Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 1

The War of the Two Versions

First of all, I apologize for having put this section at the top but it is the most important thing to discuss presently and it sort of sums up some discussions that have already been held elsewhere. The page has been blocked and now we need to solve each single point that generated the conflict (revert war). I propose that we take separate decisions on each question, that's why I will divide this section in subsections.

Mussolini's Odd Childhood

As a child Mussolini had acted very strange which may have acted on his actions later in life. He was expelled twice from schools from attacking other classmates!! And arrested many times for attacking random people on the street. At home Mussolini often wore his sisters dreesses hoping noone would see. Mussolini loved to sing opera in fact as a child he had performed in many childrens operas and he loved being on stage. His mother was shocked that he had never chose a career in acting or singing.

Let's use [1] as a reference point. --MauroVan 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many questions here. Most of them are triviliaties which I don't consider of vital imprtance to the article. I will give my take on the ones I consider intersting.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that many points are trivial but these trivialities seem to have had a role in fuelling the revert war. --MauroVan 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like some editors are very fast at reverting and very slow at talking.--MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Time has passed but nobody entered the debate. I think we should implement the decisions here taken after having unprotected the article. Francesco, can you ask for unprotection please? --MauroVan 08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the request on the protection page. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. This is turning into a perfect example on how to stop an edit war. :-) --MauroVan 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture (DONE)

There are two proposals: File:Benito Mussolini 1.jpg and . Mussolini in military uniform or a thoughtful Mussolini in black? Somebody thinks that the uniform version could be seen as pro-Mussolini, somebody else thinks that it's a more typical picture of the man.

I think there's something in the compliant that the military photo could be seen as pro-Musso. But the Italian wiki uses it. It's not a big deal in itself.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it like it is now (I don't even remember which version it is) with no caption (there was a crazy debate about the caption too...). --MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user (15.203.137.72) proposes to keep the military uniform picture. Since I don't care and he's been the only one apart from us intervening in this debate, let's be kind to him.--MauroVan 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Party name (DONE)

In Germany(Partito Nazionale Fascista) or in English (National Fascist Party)?

Who cares?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Partito Nazionale Fascista is a redirect to National Fascist Party, so let's use the latter. --MauroVan 12:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wife name (DONE)

Should she be called Rachele Mussolini or Donna Rachele Mussolini? "Donna" is not part of the proper name, since it just means "Lady" in Italian, but she was indeed widely known as "Donna Rachele" in Italy.

This is linguistically important. In English (this Wiki is in English), Donna Rachele Mussolini means: first name: Donna, Middle: Rachele, etc.. The answer is Rachele Mussolini.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --MauroVan 12:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Donna should be included as it was part of her name and used regularly LiAm McShAnE 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Profession (DONE)

Should we let the profession field blank or should we write "Elementary schoolmaster" there? Another option could be something like "Head of the Government" but it seems unlogical to put such a "job" in a President template. Another option could be "Journalist".

He was a "politician"!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense in a President template! Each President is a politician... That field is of course for the job he had before turning into a politician. Both schoolmaster and journalist could fit. --MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, journalist seems appropriate.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Most historians believe that Mussolini was intimately an Atheist. However, somebody tells that he got baptized while in power and indeed he often presented himself as a Roman Catholic leader, and he talked often about God in his public propaganda speeches. There have been two proposals: "Atheist" or "Atheist but being considered as a Roman Catholic since in power".

I feel the more complicated version to be more proper for the sidebox but in any case the full story must be explained in the body of the article. --MauroVan 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New Comment - I agree. There is definitely an extent to which Mussolini's atheism is uncertain. So far all we have is a link to a page which makes the bald assertion that not only Mussolini, but also many other facists (unnamed) were atheists. People who have looked into Adolf Hitler will have noticed that Mein Kampf has all sorts of claims to his Christian beliefs, so I think a bit more evidence is required to show that Mussolini didn't have religious beliefs too. The other article linked to (the second reference) also makes the claim that Mussolini was an atheist, yet also gives no evidence.

Wait a minute: I badly remember details, but a famous anecdote tells that Mussolini (probably during his leadership in socialist party) once publicly was rudely blaspheme and said (more or less): "if God exists, then I am challenging him to incinerate me by a thunder in a minute time. If he will do it, I will believe he exists" and after a minute he conluded that God didn't exist. Now, this seems to have some compatibilty with the hypothesys tha Mussolini was an atheist... :-)--g 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was when he was a socialist-syndicalist. --MauroVan 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is little or no evidence that Mussolini was ever a practicing Catholic in adult life, though for political reasons he would certainly wish to give the appearance of religious orthodoxy. I know this is not really the place to discuss this issue, but since you have raised the question of Hitler and his beliefs, I would just like to say that there is little or nothing in Mein Kampf that would indicate any meaningful Christian understanding. References to religion tend to be of the 'providential' and 'supreme being' variety, along the lines promoted by Robespierre during the French Revolution. White Guard 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to believe that Mussolini was a practicing Catholic, but this is not an important issue in politics and history. "Religion" for a politician and a statesman is quite a different thing than "personal religious beliefs". The same could be told about Hitler, nevertheless Hitler did attend religious events including the Mass, even if this is hardly remembered by the Catholic Church, for obvious reasons. --MauroVan 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The two sources in the article that call Mussolini an atheist are pro-Roman Catholic. Clearly, they have a motive for distancing themselves from Mussolini, even though he was baptized in the church. I believe a similar motive might have prompted the Socialist Worker to call Mussolini an ex-atheist in this article. Can we not find impartial sources documenting Mussolini's religious position? Until we do, I think it is more appropriate to list his religious affiliation as "atheist, Roman Catholic" than to make a judgment call about what he "probably" was. Nick Graves 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. I see no evidence that Pollard has a pro-Catholic bias. Avro Manhattan actually has a reputation for being critical of the church. Incidentally, Manhattan identifies Mussolini as an atheist and and ex-atheist in his article. Nick Graves 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the word "probably". Until we find impartial sources, we cannot say whether he was an atheist or not. User:Devraj5000

Tell me: could there be any source stating that Mussolini was an atheist which you would ever regard as impartial? I have the impression from your responses here that you regard any such statement as evidence in itself of bias, no matter how eminent the authority. You are, on the other hand, very accepting of sources which happen to agree with you, regardless of any lack of credible vetting or peer review. --Stephen Burnett 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Devraj: The reason I supported taking out "probably" was so that the listing for his religion was made more ambiguous, to reflect the ambiguity found when one surveys the various sources. Also, "probably" is an editorial estimation that is not supported by the sources cited, and borders on original research.

Stephen Burnett: Sources that have a history of supporting or engaging in apologetics for the Roman Catholic church are not impartial on this matter, since Mussolini was baptized into that church, and they are likely to have a bias against identifying him as a genuine adherent. Similarly, I would be suspect of any pro-atheist source that identified him as an ex-atheist (see above), for the same reason.

The best source for Mussolini's alleged atheism would be Mussolini himself. If one can find a latterday quote in which he calls himself an atheist or denies the existence of God, that would be strong evidence that he really was an atheist. Second-hand identifications, especially ones that do not cite direct evidence like quotes, are less reliable, especially when they come from partisan sources. Nick Graves 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Denis Mack Smith is someone who has "a history of supporting or engaging in apologetics for the Roman Catholic church"? If so, please present your evidence. Yes, he's a secondary source, but any argument that puts him on the same level of credibility as somebody's website is clearly absurd. It also seems worth pointing out that a significant proportion of the references in Mack's book come from Opera Omnia di Benito Mussolini, ed E and D Susmel, Florence, 1951. If you're absolutely determined to go back to primary sources, then I salute your determination and indefatigability, and await the results of your research with interest. I am personally content to accept that someone of the calibre of a Senior Research Fellow at Oxford is probably an honest scholar who has made competent use of his sources. --Stephen Burnett 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that Smith's book was being used as a source concerning Mussolini's religious beliefs. Do you have a quote from the book that could be cited? Nick Graves 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I already quoted from it in my reply to Devraj, here. --Stephen Burnett 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<<< It is true that on religion, as on so much else, Mussolini was inconsistent in his expressed views. He claimed in the 20's to have had a change of views, saying that he was now a good Catholic. His children were baptized and he went through a religious marriage ceremony. But Mack Smith makes it clear that this was a simple political expedient : "history taught him that he would scarcely emerge unscathed from a head-on struggle with the Papacy. On the contrary, the Church and Fascism could both help each other. Friendly words from the Church would help to convince foreigners that he could be trusted, and inside Italy the clergy could be of incalculable advantage to Fascism in mobilising popular approval".

The Church too had much to gain. Mussolini's outlawing of freemasonry, his use of public funds to support Catholic banks, his stance against jobs for women and against birth control, his attempts to stop gambling and regulate night life, were all things of which they could only approve. His formal settlement with the Church in 1929 was however a temporary truce for political gain. Mack Smith notes: "At no time was tension with the Vatican so bitter as in the years after the concordat, and he confiscated more issues of Catholic newspapers in the next three months than in the previous seven years". --Stephen Burnett 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Smith identify Mussolini as an atheist in his book, even after his politically motivated and highly suspect conversion to Roman Catholicism? Nick Graves 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(I've taken the liberty of reducing your indent.)

