Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 3

Mussolini's Body picture
please put the picture of his body hanging back in wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, and then do something to make sure all the little fascists running around here do not remove it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eboda (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture
Benito Mussolini was breathly mentioned un the song "The Ultimate Showdown". This should be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by E102ewan (talk • contribs)  12 April 2010 (UTC)

Depiction of Il Duce & Ida Dalser in Vincere
Should be included in the 'In popular culture' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.53.24 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Name
"Mussolini" is the Italian word for "muslin." Were his ancestors in the fabric business, possibly making sails out of cotton cloth?Lestrade (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * The Italian name of muslin is mussola or mussolina. The surname Mussolini seems to be a variation of the surname Muzzi. Similar surnames of the same group are: Muzi, Muziano, Muzii, Muzio, Muzza, Muzzarelli, Muzzarini, Muzzio, Muzzioli, Muzzo, Mucci, Muccini, Muccino, Muccio, Muccioli, Mussi, Musi, Musio, Mussato, Mussini, Mussino, Musso, Mussola, Mussolino. Their origin is unsure. They can be interpreted as hipocorisms of surnames as Giacomucci/Giacomuzzi, from Giacomi (son of Giacomo>James). Or from the ancient roman name Mutius (it:Muzio), meaning stuttering. Musso can derive from a toponym. The forms Mussola and Mussolini could also derive from the textile manifacture. In Italy, surnames for non-nobles started to be used from the XIII/XIV century. So, it would be quite difficult to track down if the work of his ancestors is the origin of his surname. --151.51.22.137 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
"Engelbert Dollfuss the Austrofascist dictator of Austria in 1933." actually assassinated 1934 -Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.143 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

MICHELE SCHIRRU WAS ITALIAN
"American anarchist Michael Schirru" WTF WHO HAS WRITTEN THIS RUBBISH??? THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, Michele Schirru (not Michael, beign italian) was born in Padria (province of Sassari, SARDINIA) in 1899


 * Giuseppe Fiori, Vita e morte di Michele Schirru (l'anarchico che pensò di uccidere Mussolini), Laterza, 1990. ISBN 88-420-3529-7

from France.- The only rubbish is... in this childish provocation. Anyone having interest for Michele Schirru should know he was a US citizen (he got the citizenship on oct. 1st, 1926). From the time he entered the country as a permanent resident he was known as Michael. But the compagni, in New York, usually called him Mike... L. Nemeth 143.126.201.151 (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bellini
The partisan Bellini is mentioned in this article and dealt with in some detail in Toland's Last 100 days. Not sure this is the place to ask, but is there anyone with further info on Count Pier Bellini delle Stelle? Does he merit his own article? In Toland, he is shown being against the execution of Mussolini or at least against the summary execution (and also against the murder or his mistress).--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage to Dalser?
Without any primary source(s) available or record of it, what is the reason to list/mention Ida Dalser as one of his wives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.68.239 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) According to "MUSSOLINI - The Wild Man of Europe" By John Bond, copyright 1929 Independent Publishing Company, page 32 lists her name as Giovanna D'Alsier, born in Trento and that the marraige took place in the early part of 1910. After she approached a local government functionary, she was taken to the prince archbishop, Celestino Endrici, requesting a copy of the certificate of marriage. (This was in February 1923) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.6.224 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Heard that Mussolinis goverment wouild not expel jews
Heard that the Facist goverment of Mussonlini in Italien terrority or occupied by Mussonlin would not expell the jews as Hitler wanted. True?ANDREMOIME (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vero Eretico - Sincere Misbeliever?
In the Political journalist and Socialist section, he is described as using the pen name "Vero Eretico", which is translated on the page as "Sincere Misbeliever", this is not a good translation.

The italian word for Sincere is Sincero and the italian word for believe is Credo.

The word Vero comes from the latin Verita meaning Truth and in italian means True or Real (in the sense of being pure). Eretico is the italian word for Heretic.

The correct translation for the name therefore would be "True Heretic" or, in context perhaps would be even better translated to "Real Heretic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabus4444 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement in intro that Mussolini's colonial policies were an economic "success" are very dubious
The statement in the intro about Mussolini's achievement of economic "success" in Italian colonies does not correlate with the fact that Italy's colonial policy in Ethiopia was an economic catastrophe. For instance, in the Italian East Africa section, referenced material shows that the colony needed 19.136 billion lire to create the necessary infrastructure there, while Italy's entire revenue that year was only 18.581 billion lire. The referenced source is this: Cannistraro, Philip V. (1982) Historical Dictionary of Fascist Italy, Westport, Conn.; London : Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-313-21317-8, pp. 5.--R-41 (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Fascism
In the intro, "Duce of Facism" should be stated as "Duke of Facism" to make clear the meaning in its translated form. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit and citation clean-up
I've just completed a heavy copy-edit on the first half of the article, from the beginning to just before the "Axis power" section. There are still a few clunky sentences, but I think I caught all the bits of grammar that go against Wikipedia typography guidelines, except maybe WP:DASH, which may still be in debate anyway. I came across two sources that jumped out at me as dubious.

It is my intention to do a similar copy-edit on the remainder of the article soon, but the edit server has been a bit flaky for the past few hours and I'm out of time for now. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Fascism ¶2 — dubious source
The first problem source was in the second paragraph of the "Creation of Fascism" section, where I found this sentence and citation:
 * An important factor in fascism gaining support in its earliest stages was the fact that it claimed to oppose discrimination based on social class and was strongly opposed to all forms of class war.

That citation has two problems. First, WND.com is not a reliable source; it is just an outlet for blog posts. Second, based on publication dates, it's not the site of first publication for the article; the article appears to have come from this blog four years earlier:
 * (citation only)

I resolved the source of first publication by changing the citation to point to the original blog article. But as a blog with no special reputation, it's still not a reliable source. The blog article claimed to be a translation of The Doctrine of Fascism, but the commentary suggested that it may have been a biased translation meant to present a specific political viewpoint.

Worse, as far as I can tell, the Vox Day citation doesn't really support the sentence it's meant to support anyway. Still, I'm not deleting it immediately, because this is a contentious article, and I'd like to offer other editors a chance to debate removing it, if there's any objection. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Fascism ¶2 — translated source
Those problems with the cited source prompted me to go looking for a better source. The obvious source was La Dottrina del fascismo, the original Italian version, which is available here:
 * (citation only)

Unfortunately, that has its own problem: it's in Italian, and Wikipedia favors English translations if they're published in reliable sources. As a second choice, we can use our own translations, but I'm not competent to translate Italian. So as a third choice, I included the machine translation.

Best case would be if someone can find a translation published in a reliable source. Second best would be if someone who is qualified to translate Italian can replace the machine translation with their own translation, or at least make sure Google Translate got it right. Third choice would be to leave it the way it is. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic policy ¶3 — dubious source
The second problem source was in the third paragraph of the "Economic policy" paragraph, where I found this sentence and citation:
 * In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls.

The cited article makes the ridiculous claim that the present-day United States economy is equivalent to those of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. From what little I've read on Mises.org, the cited article is not an isolated case; I don't regard it as a reliable source.

However, the quoted article does say that Mussolini instituted wage and price controls.

Again, since this is a contentious article, I'll leave the Mises.org citation in place. But I've added a citation needed tag to the citation, indicating that it's a dubious source. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

reflist
The reflist immediately above is there because I am discussing citations, and it seems more natural to include the exact citations in order to discuss them. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rome-Berlin relations (section)
This section, as it stands, consists mostly of discussions of how Mussolini differed from Nazi Germany on matters of race and Jews, complete with a whole lot of quotes on that topic. That seems like a very narrow focus for a section that's supposedly about Mussolini's relations with Germany in general.

The simple answer might be to rename the section, perhaps to "Race and religion".

However, it seems like there should be a section on relations with German – that's a pretty critical subject in an article about Il Duce's most important foreign ally. It's just that the section as it stands doesn't really cover this topic.

