How Similar in Their Aims Were the Dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini - Coursework Example

Hitler and Mussolini, Comparing the Similarities of the Aims of Two of the World’s Most Dreaded, Fascist Dictators The world will remember the dictatorships of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler as two of the most dangerous and Fascist dictatorships to have ever scarred the pages of history. Both of these dictators achieved and maintained absolute political and social power through manipulation and control over their people as well as through the taking advantage of circumstances surrounding their countries at the time of their rise to power. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the similarities as well as some of the differences between the dictatorships of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. When discussing how fascist dictators are capable of rising to power and maintaining that power, it is often curious as to how they were ever able to convince the general populace that their views were not only rational but also acceptable. Both Mussolini and Hitler were able to achieve the support of the majority through elemental tactics which allowed them to gain enough approval to achieve many of their goals. One of the primary tools used by both of these dictators was propaganda. In addition, both Hitler and Mussolini were excellent charlatans and were capable of capturing the emotions of their people through moving speeches. Also, Mussolini and Hitler made promises that the people of their respective countries at the time, longed to hear. Promises of increased employment and economic growth were enough incentive for post World War 1 countries to be persuaded. Benito Mussolini was in fact, in power ten years before Hitler’s ascent. It was actually Mussolini who inspired some of the ideals embraced by Hitler and the Nazi party. The genesis of these dictatorships can be attributed to the aftermath of the First World War. The economic and political conditions of Germany and Italy were quite bad and the populace was eager to embrace any leader willing to promise a way out of such bad times. Hitler was able to achieve power in Germany by not only promising a drastic and improved economic change, but also a scapegoat for all of Germany’s problems. That scapegoat which Hitler chose to use of course was the Jews. Though Hitler and Mussolini were similar in many ways throughout their respective reigns, they differed in several ways as well. Mussolini was primarily focused on the state and on the Nationalism of that state. Hitler however, was more focused on himself and the achievement of his own goals such as virtual genocide, which tended to supersede even political duties of a ruler at that time. Evidence of this is that near the end of the Second World War, Hitler essentially hastened the process of extermination of Jews with little concern towards directing much needed man power towards the war itself. In other words, Hitler was so compelled to annihilate an entire race of people, that he preferred to kill as many Jews as possible to even attempting to win by fighting the allied forces. Hitler was feared greatly not only by his people but also by his own party members. Mussolini was eventually fired by his own party, a move which Hitler’s own would never have dared make. Both dictators however, shared the desire to eventually take over the world. The basic ideology of Nazism and Italian Fascism are quite similar, “The proposition that Nazism was a type of fascism continues to attract support from a broad range of historians who are able to identify characteristics which it and Italian fascism shared in common, such as dynamic radical nationalism, the strong leader, the one party state, an advocacy of masculinity and of communal as against individualist values”(Fischer, 1995). Both Mussolini and Hitler shared a common detest for Marxist values and were able to capitalize on this notion during a post World War I depression. One prevailing difference between the reign of Hitler and that of Mussolini is a term coined by historian Conan Fischer, that is “biological racialism”. The hallmark of the Nazi legacy is the virtual genocide, oppression, mutilation, torture, and degradation of an entire race of people. Though Mussolini was guilty of the death of approximately 1 million people, he was not as racially motivated as Hitler was. The millions of deaths which Hitler was responsible for were motivated by his detest for the Jewish people and as an ideology, can be termed “Hitlerism”. This of course is the significant element of what Hitler’s dictatorship stood for and sets him aside from Mussolini. The following is a quote from Hitler himself summarizing his perception of the Jewish people, “Wherever I went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity” –Adolf Hitler (Kershaw, 1998). Mussolini was not without prejudices, but he was not engulfed by racialism and goals of genocide like Hitler was. Hitler and Mussolini both utilized totalitarian forms of government in order to establish their respective countries as global superpowers. They were both essentially opportunists by definition, because both saw the opportunity to establish such dictatorships during the desperate times following the First World War. The territories acquired by both dictators can be discussed to show Hitler’s ability to produce an army as superior to Mussolini’s. Hitler built an army so massive, that he was able to conquer Poland in a time frame of only 3 weeks. Mussolini on the other hand, spent months trying to ascertain Ethiopia with eventual success. Certainly, it can be said that Hitler’s army was intentionally massive for the purposes of attempting to gain global control as well as to commit genocide. Hitler and Mussolini both took a very similar route to achieving power. Both men spent their time in parliament, recruiting advocates to aid in the coercion of voters on their behalf. Hitler’s group would become the SS and the SA while Mussolini’s the ‘brown shirts’. Once acquiring their respective groups of henchmen, both Hitler and Mussolini were easily able to attain votes due to voters’ fears of being killed if they did not vote in favor of the fascist party and through dialogue which was conducive to what people wanted to hear. One of the main issues addressed by both Hitler and Mussolini was the massive unemployment problem in Europe. Hitler was able to drastically decrease unemployment in Germany and Mussolini was also able to achieve the same goal in Italy but over a longer period of time. Both Hitler and Mussolini were efficient at carrying out most of their promises which they made to their people. This is perhaps the one and only compliment that one could give to either man and still