The last reference by Mack Smith on the subject dates from 1938, from Ciano's diaries. Mack Smith writes: "Sometimes he now acknowledged that he was an outright disbeliever, and once told a startled cabinet that Islam was perhaps a more effective religion than Christianity. The papacy was a malignant tumour in the body of Italy and must be 'rooted out once and for all', because there was no room in Rome for both the Pope and himself."

I think it's important to note that there are two separate issues here, which, dare I say, Mack Smith is conflating: atheism and anti-clericalism. It's perfectly possible, of course, to be a Christian but to reject the influence of the Catholic church on secular life. Regardless of his religious beliefs or lack of them, Mussolini recognised the Vatican as a powerful political force, with which he would inevitably be in conflict even though he was obliged to reach an uncomfortable truce for a while. The clincher for me though is "outright disbeliever", which does seem to me to be a statement of atheism. --Stephen Burnett 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini calling himself an "outright disbeliever" might suggest atheism, but I would not call it a clincher. "Outright disbeliever" in what? God, Christ, the Roman Catholic Church's authority? The source doesn't say. Nick Graves 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A church as an institution isn't something one chooses to believe in or not; it's just there, a fact of life. That would seem to eliminate the third possibility. That statement is as definite as you are going to get from that source; Ciano's diaries were the author's original source, and they may be more illuminating, if anyone is able to access them. --Stephen Burnett 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth place (DONE)

Was he born in Predappio, where he's buried now, or in Dovia?

I discovered that Dovia is just a part of Predappio. I think we could write "Dovia di Predappio" and everybody should be satisfied. --MauroVan 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fasci status in 1914 (DONE)

When WWI broke out, Mussolini took a position at variance with the Socialist Party and he was eventually expelled by the party. He founded the "Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista" in October 1914. Were these Fasci founded "within the Socialist Party" or not?

This is very important. He was no longer a socialist when he founded "the fasci d'azione rivoluzionari" according to DeFelice.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He was expelled from the Socialist Party when he wrote about the need for "active neutralism" on Avanti!, since this position was (correctly) seen as a theoretical maneuvre to get closer and closer to nationalist interventism. --MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Giacomo Matteotti (DONE)

Was Giacomo Matteotti an Internationalist Socialist or should we just call him a Socialist?

Who cares.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "As a follower of Filippo Turati, Matteotti became the leader of the United Socialist Party in the Italian Chamber of Deputies". Turati split from the Socialist Party because he strongly opposed any contact between the Italian Socialists and the Communist International, therefore it's misleading to call Matteotti an Internationalist Socialist (that's how the left wing of mainstream Socialists were sometimes called because they wanted to find an agreement with the Third International): this anti-Fascist martyr was a member of the right wing of the Socialist movement in Italy. --MauroVan 13:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Matteotti was the Secretary of the United Socialist Party, but wasn't popular with all sections of his party. This is from "Years of Liberalism and of Fascism, Italy 1870-1945" by David Evans. 82.44.185.5 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovene plot to kill Mussolini (DONE)

Is it true that "members of TIGR, a Slovene anti-fascist group, plotted to kill Mussolini in Kobarid in 1938"? If it is, why shouldn't we add this information in the article?

I think this story is true and relevant. The Fascist regime executed many Jugoslav patriots. --MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Should we write that Italian Fascism didn't persecute the Jews before 1938? Should we put Mussolini in the category Anti-Semitic People?

Yes, it is a fact that he did not persecute the Jews before the racial laws (1938?). Not sure about the category. There is some debate among scholars.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the head of a government implementing racial laws against the Jews and helping the Nazis in the deportation of the Jews to the concentration camps, should be listed amongst Anti-Semitic People. --MauroVan 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No; absolutely not. Mussolini was not an anti-Semite. White Guard 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, you cannot simply state your POV and expect everybody to agree. --MauroVan 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My goodness; where do I start? Consider this "Naturally there is no such pure race...not even a Jewish one...Race: it is a sentiment, not a reality; it is 95% sentiment. I do not believe it is possible to prove biologically that a race is more or less pure...Anti-semitism does not exist in Italy. The Jews have always behaved well as citizens, and as soldiers, they have fought courageously." Who said this? Why, Mussolini in a conversation in 1932 with Emil Ludwig, the German-Jewish historian. Or what about the 1935 entry in the Enciclopedia Italiana under the heading Race;"..a race does not exist, but only a people and an Italian nation. There does not exist a Jewish race or nation, but a Jewish people; there does not exist, the gravest error of all, an Aryan race." In February 1934 when Il Duce met Chaim Weiseman, the leading Zionist, he gave him, at at Weiseman's request, a signed photo, and told him "Look after yourself. We still have need of you." I could go on in this vein.

What about the anti-Jewish laws (and they were anti- Jewish rather than anti-Semitic) of September 1938? This is the point from which Mussolini, out of a combination of fear and envy, was drawing closer to Hitler; but these measures fell well short of Nazi race laws. When Mussolini insisted that Roberto Farinacci dismiss his Jewish secretary-in case the Germans did not take his new measures seriously-he still gave him 50000 lire, then a large sum, to pay to her in redundancy money. If you really want to know the true character of racial anti-Semites I suggest you have a look at a copy-any copy-of Der Stürmer. Mussolini, I repeat, was not anti-Semitic. It is important we understand words and definitions and apply them properly; or do you really see him in the same bracket as Julius Streicher? White Guard 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• In the absence of any information showing Mussolini was anti-Semitic -- and in the presence of information countering that notion -- it's hard not to agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a big problem when talking about how Benito Mussolini "was". The problem is that this man was clearly an extreme opportunist. His personal opinions were always at striking variance with his public declarations and activity. Just consider the debate about his faith: he had himself baptized, he pursued a pro-Vatican policy, he was closely related with the conservative Roman Catholic Establishment, but one can hardly doubt that personally he didn't care much about religion. The same could be told about his attitude to traditional "family values" (combined with official mistresses etc.), his opinion on Adolf Hitler (whom he clearly disliked while being his closest ally and de facto puppet since the Axis was forged) etc.

I think we should bear this in mind while talking about he being or not an anti-Semite (by the way, "anti-Semite" is the same as "anti-Jewish", in the current meaning of the expression). We shouldn't try to read his mind about the Jews, we should consider his public actions because he was a public person. His public actions were: financing anti-Semitic propaganda in state-owned publications, enforcing anti-Semitic laws, assisting the Nazis in the deportation of Jewish families (babies included) to Auschwitz, Dachau etc. This makes Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy, an anti-Semite; if Benito Mussolini, the man, was dropping crocodile tears on his crimes when being alone (or maybe together with a "Jewish mistress") in his bed, that's not for the historian, that's for the psychiatrist. --MauroVan 10:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any negative action against Jewish people in the first sixteen years of the Fascist regime. Indeed, at the beginning of 1938 more than 10000 Jews, about a third of the adult population of Italy at the time, were members of the PNF. All the examples you mention are from the later years. Was everything Mussolini did opportunist; are you prepared to concede him nothing? Possibly not; but then you have to recognise your own POV. Can you read German? If so, I urge you to have a look at Der Stürmer. That could tell you far more about the difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish than I ever could. White Guard 12:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"There is no evidence of any negative action against Jewish people in the first sixteen years of the Fascist regime"... This is not a good argument. Do 16 years of "good behaviour" on Mussolini's part towards the Jews allow him to deport them in later years without being considered an anti-Semite?!

The sudden anti-Semitic turn of Mussolini just show the opportunist personality of the man and, more important for the historian, that racism and such ideologies are created on purpose when they are needed. Racism is not the result of the ignorance of a country's rulers, it's a conscious plan to find a scapegoat, to oppress a section of the population in order to exploit them economically etc.

About my personal opinion on Benito Mussolini, I consider him nearly without any positive quality. So what? Of course this is a POV and mine is extremely negative toward the dictator who ruled my country for more than 20 years. Once more: so what?

I can read a little German, in any case there's no difference in the current usage of "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Jewish".

Mussolini as the leader of a racist dictatorship must be listed as an anti-Semite. --MauroVan 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

... Stalin as well? -- @ ^_ 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not oppose. --MauroVan 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I continue to have real worries about any attempt to put Mussolini in this category. It would become an intellectual Trojan Horse, if you like, allowing those with a specific agenda to demolish anti-Semites as a concept from within. Just imagine-"If Mussolini was truly anti-Semitic what about this or that etc. etc. etc?" We must be able to tell the difference between genuine, pathological Anti-Semitism (I gave the example of Julius Streicher) and opportunists like Mussolini; otherwise the whole thing risks sinking in a bog of relativism. White Guard 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The sudden anti-Semitic turn of Mussolini just show the opportunist personality of the man and, more important for the historian, that racism and such ideologies are created on purpose when they are needed. Racism is not the result of the ignorance of a country's rulers, it's a conscious plan to find a scapegoat, to oppress a section of the population in order to exploit them economically etc..