Maybe I'll go ahead and add a "Race and religion" subtitle to this section and try to whip up some sort of stub content for a "Rome-Berlin relations" section that's actually about Rome-Berlin relations. But for now I'll leave the subject open for discussion and try to finish running through the article to clean up the citations. — Steve98052 (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Language quality
The quality of English in this article is poor and often colloquial. What, for example, is an 'ouster'; does the author intend 'dismissal'? Other words are not suited to an article of this standing: 'trucked', '... founders of Italian Fasicism, which included' (instead of 'who'), '... totalled nine months', to name but a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.238.157 (talk) 22:34, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a look at ouster and truck (transitive verb definition). Your IP indicates that you are British, but you'll have to live with the numerous occurrences of American English on this website. Favonian (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-socialist?
How was Fascism aka Italian Socialism anti-socialist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article a Collect of 'Points of View'
Mussolini during this period rejected biological racism, at least in the Nazi sense, and instead emphasized "Italianizing" the parts of the Italian Empire he had desired to build. He declared that the ideas of Eugenics and the racially charged concept of an Aryan nation were not possible.

The above statement is a point of view and one I challenge. He rejected the idea of a supreme white race, rejecting the idea of white sub races, he however clearly saw non whites as a threat to security and to national identity due to the population change to older white Italians in the period. A similar issue as faced in other countries today, where the native population is growing older the younger immigrants have larger families. So the bottom line is may not have been racist toward white sub races but was toward non white.

The article later reads: Mussolini during this period rejected biological racism, at least in the Nazi sense. This is another point of view, its meaning is subjective as to what Nazi racism is defined as. Clearly the Nazis hated blacks, jews basically anyone who was non white.

A point of view is also expressed later:

Mussolini's rejection of both racialism and the importance of race in 1934 during the height of his antagonism towards Hitler contradicted his own earlier statements about race, such as in 1928 in which he emphasized the importance of race: “ 	[When the] city dies, the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers[...] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race. ”

—Benito Mussolini, 1928.[75]

The above is saying he changed his mind on race altough it is pretty clear on reading about the man that he did not agree with the idea of a supreme white race above other whites, but he was certainly against non whites, espec ially immigrants.

The article needs to be openned for editing or be edited so its balanced, it has far to many POV's in it as it stands.

--Hemshaw (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The social contribution of Benito Mussolini
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Fascist Italy of Benito Mussolini, the Duce was the first country in the world to introduce gardens for children and older people provide pensions.93.137.44.207 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle for Grain
In the section on Fascist economic policy there is this sentence:


 * This plan diverted valuable resources to grain production, away from other less economically viable crops.

Surely it diverted valuable resources away from more economically viable crops?

Martin Clark in Modern Italy (p.322) says that landowners grew wheat on unsuitable soil using all the advances of modern science. Although the Battle for Grain increased the harvest, the costs were high, "paid by consumers, in lower consumption, high tariffs and needlessly high prices". That is a definition of economic inefficiency.

I have changed the sentence accordingly.

The comparison of the Battle for Grain with the Green Revolution is not helpful and raises too many questions about autarchy, dictatorship and economically inefficient policies, so I have deleted it.

I've also changed "Battle for Grain" to "Battle for Wheat". The Italian is "Battaglia del grano". "Grano" means wheat in this context.

Marshall46 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blatantly flawed article, no information about crimes at all
Blatantly flawed article, no information about crimes at all Like so many other articles on Italian Fascism, this article is blatantly and ultimately flawed as it says absolutely nothing about crimes against humanity Fascists committed in Libya, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and Greece. It doesn't say anything about the Fascist Italianization policies of ethnocide committed against Slovenes and Croats for two decades either. Some useful stuff: Report of the Slovene-Italian historical and cultural commission: http://www.kozina.com/premik/indexeng_porocilo.htm Crimes in Ethiopia: http://www.africanidea.org/Revisiting_fascistitaly.pdf Crimes in Libya: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/25/libya-remembers-bombs-not-first Fascist Legacy documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBZT-9f-bIk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acB9O1xR1TA Italian website on war crimes: http://www.criminidiguerra.it/

For how much more time will the truth be kept suppressed? Enough.

Justice and Reason (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the introduction
Hallo I think that there is one problem with the introduction. There is written that after the war declaration he could "...then concentrate its forces on a major offensive in Egypt where British and Commonwealth forces were outnumbered by Italian forces". It is true that at the beginning of the war the Italian forces in Libya outnumbered the British ones, but Mussolini waited 3 and an half months after the armistice with France before giving to Graziani the order to attack. Why did he do so? In the meantime he was waiting for the invasion of Great Britain promised by Hitler: he did not want to fight against the British, because his aim was to propose a compromise peace, as in Munich two years before. Only when it was clear that the invasion of Great Britain was a chimera he decided to attack Egypt. This is described at length by De Felice in the sixth volume of his biography of Mussolini (Mussolini l'alleato: dalla guerra breve alla guerra lunga). Alex2006 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012
When it speaks of his military service and how it ended, it says that he left due to a mortar accidentaly injuring him: "His military exploits ended in 1917 when he was wounded accidentally by the explosion of a mortar bomb in his trench." He really was wounded by a grenade that was previously mentioned a few sentences earlier: "He was sent to the zone of operations where he was seriously injured by the explosion of a grenade." For a source, his autobiography: My Autobiography.

Ocmedd (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- B  music  ian  08:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012
Please note grammatical error:-

"...and the day after the King let him arrest."

81.141.232.33 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Alex2006 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Glorifies his early years
His switching of political allegiances, thuggery during his early political activities before the March on Rome, the violence around the Italian General Election of 1921, and around the General Strike of 1922, and the March on Rome, terrorist activities throughout Italy during that period...Wow, glossed over in this article. What about Maria Rygier's accusations against Mussolini, his activities as an informer during his early career? Switching political allegiances for dubious reasons? I really take exception to this sentence: "The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini's close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called Blackshirts (or squadristi) with the goal of restoring order to the streets of Italy with a strong hand." ....Emphasis mine...That's certainly one way of putting it! This article needs more balance, less of an apologetic tone concerning Mussolini's predatory and violent tactics. OttawaAC (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Misspelling
In the section "Creation of Fascism" there is a misspelling in the third paragraph. "Through biological racism was less prominent in Fascism than National Socialism" should read "Though..."
 * Done. Alex2006 (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorship
Wasn't Mussolini a dictator? The opening states he was a politician. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A dictator IS a politician. He reached the power through politics, and managed to keep his power until 1943 thanks his enormous political skills. Alex2006 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Through must be though
In the paragraph "Creation of fascism" it reads:
 * Mussolini claimed that the world was divided into a hierarchy of races (stirpe), through this was justified more on cultural than on biological grounds, and that history was nothing more than a Darwinian struggle for power and territory between various "racial masses".

Contextual, regarding one of the foregoing sentences, which reads  Though biological racism was less prominent in Fascism than National Socialism, [...], through is a misspelling as it should read though. Thus:
 * Mussolini claimed that the world was divided into a hierarchy of races (stirpe), though this was justified more on cultural than on biological grounds, and that history was nothing more than a Darwinian struggle for power and territory between various "racial masses".

As I have been unabled to edit I pledge a qualified editor to correct this misspelling. HidingMyIP (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Misguided!
There is no sound and moral way to make Benito Mussolini look respectable. He was an arrogant criminal who used academic tomes to hide his crimes. The Wikipedia proposes to replace all other encyclopedias. It is, therefore, crucial that we strive to maintain the highest standards of veracity so that the majority are not misled. Glossing over the sins of Fascism and its founder with academic jargon is the foulist kind of sin that I hope to stop in its tracks. If it is an edit war you want, that is what you will get!-- Brothernight (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC

I must agree with you there(talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason for the war delay
Hallo, I am the someone who changed this sentence. I reinstated the reasons for a delay in the war entry of Italy, since these are written in a Note which Mussolini wrote for Galeazzo Ciano before this met with Von Ribbentrop in Milan to define the Pact of Steel (signed a couple of weeks later). The source which I uses is the monumental (more than 5,000 pages, 20 years of work) biography of Mussolini written by Renzo De Felice. This is the Main Source about Mussolini and - again - what we reference is a Document written by Mussolini himself. I used the same words written by Mussolini in the note. Alex2006 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini's Rome bunker
The BBC website produced this interesting video. I intended to add it but couldn't really see a good spot for it, nor do I have much expertise. Any bright ideas? Feel free to use the source and incorporate as per wp:bold Regards JRPG (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini and Nazi Holocaust
Was Mussolini connected with the Nazi Holocaust? Did Mussolini ever send Jews to any German concentration camps? Was Mussolini anti-semitic?