have a clear conscience. Both also saw their people or homeland, as a superior race or group of people. During their regimes however, is where differences between the two can be pointed out. During his reign as Fuhrer, Hitler can be remembered as reveling in the loud stomps of black, Nazi boots during parades and speeches. He also relished the Nazi solute as a sign of reverence from his minions or would be slaves. Mussolini however, can be remembered for his charismatic hand gestures and powerful speeches which appeared to many, as an almost performance from an actor. Hitler is also known to have viewed life with dark and morose vision where Mussolini is somewhat characterized by his grand or enormous vision with an attempt at the positive, in his case the positive was his totalitarian rule. At the end of both regimes, each dictator left his respective country with an outstanding and massive debt. Hitler based his entire ruling on the supposed superiority of the Aryan race and the eradication of the Jewish race. Mussolini based his ruling on the idea of nationalism and the example of ancient Rome and its greatness as a global superpower. Both dictators were infamous for utilizing secret agents and secret police to murder members of opposing parties. Certainly, Marxists and communists at the time had much reason to fear assassination at the hands of the SS upon Hitler’s orders. Certainly, by virtue of being fascist dictators, Hitler and Mussolini both limited or restricted freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly. Both Hitler and Mussolini essentially strived for absolute power, their country’s expansion by taking over other countries, superiority of their respective race or party and destruction of their opposition. It is also notable that both Mussolini and Hitler supported Franco, a right wing dictator in Spain at the time, “European fascism was winning another war in Spain between 1936 and 1937. Mussolini and Hitler both supported Francos right-wing dictatorship and as to be expected, the French refused to intervene. The Spanish Civil War was decisive for Hitler for it was here that he was able to test new weapons and new aircraft which would eventually make their appearance when World War Two finally broke out in 1939” (Lecture 11, 2000). Some may argue that Mussolini’s ties to Hitler were based solely on economic need as it is unclear as to exactly how Mussolini really felt about Hitler. There appear to be periods in Mussolini’s ruling that he was opposed to Hitler and his decisions but other times where Mussolini celebrated Hitler’s decisions. It is also interesting that Mussolini’s foreign policy tended to change as his ruling progressed. When Mussolini originally took power, he was anti- imperialism. As he took power and matured as a dictator, he changed his views to pro -Imperialist Nationalism. It is thought that he changed his views in accordance with ancient Roman Imperialism as well as to facilitate his desire to acquire more territory under his ruling. Hitler was a bit more decisive and consistent in his ideology and ruling. He specifically stated in Mein Kampf that he felt that Austria needed to be annexed by Germany. Once established as Furor, he did just that at the surprise of many who perhaps did not take his words in Mein Kampf very seriously. Though a tyrant and a mass murderer, Hitler managed to remain a man of his word as well as a man who remained consistent with his ideology. If anything, his right wing supremacy views grew stronger with time. Mussolini was easily able to win over masses not only with his charismatic performance abilities, but with the idea that he alone could resurrect the Roman Empire of the past. Similarly, Hitler was able to persuade the masses that he merely sought a superior race, an Aryan society that would flourish and prosper. These neatly packaged notions of the future are the backbone of both Mussolini’s and Hitler’s delusional schemes and ultimate aims in their dictatorships. Certainly, both were in a position of absolute and total power until, for Hitler, suicide was the only answer and for Mussolini, assassination inevitably took place, “One of the most remarkable features of the history of Germany under National Socialism was the extent to which Hitler imposed his personal authority on the German people and state. The point cannot be stressed too strongly: Hitler was master in the Third Reich.” (Rich, 1973). Mussolini took power in October of 1922. This was the beginning of Italian fascism which lasted for 20 years, until Mussolini’s assassination. (De Grand, 1982). Hitler took power ten years after Mussolini which was in 1932. As before mentioned, Hitler initially modeled his own dictatorship after the dictatorship of Mussolini. At one point however, even Mussolini is said to have attempted to convince the Vatican to excommunicate Hitler due to his tyranny and lust for absolute power. Hitler continued to amass power and dominated much of Europe until the allied forces of World War II systematically took down the Third Reich eventually leading to Hitler’s defeat in Stalingrad in 1945. Hitler chose to commit suicide in 1945. He is quite possible remembered as the most dreadful tyrant in modern History. Mussolini is remembered for his fascist dictatorship and for killing at least 1 million people, but he is still considered as having been a weaker dictator than Adolf Hitler. References: Bosworth, R.J. 2002, Mussolini, Arnold Publishing, London Bosworth, R.J. Mussolini’s Italy, Life Under the Dictatorship, Arnold Publishing, London Bosworth, R.J. 1999, Italian Fascism: History, Memory and Representation, McMillan Press, London De Grand, Alexander, 1982, Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development, University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska Evans, Richard J. 2003, The Coming of the Third Reich, Penguin Group Publishing, New York. Evans, Richard J. 2006, The Third Reich in Power, Penguin Group Publishing, New York. Fischer, Conan. 1995, The Rise of the Nazis, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK. Griffiths, Richard. 2000, Fascism, Continuum Books, New York. Griffin, Roger. 1991, The Nature of Fascism, Pinter Publication, London. Kershaw, Ian. 1998, Hitler, Houghton – Mifflin Publishing, New York. Shoenbaum, David. 1966, Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, Norton and Company Press, New York. Rich, Norma. 1973, Hitler’s War Aims; Ideology, the Nazi State, and The Course of Expansion, W.W. Norton and Company, London Smith, Dennis, Mack. 1976, Mussolini’s Roman Empire, Viking Press, New York. Lecture 11, The History Guide, Lectures on Twentieth Century Europe, retrieved May 12, 2008 from website at: http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture11.html (Bosworth, Read More