No, this is backward reasoning, MauroVan. Racism is not the result of opportunism or conscious planning to manipulate people. Conscious planning to manipulate people and opportunism often exploit racism, sexism or other isms in order to achieve power . Racism itself is the erroneous belief that some human beings are superior to others based on their descent from certain sub-populations of the human species rather than others. There is no evidence, indeed there is evidence to the contrary, that Mussolini and the early fascists were anti-Jewish or racist in this sense. After 1938, he simply fell in line with the Nazi view because that was politically expedient. I oppose the categorization as Anti-Semite. Read Mein Kampf to find out what a convinced, ideological anti-Semite is.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

... and read this as well (if you can) -- @ ^_ 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a serious approach. A historian should deal with public behaviours and not with the psychology of individual prominent leaders. I don't think Mr Ahmadinedjad truly believes the things he says against the Jews, we should read his mind to know what he really thinks. The Czarist forgers of the Zion Protocols surely didn't, because they were perfectly conscious to be lying. Anyway, both are - of course - evident cases of anti-Semitism.

Listing "pathological anti-Semites", as White Guard named them (BTW, the Russian White Guard was a good example of anti-Semitism), has no historical interest, it would just reduce the whole issue to a mental pathology and no more a social phenomenon. If we were to use the same criterion elsewhere, we should tell that some Popes were not Christians, because they didn't seem to be intimately convinced, that Alcide De Gasperi was not an anti-Fascist since he voted in favour of Mussolini in 1922, that Vladimir Putin is probably an Atheist and not an Orthodox Christian as he pretends to be... and who can tell whether Lady Thatcher was really a laissez-faire Conservative and not an Anarchist in the secret inner core of her most intimate beliefs?

This is not history, this is gossip. I don't care what Mussolini thought about the Jews, he probably didn't care much too; in general this man didn't care at all about his ideas, he just wanted to reach his aims and ideas were mere tools. What I care about is what Mussolini did about the Italian Jews. --MauroVan 09:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

mmmh, when an important and responsible statesman, or political leader, has anti-Jewish programs, I say he is anti-Jewish, and I categorize him anti-Jewish, no matter if he was able so far to traduce his programs into concrete actions (and no matter if his personal disposition as an human being is different: a public person should be judged mainly through his public behaviour). BTW: anti-Jewish and anti-Semite are equivalent terms? Imho not 100%, but this is another topic -- @ ^_ 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from a comment on the fascism talk page:

Richard Griffiths says, "Just as their was little anti-Semitism in Italy, there was equally little anti-Semitism in the movement, which benefited from Jewish founders in its early days, and which was joined by a higher percentage of the small Italian Jewish population than that of the Gentile population. It was only by the late Thirties, under the influence of Hitler's Germany, that that anti-Semitism was to play any important part in Mussolini's policies." (Fascism, pg. 38). Kevin Passmore says the same thing (he also gives instances where Italian policy was explicitly anti-anti-Semitic) except he says it's due also in part to a wave of anti-Semitism that arose all across Europe in '38 due to fear coming from the rise of Hitler (Fascism: A Very Short Introduction, pg. 117). Without adequate sources saying otherwise this is the view we're required to take- --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. But this view implies that he must be listed as an anti-Semite. If he had died before 1938, he wouldn't. But unfortunately he was given a few extra years to live. --MauroVan 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue actually. I would suggest this: if people like Saddam Hussein or Achmadinedad are listed as anti-Semites (in the sense of anti-Jewish obviously), then it is hard to maintain the position that Mussolini doesn't fall in that category by virtue of his public acts and declarations after 1938. I will go check.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting result: not even Ahmadinejad is listed as an anti-Semite, but an anti-Zionist. Give me a break, Noam Chomsky is an anti-Zionist, for heaven's sake!! The poison that Ahmadinjead spits out is way beyond anti-Zionism. It's a bit like saying that Hezbollah is a group of good-willed, reasonable moderate. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a complex issue, but we have to proceed by way of example, and real history will always make room for motivation and, for that matter, gossip where it is relevant to the matter under debate. Was Nicholas II anti-Semitic and should he be included in this category? Was Phillipe Petain, for that matter? Well, they should be included if some of the above reasoning is followed, for both men were associated with states far more vigorous in their persecution of the Jews than Mussolini's Italy. But, as I say, as a historian I would always choose to proceed by way of example, and here are some more to add to those I have given above.

1. The Italians prevented the Vichy authorities rounding up Jews in those areas of France under their control. They also cancelled the Vichy law obliging Jews to wear the Star of David. In Rome the Foreign Office issued instructions to the consul-general in Nice, saying "It is not possible to permit the forcible transfer of Jews. The measures to protect the Jews, both foreign and Italian, must be taken exclusively by our organs." To ensure that Jewish people were not arrested the Italians insisted that only they, and not the French police or the Milice, could take such action. Aware of this many refugees fled south; in May 1943 some 4500 had entered the Isere area alone.

2. The occupying authorities in Athens likewise did not require the wearing of the yellow star, and Italian guards were placed outside the central synagogue to protect people from pro-Nazi Greeks.

3. Italian generals in the occupied areas of Yugoslavia refused to hand over the Jews to the Germans.

In none of these cases were the civilian or military authorities reprimanded by Mussolini, nor did he countermand their actions. When pressed by Himmler and Ribbentrop in February 1943 he said that he would comply, ordering the commanders in Croatia to round up the Jews and send them to Trieste for deportation to Poland. Only a few days after this order was issued it was followed by a telegram, "It is true that I have been obliged to give my consent to the expulsion. But you can use all the excuses that you like, so as not to hand over a single Jew. Say that we don't have the means to transport them by sea to Trieste, and that transport by land is impossible." Not long afterwards the commanders in France received fresh instructions from the High Command in Rome: "As regards the measures proposed by Il Duce in reference to the Jews: no. 1 priority is to save the Jews living in French territory occupied by our troops whatever their nationality, be they Italian, French or foreigners."

This is what he did about the Jews. Is this the action of an anti-Semite? The extraordinary action against the Italian Jews came during the German occupation of the north, not at the behest of Mussolini. Again I ask for this issue to be looked at dispassionately, free, if possible, from residual hostility and political prejudice. Sadly, I am not optimistic. White Guard 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

very hard for us, Europeans of XXI century, to fully understand the social and political climate of the pre-WWII Europe (and not in Germany, Italy and allied countries only). What to us appear now unacceptable and unforgivable, on those times seemed almost normal (at least, "normal" and acceptable in that exceptional pre-bellic situation). No doubt that anti-semitism is absolutely far away from the vast majority of Italians, and of their rulers as well (Mussolini included), and no doubt that Mussolini's anti-Jewish acts were inspired only by his mighty German ally, and absolutely NOT by Italian public opinion. But, all the same, those acts were made, and the responsibility of them is on him too. Considering the temper of the man I guess that he would not have tried to reject this responsibility -- @ ^_ 11:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor Emanuel II signed off on the racial laws, thus giving his seal of approval under extraordinary pressure. In the sense that you are talking about, wouldn't this would make him too an anti-Semite? And what about Marshall Petain and the many other collaborator regimes who were more actively and enthusiastically anti-Semitic in their policies? I think there should be some way to distinguish this kind of ideological anti-semitism from the obvious opportunism of Mussolini and co. I simply do not find the case for anti-semitism convincing. Here's another admittedly imperfect analogy that might be useful: many governors and politicians in the south of the US supported segregation out of concern for state's rights and/or political opportunism. Many of these same people were absolutely NOT racist. Should they all be classified as anti-black because the consequences of their positions were destructive toward blacks. How do we distinguish such people from obvious ideological racists in the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I would simply consider all these guys as racists or anti-Semites (of course including Vittorio Emanuele III, not II). The difference between different degrees of anti-Semitism or racism will be evident from their specific articles. Once more: no mind-reading, just historical judgement. --MauroVan 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is another example of the the oversimplification problem with categories. I have been involved in silimar incident before. It will never be resolved to everyon'es satisfaction. Readers should be able to judge for themselves based on the disucssion and the argumnatation provided in the text of the article. In any case, do as you like. I have, meanwhile, added Victor Emanuel III to the catgeory of anti-semites and asked the contribuors over there to look in in this discussion for an explanation.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Hitler (DONE)

I am wondering if the caption for the picture of Hitler and Mussolini that reads 'Hitler and Mussolini had a close friendship' is accurate at all. My understanding was that they did not particularly like each other, although they were allies. robo 03:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they were far from friends. You're correct. The caption is extremely misleading.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we write that "Mussolini privately suggested that the Vatican consider excommunicating Adolf Hitler"? Can we rely on the source of this assertion? Should we explain the context of such a double-game maneuvre (1938: conflict with Germany about Austria)?