 * I start from the last question: no, Mussolini personally was not anti-semitic, or not more anti-semitic than the Italians of his time. Some of his friends and colleagues, many fascists "ante-marcia" and one of his most important lovers, Margherita Sarfatti, were Jews. Things started to change with the war of Ethiopia: in that occasions, several Jewish organizations took part against the Italian invasion, and this convinced Mussolini that the "Internazionale Ebrea" was against him and fascism. Due to that, to the resistance of many jewish-italian industrialists against the autarchich program and, this being the main reason, to the stronger and stronger ties with Nazi Germany, he introduced the Racial Laws in 1938. Fascist racism was not biologic, like the Nazi one, but "spiritualist", and was part of what Mussolini called "Nuova Civiltà". The main reason for this difference (and for the "moderation" of the Fascist laws in comparison with the German ones), was the necessity of not giving the impression that Fascism was copying the Nazi model. Moreover, many among the fascists (also important ones, like Grandi and Balbo) were personally against the racial laws. Regarding the other questions, Mussolini was not connected to the holocaust, and Italy never sent Jews to the German lager. Moreover, the Italians until September 8th, 1943, resisted against the German pressure to deport to Germany the Jews from their occupied territories (Balkan, southern France) having often many problems because of that. After the armistice things changed drastically, since the German army occupied Italy and the other territories, and deported all the Jews which could not escape to the lagers. The main source for this subject remains "Storia degli Ebrei Italiani sotto il Fascimo",by Prof. Renzo de Felice, written upon request and with aid of the "Comunità israelitiche italiane", and the first work about fascism where has been possible to consult the Italian Archives. The consensus received by de Felice for this book pushed him to write his monumental biography about Mussolini (more than 5,000 pages, 8 volumes, 20 years of work), which is the fundamental work about him. Alex2006 (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Alex2006. I would say many of the things you mentioned could be expanded on in the article, such as the Racial Laws of 1938. If there is a source that states no Jews were sent to the German lager, I believe that would be good for the article, since the Racial Laws of 1938, could confuse the reader as to whether Mussolini sent any Jews to the German lager. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I found a source that stated 50,000 Italian Jews were transferred to Nazi Germany after Mussolini was disposed in 1943. This was after Germany occupied Northern Italy and Southern France. Mussolini was a put in charge of a puppet Italian state after he was rescued by German soldiers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Source: Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini dictator of Italy
I believe the lede section first paragraph needs to mention Mussolini was dictator of Italy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Haugen states Mussolini assumed full dictatorship of Italy in 1930. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Source: Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits by DancingPhilosopher
Good Morning I would like to get the opinion of the community about the edits of DancingPhilosopher 1, 2, which I reverted asking to go to the talk page, only to be reverted again. My opinion about them is that they are POV, not because of their historical truth (except a couple of sentences), but because with their length they overshadow other sections of the article. This article is about Mussolini, not about the Fascist persecution of the ethnic minorities and, like each WP article, it should be limited in size to 100K. One sentence about the politics of forced Italianisation of the Slovenes (and Croats) here is fully OK, but not more. Otherwise we should use the whole 100 K of space to tell the same politics in South Tyrol, the massacres of Graziani in Libya and Ethiopia, and so on. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the magnitude of the policies. For instance I would find it insulting and degrading to the awareness of history if information on the Holocaust was reduced down to one sentence on the Adolf Hitler article. However, this issue needs to be resolved by sorting out the magnitude of the policies. If someone wants to examine atrocities committed by Italy during the rule of Mussolini and Fascism, the Pacification of Libya is a very prominent example - so much so that the Italian government under Silvio Berlusconi in the late 2000s made a formal apology to the Libyan people for its colonial rule of Libya, and offered financial compensation for the damages incurred. Here is what Berlusconi said in the agreement with Libya: "In this historic document, Italy apologizes for its killing, destruction and repression of the Libyan people during the period of colonial rule." and went on to say that this was a "complete and moral acknowledgement of the damage inflicted on Libya by Italy during the colonial era".--R-41 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Hitler article there is a whole paragraph devoted to the Holocaust. Should we have also a paragraph devoted to the Fascist policies against all minorities on this article? Alex2006 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Holocaust and persecution of ethnic minorities under Fascism are comparable. I think it should mentioned, one sentence (including the Julian March & South Tyrol - I confess my ignorance regarding the Fascist policy towards other ethnic/linguistic minorities in Italy; anyway, from what I know, the persecution of South Slavs in the Julian March was more brutal than Italianization in South Tyrol (or of the Slovenes in Friuli, for that matter), which was again more consistent and tough than Italianization in the Aosta Valley). Anyway, in my opinion, a sentence or two will do, insofar as it includes a link to the articles, where this is discussed in more detail. On the other hand, Italian war crimes in Yugoslavia and Greece may require somehow more detailed descriptions. And of course, here (in both cases) one could quote Mussolini's statements on the issue; "One can sacrifice 500,000 barbarian Slavs to 50,000 Italians" (or something like that, you'll find it), and the one in Gorizia, in July 1942: "Bisogna sterminare tutti i maschi di questa maledetta razza." (meaning either Slovene or South Slav, I don't recall the exact context; but I think it was referred to the Slovenes in the Province of Ljubljana). So maybe: statement + short description of policies regarding Italianization (1-2 sentences); and in WWII, a bit more thorough description of Italian war crimes (short paragraph) + the statement in Gorizia (which I think is the most explicit he made in this regard ... and of course also exaggerated). Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Italian colonial rule in Libya has been recognized by the Italian government and scholars as having war crimes and other activities now viewed as taboo by contemporary international law and human rights law. The Pacification of Libya (1928-1932) undertaken by Fascist Italy was extremely violent, there were major civilian deaths of Cyrenaican Libyans - one quarter of the civilian population of Cyrenaica are reported to have died during the Pacification, reported mass executions of Cyrenaican Libyan civilians, ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people through forced deportation to allow settlement of Italians, use of concentration camps to detain 100,000 Cyrenaicans - half the population of Cyrenaica, forced labour of indigenous Libyans, and reported illegal use of mustard gas. This is very relevant since the Italian government itself has officially apologized to Libya for the brutalities of its colonial rule over Libya.--R-41 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, altough we should not forget that this article is about Mussolini, so we should document his attitude in this respect. If there are no are ideas, one of us can implement what Viator suggests. About the sources, I read a very interesting and well sourced book in Italian, by Angelo Del Boca: "Italiani, brava gente?" ("Italians, nice guys"), which is a survey of the Italian war crimes. Otherwise we can use the sources already available on wikipedia. Alex2006 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I believe there would be immense interest if there was historical research into any atrocities by Mussolini. Hitler and Stalin often are linked with their own individual atrocities. Mussolini seems to get overlooked. The War Crimes against the Slovenes is good and appropriate for the article. Mussolini is ultimately responsible for these genuine war crimes against the Slovenes people. The other issue is how much Mussolini knew concerning the Nazi Holocaust. Was Mussolini involved with Hitler's war crimes? I believe this would be appropriate for the article. Also, did Mussolini commit war crimes against the Catholic Church? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777: isn't it strange it didn't occure to anyone else in the whole wide world that the Italian war crimes should be mentioned here? Sad that it took a Slovene "nationalist", yes, I have been accused of being one by Viator slovenicus, to point out this repression of the memory which is a research topic itself in the works written by this brave lady, an Friulan historian, which the Italian right-wing politicians still ask for the censorship against her? Is she also a Slovene nationalist? DancingPhilosopher my talk 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not for censorship. I would not deny that historians have a tendency to alter history if there are uncomfortable subject matters to discuss, including sectional or war issues. I admit I have not heard of the Slovene massacre before reading this article. There needs to be a balanced approach to editing on Wikipedia and letting readers maker their own decisions on the Dictator Benito Mussolini. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again: this is not a matter of censorship. It is purely a matter of space that should be devoted to these happenings in this article. Mussolini was very active during his life: he let some Slovene massacred, authorized the use of gas against Ethiopians, forbade Graziani to destroy Addis Abeba after the attentate that almost killed this general, conceived the E42, sent Italy in war, had a lot of lovers, destroyed 30% of the old center of Rome, etc. etc.. All this should be condensed in about 100K. None forbids to write an article about these massacres, to mention them shortly in this article and to point to the main article for more details. @Cmguy777: the reasons why Mussolini is overlooked regarding war crimes are basically two: the first is that Italians in general have a reputation of being nice guys, which sometime was true, and sometimes no, and that in comparison with what Hitler and Stalin accomplished in this field he was less than an amateur. Alex2006 (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The overlooked cause for the Mussolini's and his generals atrocities being overlooked
Alex2006, you may be unaware of (and thus overlook) the most important cause for the Mussolini's and his generals' atrocities being overlooked, but let me first apologize for thinking you were one of the editors who remove my edits because they don't want me to counter the repression of memory, which - and this is what I want to clarify here and offer you the sources, too - has been after the WW II orchestrated by the government of Italy with the help of the British government because they wanted (at any price) to prevent the Italian Communists from gaining the power in Italy in the context of Cold War so they decided to prevent extradition of Italian war criminals, as the latest historiographic research done in British archives by the British historian Effie Pedaliu, the Friulan historian Alessandra Kersevan, and the Italian historian Davide Conti provided evidence for. DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo DancingPhilosopher, sorry, only now I am reading your commentary. Thanks a lot for your apologising! You know, not every Italian on wikipedia wears a Blackshirt :-) Thanks also for your references: I know relatively well the situation on the East Border in that period, since the best friend of my mother comes from Maribor, and she was born in 1926, so in our family we know very well what happened to the Slovenians (and not only to them) in those years. About the after war years, if you know Italian, I advise you to read the books of Sergio Flamigni (above all Trame atlantiche): he describes very well the "covered" NATO politics in Italy before the fall of the Wall. Bye `Alex2006 (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the issue is magnitude. The most prominent in magnitude, and a long-term brutal example that should be shown in the article is the Pacification of Libya that took place from 1928 to 1932. As I said earlier: it was extremely violent, there were major civilian deaths of Cyrenaican Libyans - one quarter of the civilian population of Cyrenaica are reported to have died during the Pacification, reported mass executions of Cyrenaican Libyan civilians, ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people through forced deportation to allow settlement of Italians, use of concentration camps to detain 100,000 Cyrenaicans - half the population of Cyrenaica, forced labour of indigenous Libyans, and reported illegal use of mustard gas. The Pacification of Libya was so notorious that the Italian government itself has officially apologized to Libya for the brutalities of its colonial rule over Libya and offered compensation to Libya for damages that occurred.--R-41 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was, on the other hand, trying to stress is the cause for overlooking the atrocities that were committed by the Mussolini's generals - be it in during the Pacification of Libya (and I can only agree with you, R-41, that these were, evidently, the most prominent in magnitude, and by this edit, and this one I did my best to counter the repression of the memory) or be it the war crimes against Slovene civil population (that I did my best by making this edit). DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

