians and other Races because Mussolini believe of racial superiority of Italians.

my ultimate opinion on this
How much you try to talk well, fascism, it remain fascism.
a totalitarian Government that persecuted it's enemy even even if thousands citizens died in the process...
 
Bad in what way? In how oppressive the government was? In how unsuccessful its policies were?

Good post overall, so forgive me for nitpicking.

In Ethiopia, when the war was not advancing quickly enough, Mussolini authorized the use of chemical weapons against civilian areas, killing possibly thousands.

I'd say we should add the reprisals in Ethiopia after the attempt on the life of Graziani. In particular the massacre at Debre Libanos. OK, that's after 1932.

However, while we all remember the attack on Greece in 1940, we should also remember that Italian Fascism had shown its true imperialist colors in this area early on. Just look up the bombardment and occupation of Corfù.

Rising left-wing forces that threatened revolution during and after the Biennio Rossi.

Biennio Rosso.

...Italy was a far cry from an industrial powerhouse that can wage expansionist wars while still keeping its own population well-cared for. I think this is because the Fascists, unlike the Nazis, started out more modest, without any intention to acquire half of Europe or eliminate world bolshevism or whatever, they "only" wanted to rule Italy and to fix what they thought was wrong.

Well, they also had a smaller population base, a country that had less strategic resources than many others, lacked an empire (an additional reason for the Ethiopian War, but it's not as if they gained strategic raw materials with that), and were behind in industrialization to start with. All those are facts and have little to do with the Fascist plans; but, if anything, the facts show Italy was in no position to become an expansionist power at all.
 
So an authoritarian regime with a will to get social compliance in the people if I get that right?
Yes, though I would add that their willingness to get compliance was usually limited to "squeezing" vocal opponents and not by killing them.

Anecdotally, I have known a Pole from a moderately "refusenik" family during socialist times. The authoritarian regime hit the family collectively with loss of employment, a mandatory transfer to a remote rural area, "lost" higher education applications that led to educational delays, and refusals to allow one family member to take the medical school entrance exams unless she first completed a specific series of socialist economic / political courses (another educational delay / "encouraged" study of regime ideaology).

But, there was no imprisonment for their level of "refusing", let alone execution squads. I imagine that fascist Italy largely operated on similar lines.
 
Last edited:
Well, exporting the ideology is not necessarily evil in itself. At the same time Italy "exported" Fascism to Spain (Spain had its own version is more to the truth and Italy supported a like minded regime) Russia tried to export communism to Spain - just Russia failed - Russia also "exported" communism to the (later) Warsaw pact states through military means - other got lucky and away: Finland, Austria, Yugoslavia to a degree , Greece,...

Good points. It is also worth noting that the Phlangist ideaology that the Italians supported was not Nazi, but simply a moderately authoritarian version of themselves (though Franco took a more repressive course in the face of the Spanish civil war).
 
I'd say we should add the reprisals in Ethiopia after the attempt on the life of Graziani. In particular the massacre at Debre Libanos. OK, that's after 1932.
Just as a note, I picked 1932 as it's before any Nazi influence might have sipped through.

I believe colonial history is a weird subject as it was fully in line with other colonial policy at the time from more democratic nations. The French used napalm and considered using the Atomic bomb during the decolonisation. I believe only reason they didn't use gas during their own conquests is that it wasn't invented yet. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
 
Hi all,

We think fascism as Nazism this day, crazy people wanting to kill all non-white people.

However, I remember hearing that Italian fascism was rather more inclusive, with no discrimination against Jews until way later.

So, basically, how bad was it before the war? Let's say, we're in 1932, how are things?
Personally I find it amusing (and somewhat annoying) that Nazi and Fascist are used interchangeably, though there is a bit of truth to that interchange regarding the fact that Nazism was more race based than Fascism.

But anyway, I like to consider Italian Fascism as the "lighter shade of black" compared to Nazism (and Japanese Imperialism/Statism/something is in between but leaning towards Nazism IMO); sure it wasn't as obsessed with race and the "subhumans" but it did put emphasis on "might is right" and "national pride" over others, hence being more of a bully ideology.
 
Just as a note, I picked 1932 as it's before any Nazi influence might have sipped through.

I believe colonial history is a weird subject as it was fully in line with other colonial policy at the time from more democratic nations. The French used napalm and considered using the Atomic bomb during the decolonisation. I believe only reason they didn't use gas during their own conquests is that it wasn't invented yet. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

Still there are differences. If the French or the British had employed poison gases in colonial wars before 1928, they would not have violated any convention that they had freely signed. All powers used gases in WWI, and at the time they were not banned.
Napalm use was significantly restricted only in 1980 (Protocol III CCW), can still be used with limitations today, and was under no specific restriction during the French final war in Indochina.

The Italians OTOH had signed the Geneva Protocol against those gases, and yet they went ahead and used them liberally against the Ethiopians, basically because they couldn't retaliate.
 
Still there are differences. If the French or the British had employed poison gases in colonial wars before 1928, they would not have violated any convention that they had freely signed. All powers used gases in WWI, and at the time they were not banned.
Napalm use was significantly restricted only in 1980 (Protocol III CCW), can still be used with limitations today, and was under no specific restriction during the French final war in Indochina.

The Italians OTOH had signed the Geneva Protocol against those gases, and yet they went ahead and used them liberally against the Ethiopians, basically because they couldn't retaliate.
Ok I see what you mean!

As an aside, this thread is not to do any kind of Italian apology, it's really just to understand something I don't know much about :)
 
Top