Yes to both.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No-it's absurd. White Guard 22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain please. I still have no position on this specific point. --MauroVan 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have considerable experience of archives. Those who work with documents will know that there are all sorts of false leads, and it is important to recognise them as such. If this document really exists-and is not a forgery-it is a definite false lead. Why on earth should Hitler care about excommunication? He had been baptised as a Catholic, true, but he never once in his adult life attended church or took confession. In 1934 Mussolini, by positive action, had prevented German intervention in Austria. Why, four years later, was he simply content to refer the matter in such a lame way to the Vatican? It simply makes no sense. We know from his conversations with Prince Philip of Hesse that he accepted Hitler's 1938 intervention in a 'friendly manner'; why do that and then attempt such an intrigue with the Pope, which was bound to have negative results? White Guard 23:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My first comment on this excommunication story was "It's a hoax". I don't think it's so relevant and once more it looks to me like a subtle attempt to depict Mussolini as a better man than he was. I just disagree on the relation between Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church: this is an aspect of Adolf Hitler that's been constantly manipulated for decades by post-war Vatican propagandists wishing to hide their connection to the Fascist regimes, which were (almost always, I can only recall the exception of Orthodox Christian Fascism in Rumania) all widely seen as Roman Catholic regimes (Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Hitler, Pavelić...).

Anyway, I would just ignore this piece of information which has no clear purpose. --MauroVan 09:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The worst 'Fascist' regime (was Salazar really Fascist; was Franco for that matter?) was Protestant, not Catholic, if such regimes can be truly said to have any confessional basis. If you look at voting patterns in Germany prior to 1933 you will see that Nazi support is concentrated in the Protestant north of the country. Most of the Catholic south, and that includes Munich, the Nazi Hauptamt, remained solid behind the Catholic Centre Party. White Guard 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The dictator of Germany, Adolf Hilter, was a Roman Catholic and he was never excommunicated (while all Communist-voters, for example, were). As you probably know, :-) Adolf Hitler was quite a preminent figure in German Fascism.

Salazar and Franco are not properly Fascists, in my strict vision of what Fascism really is, they're more the leaders of Pinochet-like military dictatorial regimes giving Fascist-like speeches. Nevertheless, my definition of Fascism is a minority POV; the ordinary usage of the word includes such regimes. --MauroVan 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it is worth, I think your view on Salazar and Franco is correct, because it exactly corresponds to my own. White Guard 22:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I said that it sjould be include was simply that, whatever the heck it is, it does satisfy

WP:V. The policy says something like "it is not WP's job to check the truth of the statements made by the NYtimes or other organizations. That would constitute original research." We are concerned only with providing reputable sources. I am not a historian and have no access to archives with documents which contradict this. As I don't really care about the matter, though and the consensus is that it is far-fetched, perhaps it can be left out and this point has been settled? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Mussolini hanging (DONE)

Should we show the picture of Mussolini and Claretta Petacci hanging by their feet in 1945? Somebody thinks there's no reason to put the picture there, but it's a very famous picture.

Use the Common's version, not the dubious fair use one that was being used previously.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dictatorship (DONE)

Should we put Mussolini in the list of dictators? Nobody has explained why we shouldn't.

Now, really!! Anyody who suggests he was not a dictator should not be editing this article.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. --MauroVan 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Communism (DONE)

Should we put Mussolini in the category Anti-Communists? Nobody has explained why we shouldn't.

Obviously.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold for the fatherland

So this initiative gained him support? From whom? To what degree? I have never heard any of my family speak positively about this initiative. Note: I've never seen one of the armbands, but I have seen the rings.

"voluntary" - interesting choice of words. If you didn't hand over the gold then you would likely be beaten. I don't see this as voluntary.

Level of support - this is simply not acceptable. Perhaps apologists want to make it sound like Mussolini had general support, but the country was divided internally.

This entire section seems founded on guesswork and seems grossly overstated - but I am 100% POV on this issue - so what do others know? Does anyone know of studies into this issue that could be cited? (I'm looking...) Yankoz

Perception by the Italian public

An user removed the following text from the article assuming that it was "POV" (I assume that he sees this as somehow condescendingtowards Mussolini): "He is more likely to be regarded as a buffoon than a monster, especially because of the over-the-top rhetoric of his famous speeches, that seems more ridiculous that threatening to most present-day Italians."

I can assure that this is quite representative of the average opinion in Italy: this can be testified by anyone that has a familiarity with Italian comical entertainment, where humorous depictions of Fascist party members and Mussolini himself can be seen often; those are used not only to make an anti-fascist statement but much for their pure satiric value. An example is the "Fascists on Mars" mockumentary by Guzzanti, created as a protest against historical revisionism, but also just for making fun of the pompous fascists spewing early-thirties rhetoric on a ridiculous and pointless quest.

This change has been reverted for the time being.--81.208.36.87 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text. I don't support Mussolini in any way (I have only provided sources and cleaned up the article, I sourced the statements on his atheism and his death). And I'm not familiar with any comedy lampooning Mussolini. I do agree with you that many Italians probably regard him as an idiot, but I don't think it's encyclopedic or deserving of being mentioned in the article unless you can provide a source. Even with a source it would be a very bold statement to say the subject of an article is stupid. But if you want to reinsert it it's fine with me, I just thought it to be a little pov'ed at the time. I'm trying to promote this article to good, and eventually, featured article status and am focusing on editing it to that point. Maybe we can cooperate in making it better. Aaрон Кинни (t) 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been throuhg the harrowing experience of the revitalized, professionalized FAC process. Warning: YOU'VE GOT A LOOOOOOOOONG WAY TO GO. The images are good. But that's about all I can say. The proganda photo needs to be reduced or eliminated though. In this article, there are not only verbal redundancies, but content redundaneices!! It is way too long. Cut it in half, if you want a snowball's chance in the center of the Sun. The references are footnotes and no full bibliograohic refercnes at all are listed. Almost the enrite article is unsourced. Every sinlg claim needs to be sources, if you want to get through FAC. I could go on forever.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm Italian and I can assure that Mussolini isn't considered an idiot at all. A big part of Italian people consider Mussolini as an evil man, but there's also a significant number of people who consider Mussolini in a "neutral" way: he made many mistakes, but he also improved italian industry and realized Stazione Centrale in Milan, railways, roads and the whole city of Latina.

I'm not talking about a revaluation of Mussolini (that's a neo-fascist creation) but it's really important to know that Mussolini wasn't a "monster" a "non-human creature" a "Hitler's weaker clone". He was a man that was loved and hated at the same time.

Tell that to some of my Greek, Albanian or Ethiopan friends. Read the section on Ethipia and I would argue that he was worse than Hitler. Huler was arguably mentally ill. Mussolini has no such excuse.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In Greek and Albany italian army was often defeatet. The german army came to help italian people and did the in-famous disaster. In Ethiopia italian army defeated a poor nation and THAT has no excuse. But italian also built bridges, wells and roads in that few years of the colony. Ethiopian people are still using italian infrastructures today. French who invaded a lot of island in the pacific, then Morocco, Senegal, Algeria, etc. are excused. Mussolini is a monster. Why? I got the answer: because we lost the war and French won. Mussolini made many mistakes, some of them terrible mistakes. But I do not understand: Mussolini ordered to invade Albany and Ethiopia and he has not to be excused. Truman ordered the atomic bomb and he is "good". CNL in Italy killed 80 innocent people in Schio and they are celebrated as "heroes who defeated facism". Can you tell me why only some massacres and people are "good"?

Actually, I didn't know he invaded Albany, New York!! That's interesting news. I'll have to look that one up. The rules here are to sign your name on talk pages. Many Italians, like yourself, make me feel profoundly ill and ashamed that I wasn't born of a different nationality. It's bacially the only country that refuses to face up to its hideous totalitarisn past. As somone correctly pointed out below, the only difference between Musso and AH is that Musso was a failure even at evil. If he had had the capabilities of the Luftwaffe, the German panser division and so on, he would have done worse than Hitler. So what you're basically saying, anyway, is that Hitler was not so very bad after all, since Truman dropped the A-bomb (appropiately in my opinon, saving the hundered millions of lives that wuld have been lòst in a full invasion of Japan))? Give me a break. Some people are fundemnatally evil and othere are not. It's as simple as that. Ted Bundy was evil. People who spend their lives working to save other's lives and engaining on other self-sacrificing activities are not. Why? That's a very complex question there: bad genes, bad social eniroment, some combination of the two, free will? The debate goes on. But the fact rests that some folks do horrible, destructive things and others do not.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to be ashamed cause you're talking about "race". I'm italian but you don't know the color of my skin.