D'Annunzio
I think a bit more attention could be given to D'Annunzio's role in influencing Mussolini's policies.

First, a bit of the background.. the First World War: Italy joined the side of the Allies because it was promised certain regions as a reward, including Dalmatia..So Italy started to fight against Austria-Hungary, and in the so-called Isonzo Front (mostly took place in what is now Western Slovenia) lost 300 thousand out of the total of 600 thousand total casualties in the war.

When the war was over, Italy got the Austrian Littoral (in places, even exceeding it somewhat) which was ethnically mixed with Slovenes, Croats, Italians, Germans, etc (I'm not exactly sure of the exact proportions of each)... But for various reasons, Italy didn't get Dalmatia.

Because of this, the so-called myth of "mutilated victory" developed. Italian nationalists were furious due to the fact that they couldn't fully realize their irredentist plans. One of them was Gabriele D'Annunzio. There is a town in what is now Croatia called Rijeka (Fiume in Italian) which D'Annunzio decided to occupy.

I quote Misha Glenny who wrote in his book The Balkans: "D'Annunzio's rhetoric and symbolism were striking. He was marching to 'liberate' what he called 'the city of the Holocaust', which, he claimed, would be the start of a fire that would burn throughout Italy, destroying the dead wood of the old regime. To hightlight the cleansing nature of his new movement, he adopted the black flame, the symbol of the Arditi, as his own..." My edit: The Arditi were a force in the WWI, which was very important, including in the Isonzo Front.

So D'Annunzio and his men eventually conquered Fiume and "At that moment, Italy's first Duce and European fascism were born in the Balkans. Over the next eighteen months, theatre and politics merged into an astonishing spectacle. The set pieces were D'Annunzio's impassioned speeches from the balcony of the Governor's Palace overlooking Piazza Dante in the center of Fiume. He drove his audience into frenzies of patriotism, worshipping huse blood-bespattered flags as the central icons of the new politics. As a Dutch historian has noted,

virtually the entire ritual of Fascism came from the 'Free State of Fiume: the balcony address, the Roman salute, the cries of 'aia, aia, alala', the dramatic dialogues with the crowd, the use of religious symbols in a new secular setting, the eulogies to the 'martyrs' and the employment of these relicts in political ceremonies. Moreover, quite aside from the poet's contribution to the form and style of Fascist politics, Mussolini's movement first started to attract great strengths when the future dictator supported D'Annunzio's occupation of Fiume." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct Italian pronunciation of Mussolini
The Italian pronunciation given in the opening sentence is incorrect. It should be Mus:so'li:ni. In the Italian language when a double "s" occurs, each "s" is pronounced. 108.17.71.21 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, Thanks!Alex2006 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY NOT! is the biggest mess I've ever seen. The right pronunciation  is  or  (with lenght). --87.7.118.61 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Brothernight
I reverted edits by to the article because they removed a reference and did not seem to be neutral. Also see the comment the user left on my talk page. However I've been reverted so I'd like some other opinions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agreed 100% with you, except that he did not remove one reference, but four. :-) He removed a well referenced (albeit surely subject to future improvement) definition of Fascism, substituting it with his (unreferenced) personal opinion. I reverted him asking to go through the Discussion page, but instead he reverted to his version again, this time referencing it with the main article about Fascism, written by Mussolini and Gentile on the Enciclopedia Italiana. I think that his line of though is that Fascism is crap, and to understand it is enough to read its definition. Each comment about this way of doing is superfluous, since he violates many of the Wikipedia Guidelines. Due to that, I informed an admin about the situation. Alex2006 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My objection to this article is that it tries its best to make Benito Mussolini look good. This is not opinion, it is fact. Mussolini was a very bad thug and this article makes him out to be heroic and pro-capitalist. I repeat, Mussolini was a thig amd was not pro-capitalist. Once the article no longer attempts to make anything Mussolini did look good, then I will refrain from editing it. -- Brothernight (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo of body in morgue
Is the photo really necessary? I think I almost threw up. It is possibly the most disgusting seem I have ever seen on Wikipedia… Ratfox (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just removed the image, according to WP:PROFA. Thanks for signalling it! That picture brings nothing to the article: moreover, in the same paragraph there is already the famous picture of the bodies hanging in Piazzale Loreto. Alex2006 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alex, two users is hardly what I'd call a consensus. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. That's policy. Read it. You can call the picture "disgusting" or whatever you wish, and it is nasty (if you like, I'll show you some nastier ones; they are here on WP, and on Commons), but if you don't like a picture showing the damage that the crowd at Piazzale Loreto did to Mussolini's face, or don't think it tells something of the mood in Italy at the time (or you unaccountably admire the man), too bad. One user, at least, sees that as important to understanding the Italy of 1945. Thus, I have restored the photo, and I shall do so again if need be. Kelisi (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Kelisi, as I wrote above, I removed the image above according to WP:PROFA, so please read it. The first image (the one with the hanged bodies in Piazzale Loreto) for me is enough to show the attitude of the people in Milan. Since the removal is controversial, let's wait for the opinion of other wikipedians about it, in order to reach a consensus. At the moment, two are for and one is against it. Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the hung (they weren't hanged) bodies do it for you, then you didn't read the article. The only one killed on the spot was Starace. The others had all been shot (not hanged) a day earlier, Mussolini and Petacci at Mezzegra. No, the people of Milan, and Italy in general, were not Communist partisans like the ones who shot Mussolini; so I rather think Mussolini's mutilated face shows the public mood, as opposed to the Communist mood. And I've read WP:PROFA, and I believe it supports my position. Kelisi (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read the article. I am Italian, my family (father, mother, etc.) lived those days in first person, I read my first book about fascism in 1970 (I was 13). It was given by my grandfather, who has been beaten twice by the squadre since he refused to wear the cimice (I think that with your knowledge of Fascism you know what is :-) ) and did not want that my mother and uncle join the Balilla and the Figlie della Lupa. And my grandfather (born 1892, 11 years military service, from Libya to Antalia, antifascist since 1922) told me that what had happened in Piazzale Loreto was one of the greatest shames for the Italian people. He told me that each person, also a criminal like Mussolini, has the right to be respected after his death, and this includes not showing his/her devastated body. What differentiates a civil person (as he was) from a fascist is this. Alex2006 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Alex2006 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would still say that that is one point of view, and you surely know that we seek here to offer a balanced view of anything controversial: "NPOV". Yes, a gas station canopy is hardly the proper place for dead people, nor is mutilation the proper treatment (which accounts for these things being a criminal offence in my country: "Offering an indignity to human remains"). Nonetheless, we do not shrink from making known "shameful" events on Wikipedia. Kelisi (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I consider the photo offensive and disgusting, which I would prefer to be removed. --Enok (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what? That's not an argument for its removal. Read the policy. Kelisi (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Images. "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." --Enok (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right, and removing this image would make it far less clear how much Mussolini was hated in Italy by this time. The comparison of this photo with the one just below it shows just how vigorously the people at Piazzale Loreto expressed their hatred for this man, even after he'd been killed. Kelisi (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a photo of Mussolini and his goons hanging upside down like meat in a slaughterhouse while the crowds cheer on is not a clear enough indication of "how much Mussolini was hated in Italy by this time", then I really don't like to think what it means for how much anaesthetized our society has become. It really pushes the point to include the second picture, it is like saying "in case you didn't get the point with the first photo, here is an extra gory close-up to make doubly sure". Seriously, the pic is sickening. No more sickening certainly than what this guy and his German pal did to millions of others, but as others argued above, the photo is redundant: about the only value it has is shock value. Constantine  ✍  11:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

the picture is just disgusting its gonna give me nightmares Wolfgirl3598 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

there is no need for this picture it shows nothing new about how they disliked him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgirl3598 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The second picture is purely gratuitous and adds nothing to the article. 92.22.186.242 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture of him hung upside down at the Esso station shows how the people with guns who were in command of the square felt about him. The morgue picture is a horrible and disgusting picture that I suspect will give me nightmares tonight, but it shows how the people who were in that part of Milan on that day felt about him in a way that the better known picture does not. I've just slightly re-ordered the placement of the pictures to move them closer in the article to the text describing the scene and reverse the order to match the cronology. Kiore (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kelisi, there are now 7 users stating this should be removed. I also think that this picture is completely disproportionate to the point you are suggesting it makes, so that is now 8 users arguing It should be removed. I will be removing the image as supported by the other 7 users. Please could you gain consensus before reinstating it. Thank you. Genesis12 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add some rational behind my comment above. Firstly quoting from WP:PROFA (Wikipedia:Offensive material): '''When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship.''' I would argue that the morgue photo is gratuitous and so is not preferred according to the above Wikipedia guideline. It doesn't give any more information than the text and Mussolini e Petacci a Piazzale Loreto, 1945.jpg. Another way to put it is the morgue photo has a shock value of +500% but only adds value of +2%. Also take a look at other articles such Assassination and Death these could have plenty of shocking images but they don't. I would welcome what other people think. As the image has now been removed from the page I'm pasting it at the top so others can see what we are referring to Genesis12 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly relevant to the discussion, the image was first added to the article on 15 June 2012 [] Genesis12 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I still agree 100% with you. Anyway, people which don't agree will not be impressed by our thoughts, so I think that decisive for the removal is the consensus that has been reached about it. Alex2006 (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotes in Rome-Berlin relations
There seems to be an abundance of Mussolini quotes in the Rome-Berlin relations section. Maybe one or two quotes would be best. The four quotes, in my opinion, has the appearance of trying to convince the reader of the point that Mussolini opposed German persecution of Jews. Yes. Mussolini and the Italian Army did oppose German persecution of the Jews, however, I am not sure of the necessity of repetitious quotes. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, and generally speaking, my impression is that the article is just a patchwork of edits of several people, and deserves a major rewrite. Alex2006 (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Mussolini seems to be the forgotten Dictator when compared to Hitler and Stalin. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only he seems to be forgotten, but also the causes for this forgottedness have been forgotten because they were activiely suppressed by the Western governments during the Cold War period, as described here (will this also be forgotten, no one commented on it?). DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * that's probably because mussolini wasn't as bad as hitler and stalin. In fact, he the only thing that makes him worse than churchill is that he was a dictator.STFX1046190 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Talking about Mussolini's views on anti-Semitism does not tell us very much about Italo-German relations in the 1930s. That section at present tells us very little about what it is supposed to be talking about. I strongly suggest that it be retitled Mussolini and anti-semitism, or something along those lines. Plus, the part about Mussolini "reaching out" to the Arab world is quite wrong. Mussolini posing as the friend of the Arabs in the late 1930s was about trying to undermine British and French influence in the Middle East, not part of his supposed opposition to racism. Mussolini's true views about Arabs/Berbers might be gathered by the near genocidal campaign that he waged in Libya in the 1920s, something that at present the article ignores (but surely should not). --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment: Not "B Class"
In my opinion the Benito Mussolini article is not a "B Class". At best it is a "C Class". It needs a lot more "Citations Needed". Adamdaley (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mussolini and the Holocaust
Why is there no mention of Mussolini's anti-Semitic laws and the Fascist arrests and deportations of Jews to death camps? There is no mention of Mussolini's complicity in the Holocaust.Pistolpierre (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there is, under Rome-Berlin relations. Alex2006 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that the Fascists arrested and deported Jews? To the contrary, this section stresses efforts prior to 1943 to protect Jews. The policy of protection was completely reversed in 1943. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is correct (not in 1943, but after September 8th, 1943), but why it was so? There are two reasons: first, the RSI was a nazi puppet state, and last, but not least, after the 25 Luglio the PNF melted: the moderate fascists (who were the majority) left the field open for the right wing people, like Farinacci and Preziosi, who were ferociously antisemitic and also against the former Duce, whom they judged weak and politically finished. Anyway, since this is an article about Mussolini, and not about the RSI, we should rather focus on his stance in that period. Alex2006 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says 50,000 Jews were transferred by the Nazis from Italy. Is this accurate?  Transferred to where?  The official number of Italian Jews killed in the Holocaust is 6800.Pistolpierre (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The Jews who were deported to Germany were about 8,500. Only 980 came back. In the whole kingdom in 1931 were living 47.825 Jews: from these 8.713 were foreigners. These numbers come from "La Repubblica di Mussolini", by Giorgio Bocca, a reliable source. Alex2006 (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be deleted since it is not accurate. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I added a few sentences about the anti-Semitic laws and some more about Fascist activity in Salò. I think the sentences about Fascist persecution belongs under Rome-Berlin relations. Mussolini may not have been as anti-Semitic as the Nazis but the persecution happened under his régime. It is for this reason that I think the article must include Fascist persecution.Pistolpierre (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maria Montessori in her book The Discovery Of The Child (originally the Montessori Method, reprinted in English in 1912, translation based on the 6th edition) makes reference to Benito Mussolini working as a journalist located in Milan, Italy in 1908 on page 41. Saying that "It is worth recording since he later became notorious throughout the world."