Ashamed to be Italian? Franco, it's people like you that weaken nations. To say that Italy is the only country that "refuses to face up to its hideous totalitarisn past" is a joke. Look at Japan. Does that country face it's past? Absolutely not. To even compare Hitler and Mussolini is beyond stupidity. Where as Hitler was "cleanseing" Europe of Jews, Mussolini was saving them. Yeah, he really sounds like a monster. But wait! What about alledged Italian war crimes committed under the Fascist government? Oh right, no one was tried or convicted. Hmm...what about the alliance with Hitler? That was bad, wasn't it? Yes, it was a bad decision, but with that decision, Mussolini spared a German occiupation of Italy for four years. As well, what option did he have? Yes, England, America, and France would sure have welcomed him as an ally right? Right after they shunned him and forced him to an alliance with the only other power in Europe that was not trying to sanction Italy in some way. That is common historical fact. Oh, and on your little "fact" about Truman and the A-Bomb on Japan, it would not have cost "hundered millions of lives that wuld have been lòst in a full invasion of Japan". Calculations by the American government came to a total of ten thousand Allied troops would be killed on an invasion of the mainland, and that was without the Soviet Union intervieneing in the war. Well now, those ten thousand were sure as hell worth the over half million killed with two drops of the Atomic Bomb. I am both shocked and appaled that you are able to edit wikipedia, with both your ovbious bias against fact, as well as Italy. Maybe you should read a book, or better yet READ the website that you edit. You may learn something. - Izzo (and stop deleting this post without reason or cause, I'll just post it back again)

Archived

This talk page was blanked some time ago, I'm not sure if a vandal or not (or unintentional) but I got a hold of the old version and archived it because I didn't want to mess up the current discussions. It can be found here. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Arnaldo de Stupid

(search for this text in the page) someone vandalised it, obviously; but I have no idea what to change it back to. Arnaldo Mussolini, perhaps?

Collapse of Italian liberalism

How come the fascists wanted to avoid the collapse of Italian liberalism? Wouldn't this only be to their advantage? Please answer. - 1 March 2006

Mussolini and Jews

These 2 sentences made me choke on my miso:

"In fact, Mussolini has been said to have saved more Jews than even Oskar Schindler. Later, he would refuse to allow Jews to be deported to concentration camps until Germany occupied Italy during the war (a period depicted in the movie, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis)."

...and I would like to see the assertion footnoted if it's true. Who said it? Chaikney 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a well know historical fact that Jews weren't deported from Italy. Jews in Vichy France, which was policed by the Italians, weren't required to wear the Yellow star.

Mussolini did persecute the Jews in order to impress Hitler; I was unaware of any claims that he was a savior to the Jews in Europe.

Mussolini gave 6000 jews circa to Gestapo. One of them was Primo Levi. So he did persecute the Jews. Some people said that he wanted to impress Hitler, others that he was under pressure. It's also a fact that facism did not persecute jews in its "dogma": in fact Mussolini had a jew lover and many jew friends.

Absolutely true that Mussolini did persecute the Jews. Absolutely false that Italian Fascism had no anti-Semitism in its "dogma": just consider that a state-funded magazine called La difesa della razza (The defence of the race) was published by prominent Fascist "intellectuals". I even saw with my own eyes original propaganda posters from the Fascist era depicting a "Jewish embryo" (with big nose, kippah and everything) and a label reading something like "1950. Jew, a race now extincted thanks to some very wise men". Italian Fascism was much more similiar to German Nazism than is usually recognized. The fact that Mussolini, as a man, was such a ridiculous clown didn't make him, as a dictator, less dangerous and blood-thirsty than Hitler. His regime was just weaker and less organized (like all Italian governments in history). Example: Some covers and pictures from La difesa della razza --MauroVan 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My impression, perhaps wrong, was that overall Italian Fascism was more cultural than racial and viewed Jews as a foreign culture and hated them for that reason but allowed Jews if they acted Italian. Primo Levi's example shows that deportation of Jews did not pick up until the Italian Social Republic was installed and it became a Nazi puppet, Primo Levi himself didn't realize the extent of the anti-Semitism because he thought he would be punished more for him being a partisan than for him being a Jew. There was definitely less of a genetic obsession in Italian Facism than in Nazism. Though given the extreme nationalism that defined Facism, large scale anti-Semitism of both cultural and genetic types would easily florish, and whatever the official dogma of the Facist party, both types of anti-Semitism would find plenty of very nationalist intellectuals willing to make propaganda. I think it really would be a mistake to equate Italian Facism as Nazism lite, they differ in emphasis and some areas of dogma and policy in my mind, though they are alike enough to be placed in the umbrella term Facism. And I think that it would a mistake to regard Mussolini's regime as weak, it had widespread popular support and while corruption weakened it, it had a powerful state apparatus. A simple of its power can be seen in the fact that it accomplished an age old goal of Italian governments, suppressing the Sicilian Mafia (through massive civil rights violations, and the Mafia was able to start up quickly after the war due to mistakes of American occupation, anti-communism, and the lessening of the state power and civil rights violations of the post-WWII Italian government) Jztinfinity 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some fascist propaganda songs like "Facetta Nera", "Africanina", and "L' a detto Mussolini", regard the Ethiopians as people to be civilized and fully Romanized (as in becoming Italian) by the superior "Roman Civilization". I am a bit confused on the subject of Italian fascist racism, because such material is not really racist in tone, the Ethiopians are considered as culturally but not necessarily genetically inferior. "Africanina" even supports interbreeding of Ethiopian women with Italians and that tone of bringing Ethiopian women to Italy to marry to them (although I have no clue if that ever happened or in what scale) is prominent in several songs of the Abyssinian War. I am no expert on the matter, so if anyone can add or comment on this, I would be delighted to read. Lucius Domitius 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

• "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Could someone please cite a source for this quote? - japhyfoo@backword.net

I have spent several months trying to find this quote. It appears to be a very bad translation of a section on corporatism supposedly written by Mussolini for the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), but several English translations do not contain anything like this quote. Chip Berlet <cberlet@igc.org>.

moved off main page left quote on that page User:Smith03

Berlet: I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter:

Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers).

I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Until someone who reads Italian, and checks the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and finds there is a sentence that can be accureatly translated into the above quote, I think the quote should not be listed. Chip Berlet <cberlet@igc.org>.

---

I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from this or another original document. In the meantime, here are some actual quotes from English tranlations.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)

"It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism." (p. 24)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation.

In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

Hope this is useful. --Cberlet 04:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Badoglio's quote

AFAIK the quote:
"La guerra continua a fianco dell'Alleato Germanico" ("War continues at the side of our German allies")
in the article, is correctly reported. Just a minor error: the literal translation is "the german ally

Benito Mussolini The Rise And Fall Of il Duce by Christopher Hibbert 1962

This biography goes into a lot of detail about Mussolinis death, etc. He and his mistress were shot outside the Villa Belmonte. The guns didnt work properly. His mistress was shot first as she grabbed the barrel of the gun. Mussolini held back the lapels of his jacket and said "Shoot me in the chest" (his last words). It took another shot to finish him off. They were taken in a removals van along with the bodies of 15 other high-ranking fascists and dumped in the Pizzale Loreto. Eventually Mussolini and his mistress (and two other people according to the photo) were strung up upside down so that the large crowd which had gathered could see them. I think this book is well worth reading if your interested in Mussolini. I've only read the final part so far. It also gives several pages evaluating the worth of the various sources, plus a very long bibliography. I do not know how to edit the article page, hence putting it here. Sorry, been having a lot of problems trying to add to this page without erasing other peoples comments. What I thought was a 2 minute job has now taken over an hour. If this final edit does not work, perhaps someone else can sort it out for me, as I'm giving up. Thanks. Archie.

Mussolini as a member of the Italian Socialist Party

I assume his belonging to the Category:Members of the Italian Socialist Party was deleted with the belief that it constituted vandalism. I have created the said cat in the belief that it should cover people who have been active there at any given time (hence the caption at the top of the cat page). I am a left-winger myself, so I have no special need to slander the socialists (as I assume people using "Roman-Catholic" vs. "Atheist" or vice-versa have had), nor is this connected with the idiotic pretense that state ownership=fascism. Mussolini's activities in the PSI cover an important part of his life, and the controversies he had with the rest of the party are covered only too well here and in other articles - so no one should view this as somehow incriminating the rest of the PSI. However, if I am wrong and this was erased by fascists who want to cover their tracks according to the demands of their own ideology, then I ask them to go and dunk their heads in pools of crap. I am puzzled as to who did it and why because I haven't checked the article in a long while, and I'd have a hard time checking edits version by version. Please, if you see this category removed again, revert to a version showing it or add it to the newest version. Thanks. Dahn 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic

a short-lived Soviet influence was established in Bavaria just about this time. The Bavarian Soviet Republic was founded in 1919, three years before Mussolini would form a government. Intangible 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

CDU

He was a member of the CDU-party in Germany??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.247.27.196 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think so. The CDU didn't exist back then, the incarnation was the Centre Party and I'm not sure about the membership requirements, but it is highly unlikely. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially since he is sourced to be an atheist. Aaрон Кинни (t) 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a copyvio

this dif is the development of the version that ende up on this site. Rich Farmbrough 11:07 29 June 2006 (GMT).