In another book about the Montessori method, this one named The Essential Montessori on page 9, ties Mussolini and Hitler to her method. It reads, "Hitler and Mussolini were interested in the method as to how it could be applied to mass education." (not an exact quote) The same book also states that Mussolini was president of the Montessori Association there, and that Montessori schools were closed in Italy and Germany presumably before WWII and when the German army rolled into Vienna all the Montessori schools there were closed as well. This book marks the date of 1938 when Mussolini had a private meeting with Montessori.

It is mentioned many times in her books and biographies that one could do well as long as you didn't oppose the state. I may be drawing conclusions here but for someone who lives in a fascist state the way in which she places Mussolini in Milan upon the opening of the Umanitaria, at the time the largest social institution in Italy, was a way in which she could point to evidence of how her method was taken advantage of by the state and not attract too much attention to herself.

Montessori's line of study is of particular interest because together it forms the outline for Social Conditioning (the result of propaganda). Maria herself admits that the lessons she devised have their origins in experimental psychology. This is basically the same strategy employed by the fascist movement in the 1920's when Benito was installed as Dictator; namely integration and repeated exposure of stimulus. She studied among others, Charcot, Itard and Seguin.

I feel that Montessori's influence should be highlighted as it is not at all in any of the Wiki pages concerning Mussolini and the fascist movement; as well as Hitler before and during WWII concerning how the holocaust happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbilous (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Gregor
A number of references cite "Gregor, 1979" but the details of the book are not included in any of the references nor in the bibliography. I'm guessing it was accidentally deleted at some point. Can someone sort that out?--82.35.251.109 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alex2006 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was very quick!--82.35.251.109 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! I always keep an eye (sometime more than one) on this article :-) .Alex2006 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini loved his food and was one of the biggest leaders due to his f=love of food Per this revision, the article was originally written in American English. --John (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

the socialist and economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto
The above phrase, under creation of the national fascist party, must be a typo, both because Pareto wasn't a socialist and because one (Mussolini in this case) cannot have "nothing left of the socialist" in him and be influenced by socialist ideas. Perhaps what was meant was sociological or simply social. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.154.134 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014
In the section, "Emigration to Switzerland and military service", in the last paragraph, it says, "After serving for two years in the military (from January 1905 until September 1906)" while in the table (on the right side of the page), in the section, "Military service", in "Years of service", it says "active: 1915–1917". Please correct the following. Thank you

117.221.15.218 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Emigration to Switzerland and military service" says he was in the army from 1905 - 1906 "Beginning of Fascism and service in World War I" refers to his second period - but, this was the only time he saw active service, so the infobox saying years of service, active, 1915-1917 appears to be correct. - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ If you read the whole article, he was in the army twice:-

Can someone edit this ridiculous article?
There emerged a daughter?????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.220.141 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Plato
From the article: "The Republic differed from fascism in that it did not promote aggressive war but only defensive war."

Unfortunately, this is not true. One of the very premises of the republic is Glaucon's insistence on a luxurious state, which is achieved through robbery from neighbouring states. The above sentence should be deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.23.66.235 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Religion
He had was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, and had his children baptized, what does that make him? On a side note, the Christian apologists trying to revise history and say he was atheist, how does it make the church look that he had to PRETEND to be Catholic to do what he did? He was obviously Catholic. The source that says he's an atheist simply says D.M. Smith, 1982. It doesn't even give the name of the book. Those should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.73.148 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini was effective LEADER of the PSI
Historicat (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I was slightly shocked to discover that Mussolini's Leadership of the PSI (1912-1914) is not included in this biography. He was not just a member of the PSI, he was the leading member of the Party Directorate after being elected at the Congress of Reggio Emilia in 1912.

"Mussolini's efforts, as Party Leader and editor of Avanti!, brought considerable success for Italian Socialism." page 136. Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism By Anthony James Gregor, University of California Press, 1 Jan 1979

At the age of 29 Musssolini was an out and out Marxist and Revolutionary Socialist.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DTZ_holEfS0C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Partito+Socialista+Italiano+mussolini&source=bl&ots=4szsG8H5gr&sig=di4NX8Ix6GiLlPdjWU0rRIs551w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5RXlU9fyNonn8AWLmoK4DA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=Partito%20Socialista%20Italiano%20mussolini&f=false

"In 1912, aged twenty-nine, and still young-looking, thin, stern, with large, dark, luminous eyes, he took over the Italian Socialist Party at the Congress of Reggio Emilia, by insisting that socialism must be Marxist, thoroughgoing, internationalist, uncompromising. Lenin, reporting the congress for Pravda (15 July 1912), rejoiced: 'The party of the Italian socialist proletariat has taken the right path.'" Paul Johnson. 1983. Modern Times. Harper Collins. p.57 http://archive.org/stream/ModernTimes_305/42024947-19032115-Johnson-Paul-Modern-Times-the-World-From-the-Twenties-to-the-Nineties-Revised-Edition-Harper-Collins-1991_djvu.txt

"On July 7, 1912, the Italian Socialist Party opened its thirteenth national congress in Reggio Emilia. Participating as an almost unknown delegate from the Forlì province, Mussolini emerged from the congress with a personal success and an appointment to the national leadership of the party."

Falasca-Zamponi, Simonetta. Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1997 1997. http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/religion.occult.new_age/occult.conspiracy.and.related/Falasca-Zamponi,%20Simonetta%20-%20Fascist%20Spectacle.pdf

How can you just say he was a mere member of the Italian Soialist Party? He was on the National Directorate and de facto leader!


 * You are right, in the next days I will fix it. Alex2006 (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested that Mussolini set up the Lugano Conference in 1914 that led to the re-invigoration of the Socialist International http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oUnkIgf2aH0C&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=lugano+conference+mussolini&source=bl&ots=R6spb5oKW3&sig=XB_Mks4uZAp_ae_NZUO865AtXtc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0cMEVKHtNc-58gW88YHgBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=lugano%20conference%20mussolini&f=false

Mussolini changed his view as Italy entered the war but the child of Lugano was the Zimmerwald Conference and the rise in popularity of Lenin. Mussolini was pivotal to both Internationalist and National Socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.225.46 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested text, replace:

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), Mussolini was expelled from the PSI due to his opposition to the party's stance on neutrality in World War I.

with:

In 1912 Mussolini was the leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). Prior to 1914 he was a keen supporter of the Socialist International, starting the series of meetings in Switzerland that organised the communist revolutions and insurrections that swept through Europe from 1917. Mussolini was expelled from the PSI due to his opposition to the party's stance on neutrality in World War I.
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sing! 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead links in reference 16
The reference number 16 has dead links. The ".php" extension should be part of the 3 links and not in the text. Please correct. Pmau (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Duce
As far as I know, that was not his official title? -- Director  ( talk )  14:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One of two: he was "Presidente del consiglio dei ministri" (Prime Minister) AND "Duce del Fascismo". Alex2006 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but isn't "Duce of Fascism" simply the title of the head of the PNF?


 * Either way the infobox seems to be incorrectly laid out. We don't list two separate political functions together simply because they were held at the same time.. -- Director  ( talk )  01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is correct, the "Duce" was the head of the Fascist party. About the separateness you are also right. On 25 July 1943 Mussolini got a vote of no confidence, but remained the Duce, and on the same day was forced to resign as Prime Minister. Alex2006 (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget he had 2 Duce titles: he was later Duce of the Italian Social Republic which was a state rather than a party title. Is it certain that "Duce of Fascism" was only a party title? That source implies that the two were of equivalent status. DeCausa (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get to work on giving the old bastard an up-to-standard infobox and succession boxes... -- Director  ( talk )  14:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Modified infobox and succession boxes:
 * Separated head of government office and the 'Duce of Fascism' office. As far as I can gather, the latter is a title for the head of the National Fascist Party; M was Duce of Fascism before becoming PM.
 * Removed duplication in the head-of-government office essentially being listed twice.
 * Removed First Marshal as its a military rank, not a political office (it belongs below in the Military service part of the infobox).
 * Added terms as minister of foreign affairs and minister of the interior.
 * The succession boxes (down at the bottom) are now properly listed in chronological succession.
 * Added party political and military offices down there as well, and shortened entries into actual titles.
 * -- Director  ( talk )  15:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for pronunciation
It's [mussoˈlini] and not [musoˈlini], see Gemination. Please edit as suggested and promptly. This is the source. --79.3.10.27 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's shameful that wrong pronunciation was added in such important article and that nobody corrected it despite the request! --84101e40247 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

First Marshal of the Empire
Victor Emmanuel III should be listed as serving alongside him as First Marshal of the Empire. --67.166.194.80 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Its not standard practice. -- Director  ( talk )  23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Death section stinks
Propaganda. Reality: British operative in "blacker" echelons of military service than the SAS, knowingly working outside Geneva convention customs, thus an assassin or spy indescribable as resembling either guerrilla or soldier, - this Anglo-Saxon killer I leave unnamed is the one who brutally murdered the unarmed, prostrate dictator.

Executing in violent macabre overkill political enemies, who are unarmed, helpless, hmmm...constitutional-parliamentary seeming to me, yea, not at all fascistic?

I mean, why extend rights and be legally, ethically equitable and human to those who don't deserve it for whatever random convenient reason: different folks, different standards: disliking American apple pie is a capital crime, right?

Nothing heroic about this sordid affair, no martyrs of revolution and similar nonsense. No communist guerrilla "vindication" - the Anglo-American intelligence network simply murdered him extra-judicially, cold-bloodedly, and the priceless suitcase of documents Mussolini was carrying full of political "dirty secrets" of Allied powers, "our" leaders' dealings of amicable nature etc. with this "demon", and so much more, its fiery contents shall never be known, because murder was got away with, via apple pie wholesome State terror - don't ask how I know, Wiki-people. Trust me...

Anglo-American terrorism is the dish Mussolini was served - you might want to update your facts here, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First Marshal
Hallo, I removed the title of First Marshal of the Empire from the Template Infobox officeholder. This was already removed by another user. In fact, The "Primo Maresciallato" was not a political office, but a military rank, so I think that in the template is out of scope. Alex2006 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Founder of Fascism?
Wasn't Mussolini the founder of the fascism? Have you studied history?-- 115ash →(☏) 10:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Mussolini did not found Fascism, he founded Italian Fascism. Fascism as ideology was born before WWI. Please read Fascism. Alex2006 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Italian one was the first one. I've also provided 2 sources. I can include more, if you want, and pls try to respond on you talk page, as you don't have this habit. ?-- 115ash →(☏) 11:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a political movement and the ideology behind it. For example: Marx and Engels (and others) are the minds behind Communism as ideology, while Lenin founded Russian Communism. We cannot say that Lenin founded Communism, although Russia was the first country to experience a communist government. About talk pages, it is usage in an exchange of opinions that each user writes on the page of the other. Alex2006 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept sources like BBC. The word "fascism" was invented by him. -- 115ash →(☏) 11:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's difficult to make such a bold, unqualified statement, not least because, as noted, the term "fascism" covers quite a broad range of things. It can refer to a quasi-ideology or a movement, and is also applied, sometimes retrospectively, to ideas and groups in different countries that shared features but often had limited direct connection. Although Mussolini would be a candidate, it's debatable if any one person can be said to have founded fascism per se. In one sense it's arguably correct; equally it's meaningless. And given that the second para already acknowledges, with a little more precision, that he "founded the fascist movement [in Italy]", it's also repetitious to the extent that it is true. As for sources, given the first point, I am sure that some can be found that make the assertion claimed; as for those currently cited, none appear to be top-tier authorities. In any event, the History.com site only talks about him founding the Italian fascist party, as does the BBC site in the main text (as opposed to the brief headline) – ie the statement that the page already has without this addition. There's no preview on the book cited, so I can't check what that says.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and I think that at present there is no consensus for this addition. The book that you are mentioning was already there in the previous version of the article, where  Mussolini was defined to be "one of the key figures in the creation of fascism". The editor who added  references to bbc and History.com left this source in place, and this is wrong. Alex2006 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Mussolini was the founder of fascism. There were indeed many intellectual tendencies before him, but he was the one who pulled them together and made it an actual operating, unified force. The RS say so. 1) Thomas F. X. Noble, ‎Barry Strauss, ‎Duane Osheim Western Civilization- 2007 - ‎"Benito Mussolini The founder of fascism" ; 2) Mussolini and Italian Fascism by Borden W. Painter - 1980 - ‎p 7  the "Founder of Fascism"; 3) Richard L. Greaves - 1993 - ‎"Mussolini. The founder of Fascism was born in 1883"; 4) Mussolini's Cities - Page 9 " Mussolini founded fascism in a profoundly )
 * As noted, of course sources can be found that say "Mussolini founded fascism", and it is arguably true in one sense; but it remains a subjective assertion to some extent on the part of those authors and also depends somewhat on what is meant by fascism. No, random WP editors shouldn't usually argue with sources, but there is a judgment to be made about both what they are actually saying and how to present material derived from them. The page already said in the second para that he "founded" the Italian fascist movement, and the original wording of the first para, before it was switched to the bolder statement, was that he "was one of the key figures in the creation of fascism". That both seems less repetitive and tallies with the information in the sources cited above.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * N-HH is relying on what RS??? he seems highly subjective in rejecting all the scholars who are very explicit and objective on the matter. Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that here we are mixing two things: for sure Mussolini founded Italian Fascism (the movement), but the ideology behind it predates him. This is also clear from some of the references modern and very urban geographical context."; 5) The Totalitarian Experiment in Twentieth Century Europe by David Roberts - 2006 p 446: "Mussolini personally founded Fascism and, despite the frustrations he quickly encountered, he had the stature when he did so, in 1919, to make a credible effort to rally a new, possibly revolutionary political force"; 6) Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy by Christopher Duggan - 2013 - ‎Page 213: "On 23 March 1919 the Duce founded Fascism...."; 7) The Rise of Fascism in Europe by George P. Blum - 1998 -Page 5: "March 1919 he founded fascism with the establishment of the first Fascio di Combattimento (combat group) in Milan".  etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 07:26, 9 September 2015‎  (UTC)
 * That seems convincing. I agree that Fascism points to fascism actually being created by/from a variety of sources, it seems WP:ORish to use that to contradict those explicit WP:RS statements cited by Rjensen - unless, of course someone can produce an RS that does explicitly contradict them. DeCausa (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2015 (UTCabove, for example: "On 23 March 1919 the Duce founded Fascism...." That's why I think that the introduced sentence is ambiguous: founder of the Fascist movement, party and regime: yes, indeed. Founder of the Fascist Ideology: no (Mussolini was all except and ideologist). Alex2006 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mussolini selected elements A-C-F-I-M-S from different people, discarded other elements, and rearranged them into what he named FASCISM. He spent a lot of his energy on defining this ideology. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mussolini had neither the time nor the culture (being only a journalist without a formal education) to define his own ideology. The theoretical section of the basic work about fascist ideology, "La dottrina del Fascismo" was written by Gentile, not by him. Fundamentally he was a great tactician and pragmatist, interested only in gaining and maintaining its power, and he needed something to justify it. Enlightening about that are the conversations which he held with Julius Evola about fascist ideology, reported in De Felice's Mussolini: at the end he wrote: "Maybe from him I got what I need" (that is, the ideological framework which he needed). Alex2006 (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mussolini had the time, the training, and the energy to be an intellectual. Bosworth's biography (2002) opens with a peroration on his protagonist's status as an intellectual [p 1]. Bosworth repeatedly calls him a teacher [p55], an intellectual [p58, 59], a "professore" (p 59), a member of the "chattering classes" (p 59). He "Aggressively willed himself to be in intellectual among the intellectuals" (59). he learned German & French & attended the lectures at Lausanne University of perhaps the leading social scientist in Europe, Pareto. [p 60]. He helped translate an essay by Prince Kropotkin [p 64]; He read the socialist classics and related intellectual works like Darwin's [p 66, 171]; He published short stories, & essays on poetry, and  Nietzsche among others [p 68]. He kept up his intellectual activity as Prime Minister (p 338) Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