Il Duce's Jewish Mistress

It's not in a book or an academic journal, so I'm not quite sure how to use it, but none the less it's quite fascinating. The Jewish mother of FascismMargherita Sarfatti. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP was ahead of me, see Margherita Sarfatti Now just need to integrat it into this article. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems undeserving of a section, it seems like a historical curiosity than an important facet of Mussolini's life, unless he says somewhere that this was the love of his life, this should be lessened in importance, given maybe a sentence or two. Perhaps a better section would be "Mussolini and Anti-Semitism" or "Mussolini and Nazism" Jztinfinity 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The section, and also the biographic article on Sarfatti herself, doesn't mention a not uninteresting fact about her: she wrote the first biography of Mussolini, published first in England as The life of Benito Mussolini in 1925 and the following year in Italy as Dux. --Tridentinus 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo Caption

I changed two letters in the photo caption "A portrait of a passive Mussolini" so that it now reads "A portrait of a pensive Mussolini". Hi There 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pensive is not an appropriate description, unless Mussolini actually told the photographer that he felt pensive and the photographer noted that somewhere. The caption should not claim to know anything about his state of mind as the portrait was taken. Remember: WP:VERIFY. I don’t think the photo needs a caption at all. It’s quite obviously Mussolini, and he’s not doing anything in the photo, so there’s nothing for a caption to comment on. --Rob Kennedy 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When Did He Become Editor of Avanti

In the section "Early Years" we read the following: "After his return to Italy ... he joined the staff of the "Central Organ of the Socialist Party", Avanti!... Mussolini had a brother, Arnaldo, who would later become the editor of Il Popolo d'Italia, the official newspaper of Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party (November 1922)." The section ends, and the next section, entitled "Birth Of Fascism" has the following "These syndicalists formed a group called Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista in October 1914. Massimo Rocca and Tulio Masotti asked Mussolini to settle the contradiction of his support for interventionism and still being the editor of Avanti!..." Firstly, the line about his brother seems to have no relation to the rest of the paragraph, and is misplaced in that it is out of chronologically out of context too. I.e. we are reading about events of 1910, we then read a mention of his brother and 1922, and then we are again reading about 1914 and Mussolini's attitude towards intervention. The next problem is, that when we left him in the previous section Mussolini had merely joined the staff of Avanti, and now he is the editor; a mention should be made of his accession to the editorship, I should think.Hi There 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed a duplicated part of the section "Fascist Dictatorship"

The last half of the last paragraph in the section "Fascist Dictatorship" contains the following sentence: "But his "axis" with Germany was confirmed when he made the "Pact of Steel" with Hitler in May 1939. Clearly the subordinate partner, Mussolini followed the Nazis in adopting a racial policy that led to persecution of the Jews and the creation of apartheid in the Italian empire. Before this, Jews were not specifically persecuted by Mussolini's government, and were permitted to be high members of the Party. Members of TIGR, a Slovene anti-fascist group, plotted to kill Mussolini in Kobarid in 1938, but were unsuccessful. One of Mussolini's famous quotes is "If I retreat, kill me"". I have removed this sentence because it is repeated nearly verbatim in the following section "The Axis of Blood and Steel." Hi There 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for amplication of Mussolini's suggestion that the Vatican excommunicate Hitler

The statements "Mussolini did not approve all policies of Hitler and in April, 1938, Mussolini privately suggested that the Vatican consider excommunicating Adolf Hitler." really could use more detail! I would expect that anyone reading this article would also be interested to know. Hi There 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably false. I've never read such a thing in DeFelice or anyone else. Source it or remove it.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This story is a hoax. --MauroVan 09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, no revert war!

There is no need for revert war. If there is a problem we can sort it out with civilized discussion. Kurt.

Fine. You can leave the photo in, if that is the consensus of the editors. My main concern is that here are simply too many unnecesary images in this article. It looks like a widow's shrine to Mussolini, for heaven's sake.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Someone..." I take it you mean me. I am not trying to distract anyone from reading the article. The pictures have historical value and are relevant. I am NOT a fascist. Kurt.

You seem intent on demontrsating that you ARE, for some reason. Look, I don't have time for this nonsense. The article can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. I'm delisting this. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh, somebody's started reverting again. I quickly refreshed the page 3 times and I got 3 different-looking pages.

change of photo

Let's go through a bit of the history of what haappend in the last 20 minutes or so. User:Kurt changed the photo in the infobox to the current version. In the editbox, he wrote that someone had called him a fascist. I certainly had not called Kurt a fascist as far as I can remember. However, I did not like the photo and reverted back, sugessting that it was "too propanganstic" and might give an impression of bias. Kurt reverted back and explinaed that the milairy uniform was more appropoate. I accepted the point, but then I removed some of the other photos because I though the article was starting to look gaudy and shrine-like. Kurt disagrees. That's all there is to it. I will leave it up to the consensus of editors to decide. There should be no edit-warring about the matter.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

just popped by here after seeing a bbc article on Mussolini's grandson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5314574.stm and have been reading a bit about the revert war as a result. I don't agree with your view that the uniform image is at all propaganda. In all references I've seen of mussolini in history books from way back when, he was always shown in uniform. If anything, I think showing the uniform is anti-fascist... Anyway that's my 2 cents.. --15.203.137.72 11:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of this stuff is up at the top of the page now.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to get rid of some of the pictures. We don't need two pictures of Hitler and Mussolini together; keep the one saying they weren't really friends, and get rid of the one with them on the balcony or whatever.

Ironplay and Kurt

Ah hah!! I think I get the idea of this game. You guys seem to be in some sort of long-interval edit war, where one person reverts everything that has been posted by the other (ignoring all the stuff in between) after about a day or so. This way you can dodge the 3RR and other rules. Bizarre and inappropriate behavior. Ironplay, never mind.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurt was already blocked several times for that kind of behavior (last time for a month). And if he keeps on doing that, he will probably end up blocked again... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. Keep an eye on these fellows edits here. It gets ridiculous. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"You guys seem to be in some sort of long-interval edit war" I don't even know who this Ironplay is, all I know is that he has strange habid of reverting many articles I edit. As a matter of fact, his behaviour is strangely similiar to user SuperDeng (SuperDeng and I had very bad moments in the past) "Bizarre and inappropriate behavior" I do not wish revert wars with anyone. Have you bothered to check the talk pages of of few articles I recently edited? "Everyone's on to you now." This is most confusing. And I am not trying to whitewash anything. Kurt.

I asked this page to be blocked for a while just to let the kids have fun somewhere else. Then we could move on to make it a proper Wikipedia article. --MauroVan 09:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's blocked now. Let's open a new thread on the top of this page and make an attempt to sort out all the single issues that created the revert war. --MauroVan 09:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jewish mistress

This seems undeserving of a section, it seems like a historical curiosity than an important facet of Mussolini's life, unless he says somewhere that this was the love of his life, this should be lessened in importance, given maybe a sentence or two. Perhaps a better section would be "Mussolini and Anti-Semitism" or "Mussolini and Nazism" Jztinfinity 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In complete agreement with the above: it adds nothing to our understanding of the subject, and is essentially of a trivial and passing nature. White Guard 01:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Executed or Murdered?

To say that Mussolini was 'executed' presupposes some form of legal process, when in fact he was murdered by Communists without trial. Might I suggest 'killed' or 'shot' as a more neutral term? White Guard 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What does it say on the Ceacescu page about the murder of Ceacesucu, for example? Let's be consistent. If it says mudered here, it should say murdered there. If it says executed there, it should say executed here. Period.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannicide (or regicide) is abtually a very controverssial issue, since it is the tyrant himself who abolished the rule of law and put himself above it.

Since there was no rule of law, excpet the dicatates of one man, then I think the word execution is fine. other men decided to take the law into their own hands. At that point, he was no longer the law and they were.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just a small point of-neutral-clarification, and I had really no wish to enter into a debate over semantics. Let it remain as 'executed' if you wish. I do, however, contest your point about the Fascist state simply being the will of one man; it was far more complex than that. And for a murderous collection of Communist bandits to be defined as 'the law' is, I think, a statement rich in irony. I have always wondered why they were in such a hurry to 'execute' Mussolini rather than to have him face trial Nuremberg style? There may, I suspect, have been some fears about the possible outcome of such a process. White Guard 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, WG, it's just as old Berlusconi said "Mussolini only sent people on vacations on the islands." And the Holocaust never happened either?? Fascism lives!! Only on the Wackipedia, ladies and gentlemen.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of his direct invlvement in war crimes and genocide is much more abundant tha anything that has ever been found against AH. just read the article. I've added and documented much of it. There is much, much more where that came from. Ceacessu the Communist, on the other hand, was given a phony trial (why??? couldn't find anything on him?) and assasinated by the White Guards of the Catholic Church.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes; it's now becoming very clear: you obviously are carrying far too much emotional and ideological baggage to look at the career of Mussolini with detachment and objectivity. And as for Fascism yours is obviously of the Red variety. I intend to examine this article with care, to make sure it has not been polluted by you and your kind. The Catholic Church in Roumania? Please, please, try to calm down-better for your heart. White Guard 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC) White Guard 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Neo-fascists have attempted to whitewash the histiry on this page many, many times in the past. They have almost always failed in their efforts. For the purposes of the article, please use reliable and verifiable sources for any of your edits. As to the "red Communism", not even close. I'm a moderate social democrat. My grandfather was a member of the Partito d'Azione (liberal/socialist hybrid) whose basic platform was strong anti-fascim, anti-Communism and anti-totalitarianims of any stripe. You need to study a little bit of Italian history, my friend, before you can even begin to the slightest idea of what you're talking about. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you of one thing, comrade: I am not your friend. I care nothing about your-or your grandfather's-political affiliations. You gave obvious clues to your true loyalties by your ludicrous rant about Ceausescu and the Catholic Church. I started this discussion over a quite innocent point about the nature and circumstances of Mussolini's death. I did not expect that, in so short a space of time, it would lead me to the intense dislike and suspicion of someone I have never met, or ever likely to meet. You really are a very emotional and immature individual, too much so, I suspect, for rational adult debate. You must be under a lot of stress. Might I suggest you take a break, have a rest and calm down? Before replying to any of this-if reply you desire-have a seditive or count slowly up to a hundred: it may help you to think rationally. Incidentally, any edits I may make to this page will be based on reliable sources, not political prejudice. But I have my eye on you as a possible corrupter. White Guard 07:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine then, we are enemies. Who cares?? You seem to enjoy babbling on talk pages. Please see Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have something to add to the article, go right ahead and do it. Your content will be heavily scrutinized by myself and others who recogzine my extremely well-established credibility as an exopedian. Period.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, if you want to take this any furhter, please go to my personal talk page.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PPS. I am deeply anti-religious (particulayrly anti-Catholic) but does that entail communism? Impeccable logic!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Partisans were ordered to kill Mussolini by the leadership of the Resistance movement. The man who's widely considered to be the material executor of the killing, the Communist Walter Audisio, declared to have received the order from general Raffaele Cadorna who was hardly a Communist.

In my opinion, killing Mussolini was the best thing to do in that context and I really don't care whether it was the decision of some wise individuals or the decision of an official body.

Had not he been killed, he would have probably be freed by the Allies or by the Italian "Antifascist" state itself, as happened to most Italian war criminals. There was never anything like a Nuremberg trial in Italy after the war, on the opposite the Fascists found an easy way to freedom and hundreds of former Partisans and Antifascists were put in jail. The far-sighted act of cutting short Mussolini's life managed at least to prevent the man from being recycled later.

However, I would use the word "kill" which doesn't convey any moral judgement on the action. "Murder" does, therefore it's absolutely unacceptable. --MauroVan 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the precise technical term in English is "summarily executed". --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comrade, comrade, you condemn yourself by your own words, which you seem incapable of understanding. I quote ; "...Ceacessu (sic) the Communist, on the other hand, was given a phony trial (why??? couldn't find anything on him?) and assasinated (sic) by the White Guards of the Catholic Church." They are your words; read them over if you wish, just to make sure. And you say you are not a Communist? I find that hard to believe. You are certainly highly irrational, which, for a student of philosophy, must be a real handicap. I have no intention of joining you on your talk page, or anywhere else, and as far as I am concerned this debate is at an end. I repeat, however, that I have an eye on you, and will be immediately aware of any Red distortions of the truth. Go on, have the last word; it is not in your nature to resist. White Guard 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know until now that it was a crime to be a Communist. I am. So what? Moreover, Wikipedia is not a forum as you should know. Personal opinions of editor Francesco don't need to be discussed here. --MauroVan 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Read and try and make sense of some of his ranting-the suggestion, amongst other things, that I might just be a Fascist and Holocaust denier, and his ludicrous conjecture about the Catholic Church and Ceausescu. If he dosen't want his opinions discussed he should not offer them; I certainly did not ask to receive them. You are a Communist? You have my deepest sympathies, comrade; I've always considered it more as a political disease rather than a system of ideas. Mussolini, in his early days, did much to save Italy from this contagion. My point of view, of course. White Guard 09:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page....White coward.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! Really I'm having a ball with this nut!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Be careful though. I see you are a new fellow. You might learn something from what happned to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alessandra_Mussolini someone] very much like yourself. He's no longer with us!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Francesco, I urge you to cool down, of course that guy likes to be banned, I'm sure he will manage to, but I'd rather like you to remain here and help with the improvement of this and other articles! His opinions don't even deserve a reply. History already gave a harsh reply to such non-sense. Non ti curar di loro, ma guarda e passa... --MauroVan 13:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to that interesting 'debate'. I can assure you, comrades both, that I will never descend to petty personal abuse-unlike Mr. Franco-which I believe to be a sure sign of a childish and incoherent mind. You will never find any occasion by my words-or actions-to have me banned; so your joint conspiracy-and natural inclination-to silence dissent in typical Communist fashion will not work. I'm so sorry. White Guard 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears that this discussion resulted into nothing more than a fight, I have taken to reverting the edits myself. In order not to lean to one view, with the term "murdered", not to lean to the other view with the term "executed", I have replaced the word executed with the word shot/killed. This is neutral in both senses, neither leaning towards the left or right, nor conveying any kind of political agenda. It creates and gives the artical the atmosphere of neutrality, which should and hopefully remain with this article always. - Izzo

Once again someone has reverted the areticle to say "Execution" instead of the agreed upon "shootings". Please, DO NOT REVERT this part of the article. It is there for the sole purpose of objectivity, that neither "murdered"or "executed" can deliver. If it is reverted again without reason, I will request protection for this page. If you disagree with me, please say so on this part of the article where your ideas can be expressed. (December 28, 2006) - Izzo

The "British" path

pls remember that History books are always written by winners ... besides that, no-matter if "murdered or executed", the exact circumstances of Mussolini and Petacci deaths are not clear at all, after over 60 years. There are also serious speculations and witnesses that they were killed by British intelligence, to take possession of secret documents proving that Mussolini and Churchill were negotiating a separate peace, in anti-soviet function. The it.wiki article deals with this theory, which has been also told in some Italian state television broadcasts. According to this theory the partisans arrived too late, and only made a "dummy" execution, to carry on the sentence issued by Italian CLN. Some months ago I edited the en.wiki with this story, but, after some months it was removed without serious explanation -- @ ^_ 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick and simple answer: Are you seriously suggesting that the The Italian wikipedia is to be taken seriously. I have yet to come across an article there that would even pass GA status over here. I once consulted the The Italian wikipedia article on fascism and found that it claimed "Garibaldi, a member of the masonic lodge blah, blah, blah, invented the term fascio." I asked for a citation in three or four places and received no response for about three weeks. So, I then proceeded to cut it out. No one noticed for about three months!!

I translated an FA article on David Hilbert from that.....thing.....and, as a result, I have been bombarded by questions about the sources of various ridiculous statements. There are only two references on the bottom of the page (no in-line cites, nothing!!) and, since they were on mathematics and not biography, they were almost certainly not the sources of the statements. Please take a look at the Italian wiki article on Giacomo Leopardi. It looks like it was done by a group of seven-year-olds. the explanation for the deletion is that, on the English wikipeida, if you don't provide a credible, verifiable source for any text, it can be deleted spot on. Period. Mediaset is NOT a credible source, BTW.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

with "Italian state television" I meant RAI not Mediaset: ehm .... I guess you fell into a Freudian lapsus. The source is more exactly RAI3, that is the leftmost Italian public channel. The broadcast title was "La grande Storia (the big history)". The broadcast was very serious and backed by personal witnesses (the man himself who shot Mussolini, now over 80 years old) was interviewed. Bye -- @ ^_ 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still just scandal-sheet speculation. Do you have an academic citation or not?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