He did not have the intellectual stature of Gentile, of course, But he certainly had enough intellectual firepower to edit the leading socialist newspaper on daily basis and to assemble the ideas that be came fascism.Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The first volume of De Felice's Biography - which is the standard work about him - explains at length his educational cursus. Mussolini was a "maestro elementare", that is a primary school teacher, with all the limitations of this kind of education in 1900s Italy. And Mussolini was a journalist, and a great journalist, but a journalist is not necessarily an intellectual. You can understand this just by browsing the list of the books which he read in his youth: he was intelligent, curious, but lacked of method, so was impossible for him to achieve a decent degree of culture. Unfortunately for you, ignoring the Italian works on this subject (above all De Felice's work, with its over 4,000 pages and the myriads of documents is unsurpassed), and only relying upon outdated foreign sources ( the story about "Mussolini attending the lectures of Pareto" has been clarified 45 years ago by De Felice, and is incredible that 40 years later there is still people in the academy writing such crap) is impossible to understand the figure of the "Duce" and writing something meaningful here. About his knowledge of languages, he knew French decently because of his emigration in Switzerland, but he never understood well German: according to Ciano much of his problems with Hitler arose because of his persistence not to speak with him through an interpreter. Ambrosio states that during the meeting of Feltre he remained mute since he did not understood what the Führer said. Alex2006 (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Mussolini was an intellectual. You did not have to have a Berlin PhD to be an intellectual. Indeed, he could not keep up in rapid conversation with Hitler because he refused to use an interpreter. He qualified to teach secondary schools, He read German well enough to translate philosophy, such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kant. He read very widely in European philosophy, including Marinetti, Herve, Malatesta, and Sorel. [Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini pp 9-13]  He planned, but never got far, histories of philosophy and Christianity. That's the sort of thing intellectuals actually do.  Nolte [Three Faces of Fascism p 200] says: "His command of contemporary philosophy and political literature was at least as great as that of any other contemporary European political leader." Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not secondary school, primary school, "scuola elementare", 6 to 11, bambini, Rjensen, bambini. :-) He was a "maestro" (who, btw, had a lot of problems with the discipline of his pupils :-)). And a poser. A great poser, an actor, an "istrione". He played the intellectual, the superman, but was not one. If for you someone which translates (badly) some pages from German and writes some bad books is an intellectual, well, he was one. But so am I, and you. Sorry, but my concept of intellectual is a bit different: Croce, Gentile, Gramsci, Pasolini, Eco: these are the intellectuals of XX century. Mussolini was a giant politically (until he lost the sense of reality): as intellectual, he was a zero. What Nolte says, if is true, does not go to his favor, but rather to the disfavor of the European politicians of that time. A last advice: if you know Italian, buy or lend De Felice's first volume, and read it. It is a masterpiece. Cheers. Alex2006 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry, your definition of "intellectual" for the 20th century is ridiculous--Just five of them??? that is not how scholars use the term. They have studied hundreds of Italian intellectuals who went into exile in the 1920s and 1930s, and even larger numbers stayed behind. see Journal of Modern Italian Studies Volume 15, Issue 5, 2010 for a series of articles on this topic. If there are only five Italian intellectuals in the 20th century, then Mussolini does not make the cut. Does Enrico Fermi?  see Laura Fermi, Illustrious Immigrants: The Intellectual Migration From Europe 1930-41    Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Five? Of course not, I was just citing a few "heavy weights" among them. :-) Fermi was not an intellectual, was a scientist. His humanistic interests were zero (I forgot to say that here in Italy the word "intellettuale" has a specific humanistic connotation). See below, from the dictionary of the Enciclopedia Italiana


 * "Riferito a persona, colto, amante degli studî e del sapere, che ha il gusto del bello e dell’arte, o che si dedica attivamente alla produzione letteraria e artistica"


 * About Laura Fermi, I like her books. I own a very scarce first Italian edition of her "Atoms in the family". BTW ,she wrote also a book about the "Duce". :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rest of us here are editing the English language Wikipedia....where people who translate Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kant are called intellectuals. Rjensen (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We are having a so-called clash of civilizations then...OK, when in Rome, so as the Romans do! Mussolini intellectual then - but not "intellettuale". :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, in response to your comment above in response to mine, I am not "rejecting" what scholars say about Mussolini founding fascism, nor does what I said depend on my having to present alternative sources. Please read my comments and try to understand what I am actually saying, which is about the broader issue of definition and the inevitable subjectivity of historical interpretation, as well as the issue of presentation and repetition and the fact that there can be more than one way of representing, as an overview, what sources say. We don't have to make this bold statement.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no. our job at Wiki is to summarize what the RS are saying. your subjectivism sounds like personal POV about how history operates. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)7
 * Indeed, that's exactly what I have said and acknowledged, about three times now. Like I said, you could always read what I said properly, rather than just saying "no" in a somewhat pointless bid to counter to an argument I have never actually made and continuing to accuse me of "subjectivism" and, now, expressing a personal POV. Anyhow, whatever. I was asked to comment on the original inclusion/change and I have.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Mussolini as intellectual
I reverted the addition about Mussolini as "generally viewed by historians..." etc.. In Italy, no reputable historian (Tasca, de Felice, Gentile, ecc.) sees him as an intellectual. As written above, in Italian academia he is seen as an autodidact, without higher formal education, and a culture typical of the early 20th century lower middle class, later made wider through a lot of chaotic readings. I can bring lot of references about that in some days.

Moreover, also the citation of Nolte here is out of place. The fact the Mussolini had a "command of contemporary philosophy and political literature at least as great as that of any other contemporary European political" does not imply per se that he was an intellectual, but just means that he was at the same level as politicians of that time, which per definition were NOT intellectuals. To complete the reasoning, one should demonstrate that the political class of that time (Hitler, Franco, Chamberlain, Stalin, etc.) was made of intellectuals. We could a) write that "some historians" consider him an intellectual: this would be fair, and b) move the citation of Nolte. Alex2006 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed it to state that some historians consider him an intellectual, with cites to Bosworth and Nolte. Nolte is a leading German historian, and a specialist on comparative politics in the 1920s and 1930s. His statement is certainly based on vast scholarship and familiarity with the leading figures of the era in all the European countries. I suggest you read Nolte p 200 closely. He says " at least as great as that of any other contemporary European political leader. So it would seem best not to cast doubts on Mussolini's sincerity without good reason, and not to be skeptical in our approach to his self-interpretation." Nolte's interpretation has been endorsed by ‎Arcangelo William Salomone and Anthony James Joes, who both quot it verbatim. Rjensen (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mamma mia Rjensen, you still don't get the point: maybe I have problem to explain myself. I don't contest at all what Nolte says, but you cannot use his sentence to proof that Mussolini was an intellectual. Nolte does not say that, but just that his cultural level was as high as that of the other leading politicians of the time. But he did not say that those others have been considered intellectuals. That's why I did not suggest to remove the sentence, but only to move it to a more appropriate place. Did you understand my point now? Alex2006 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this section on "Propaganda and cult of personality" is to establish Mussolini's intellectual interests and background. Nolte speaks to that. I think it's reasonably true that for full-time politicians, they did their studying, wide reading, and intellectual work before they entered full-time politics. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)