mmmh, is there any mandatory rule that only "academic" material is wiki-eligible? I don't think so ... Anyway, you're Italian, you can read the Italian article about Mussolini's death (I link here the dedicated article). The article includes external links: maybe you'll get new material to update your opinion a little. By the way: this is not an original theory. -- @ ^_ 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two links in the Italian article: the RAI one is dead while the other is a Xoom user page. I don’t find your claim inherently implausible in the least. But I don’t find it verified. (Perhaps the upcoming comedy over claims for a new inquest without an exhumation will shed some light on the matter.) —Ian Spackman 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in some more info about this theory, here's a link (in Italian), which is the recension of a new book printed in Italy on this subject. The reportage of RAI 3 channel "La grande Storia" broadcast (in 2004) was based also on the work of an American journalist, Peter Thompkins, who was an OSS agent in Milan in the end of WWII. He claimed to have tried to get info from British official archive, but he was told that the documents on this matter (existing) remain still nowadays classified top secret. As far as I know the exhumation of Mussolini's body has the goal to prove that the position of the bullets holes don't correspond to the positions of the holes in the military uniform M wore in Piazzale Loreto, a discrepancy witnessed by others as well before he was interred. The conclusion of the "British path" supporters is that M (already arrested by the partisans) was killed in the morning of April 28, after he spent his last night, by two British agents (one of whom was the Italian partisan Bruno Giovanni Lonati, still alive and interviewed by RAI 3, who got information of the house where he and Petacci were under custody). The partisans formation lead by Colonnello Valerio, charged with the task to execute the death sentence issued by CLN, arrived in the afternoon and should have organized the scene of an "official" execution for reasons of political convenience. In my opinion, even if there is so far not enough evidence to give this theory more credit than the official ones, it has enough to be quoted on WP has an "alternative one". -- @ ^_ 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: here a link to an article of Peter Thompkins about the situation in Italy at the end of WWII, and here a link to the RAI 3 broadcast "La Grande Storia" -- @ ^_ 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. I'm sure the P2, the freemasons, the Vatican, the CIA, the mafia and the Bush family were all involved In it as well. Conspiracy are always confused with historical fact in Italy. The extreme left is even worse than the extreme right. I'll leave it up to professional historians to sort out this nonsense. But I sincerely doubt there are any left on Wikipedia. Who killed Princess Diana?? I once read that there 35,000 web sites devoted to conspiracy theories on the topic. Which ones should be taken seriously. None. You commies are worse than the fascists. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"you commies" ??? :-( ... my dear Lacato-etc.etc. you are absolutely on the "wrong path", but remember that on wikipedia "amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas" Ciao. -- @ ^{no flame please} 07:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just put it this way: nonsensical anti-American conspiracy theorizing (conspiracy theorizing in general, in fact) is common to the left, the right, the center, the Church, etc, etc.. in this country. The has been exposed by several notable historians in many books which I will cite later. It's called envy.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I close to left (even not being "commy"). Why do you think that this "British path" theory concerning Mussolini's death is somehow "anti-American"? If you want "anti-British", NOT anti-American. The core question is: everybody was interested to endorse this version of Mussolini's death: Britons, who don't want to be accused of betraying the anti-Nazi pact stipulated with their allies, other allies, who didn't want to deteriorate their relations with Soviet-Union, Italian communists, who wanted to be accepted in the post-war western countries, and so on (other Italian parties, for instance). In every crime, when you have a "motive" and some "witnesses", their is a growing possibility you're getting closer to the truth. I repeat: it's worth while going on with investigations. Just another clue: why Churchill spent most of his post-war holidays seasons in Italy exactly on the same places (Garda Lake, Como Lake) where Mussolini spent his last times, followed by a lot of his former wartime intelligence collaborators? -- @ ^_ 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Italian are notorious for conspiracy theories and are never willing to take responsibility for anything that happens in theory own country. It's always the fault of some external influences: the old Soviet Union, the US, the British, the Church, international Freemasons. Who killed Aldo Moro? The BR did. Period. Italians kill other Italians. Who's behind Provenzano? Other Italian mafiosi. Who was responsible for all the violence in the seventies: Italian fascist and communist terrorist organizations. Who killed Matteoti? Mussolini's henchman. Who is responsible for war crimes committed against the partisans and viceversa during the public of Salo and after the war: not the Germans or the british or the Americans. Italians did it to themselves. Who killed Pope John Paul I? He died of natural causes!! I'm tired of this constant indietrologia.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

well, I take note of your "theorema": "Italians can be killed only by other Italians or die by natural causes". Mmmmmh ... -- @ ^{my last post (for today)} 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As to coincidences, if you have studies any mathematics you would know that coincidences are a dime a dozen. Coincidences only seem surprising or interesting in retrospect,. In reality, there probability is quite high and they happen every moment.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

good, I've not the truth in my pocket. Just I think you cannot rule out this story, or dismiss it as "trash" on the basis of what we know so far -- @ ^{this is really the last} 09:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I CAN dismiss it as trash. That would be a personal opinion, just as I can dismiss the many conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination and state my opinion that Oswald was a lone lunatic. But you're right that I cannot deny the opportunity to other people to know about this and judge for themselves. I have not been feeling well lately, and consequently have been taking out my anger with the universe on the rest of humanity. But never mind. You know what I would like from you, and perhaps Maurovan or others who can write Italian infinitely better than I can, is to help me translate some of the FA and GA philosophy articles I have written (well, mostly written, since I do not OWN them unfortunately) into Italian when I get the time and energy. I think this might possible be extremely useful since there is not much exposure to analytic philosophy in Italy and they are also extremely good articles. You would not have to translate them yourself. I would try to do that. But I would definitely need someone to go through and copy-edit/correct my many grammatical mistakes. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Francesco I respect your opinion, but just let me do an obvious (by common sense) reasoning. I agree that some people see conspiracy everywhere, ruling-out the possibility that a single person, without the background of some big organisation, is able to perpetrate big crimes or spectacular actions: that's a nonsense of course, history is full of "free-lance" actors like this. But, at least, can you concede that sometimes and somewhere, some kind of conspiracy might also happen? Or do you think that an intelligence service very seldom makes "aimed" killings? Your position seems to me (but it's just a personal opinion) based on some a-priori skeptical attitude against any kind of hypothesis that contains some conspiracy element, that is against a "working hypothesis itself", without any attempt to examine the facts and fonts available, even with possibility to find out that they are weak -- @ ^ciao 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is trash; it is also a stupid slander against Churchill. White Guard 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks a lot, WG ... you have the truth in your pocket -- @ ^bye 06:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You Wikis just love to argue for the sake of arguing. Someone once said that "Wikipedia is just an enormous forum for endless arguments on any topic you can imagine"-. I often think this is not far from the truth. Anyway, NO I don't believe that conspiracies never happen. The Watergate conspiracy, for example, was a conspiracy to undermine the opposition. But it was eventually revealed and shown to be a bumbling, foolish act of nonsense. I DO, however, have an a priori skeptical attitude toward conspiracy theories in general. I am a member of CICAP and believe that conspiracies are extraordinary claims similar to supernatural phenomena. And extraordinary claims, as Carl Sagan put it, require extraodinary evidence. I don't see that here. There are 35,000 we site devoted to conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana alone. Am I supposed to examine all of these possibilities one by one and determine whether there is some validity to them? No, I can simply reject them until such time as the evidence becomes so substantial and superior to the evidence for the current explanation that I am literally forced to accept it as the better explanation. This is how science works. To use an analogy that Karl Popper once used to explain this sort of thing, I just this moment invented the "theory" that cause and effect do not really exist in the currently accepted sense. Instead, what happens is that a tiny elf steps in and makes sure that each "effect" is carried out according to his plans. This is hypothesis 1. Now, here's the point. I can then formulate a second hypothesis that there are actually two elves involved. I can formulate 3,4,5,6,7......aleph null and beyond hypotheses about infinite infinitesimal elves. Is it appropriate to eliminate them a priori? Of course. Nothing would be accomplished otherwise. As to conspiracy theories, most of them are based on the fallacy of finding connections and coincidences and then imagining that they are significant. They are very easy to construct (even convincing ones). See Foucault's Pendulum by Eco. The article on conspiracy theory is not bad either, but needs to be expanded a bit. In sum, of course one MUST dismiss most theories until they are MORE convincing and more well-established by evidence than the current explanation. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely on your same line: this theory is, so far, "weaker" than the "official" one. But, being also the official one full of discrepancies (a lot of historians agree about these discrepancies), and in presence of some "witnesses" and "elements" supporting the "british path" it's not POV to mention it on WP -- @ ^{imho, of course} 08:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, minority views should be presented, if they satisfy WP:V and all that sort or thing. But I suspect you will have some trouble with other editors on this. That's all I would say about the matter really. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As to Verifiability, I just briefly scanned over the three sources you cite above. The book review is, to my mind, a solid source. It is a book by a professional historian published by a reputable publishing house. Even the RAI article could serve as a verifiable source. The problem it that these are in Italian and may not be consideree verifiable on an English-langauge article. The English article is intersting but seems unclear about what exactly the British did (supply weapons and training, what't the big deal about that?) and the resistence did. I'm also unsure about the source. Seriosuly, Is the CIA.gov a reliable source? I don't know. I would allow it. But I'm sure there will be a great brouhaha here. So that's my absolute last comment on this.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've linked above this article mainly to give "credit" to the author, the journalist Peter Thompkins, who supported the theory as interviewed by RAI 3, as a person very well informed of the situation in northern Italy as an OSS agent in the latest years of WWII. Ok, no evidence, only "solid clues" (IMHO again) -- @ ^_ 09:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Benito Mussolini/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Needs better everything. Needs to be completely reorganized from top to bottom. It is way too long. Parts of some sections literally repeat other sections. Prose is often ungrammatical, awkward and prolix. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I upgraded this article to B, because it clearly rates it. I think it does continue to need better referencing (and inline citations for every paragrah) before it could be passed for good article status. Right now it looks like it's a good candidate for GA, however.--Bookworm857158367 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)