Mussolini 's speech was written to introduce his desires as the Premier of Italy and also to portray himself as a strong, charismatic leader that would lift Italy from troubled times. It is interesting that he is not focussed that much on the policies that he will launch, but instead outlining rather broad principles. He also reflects on the actions he has not undertaken since his nomination of the Premier in October 1922. This essay will argue that this speech shows Mussolini in a weak position of power and eventually wanted to overthrow democracy in Italy because of the language he uses, his attitudes to violence and attitudes to democracy. It will then relate this analysis to the historical content and provide a historiographical debate.
…show more content…
While this could suggest he wanted violence to end because this shows opposition, it is not a very strong opposition which suggests that he was actually reluctant to do so because it is not calling for a dissolution of the paramilitary groups, which would be a stronger preventive action. Historians relate to this source in a number of ways because it is debateable how much the paramilitary squads helped Mussolini in his rise to power. Denis Mack-Smith for example demonstrates that Mussolini continued to state publicly that violence must end but in practice he needed it to threaten opponents. But John Horne and Richard Garwerth disagree with this argument and say his opposition to violence strengthened his position as it won him confidence of Parliament. They argue he had support from the King, various church leaders and also conservative opinion. They also show that the inability of his enemies to oppose him shows their weakness and internal divisions. However, their analysis still shows that Mussolini was in a weak position because they acknowledge he needed coalition support, it is just that the coalition approved his actions. Therefore, this essay agrees more with Mack-Smith’s argument because his argument is more coherent in showing that his reliance on other parties meant he was in a weak position because he needed to act alone in order to be completely certain …show more content…
However, the fact that the phrase 'whatever cost ' only applies to the rule of law suggests that he is more interested in upholding this than ‘fundamental freedoms’, which might even be eroded by the rule of law. Furthermore, the Fascists’ interpretation to the rule of law was different compared to democrats was different it just aimed to protect Mussolini and his government over anything else. Furthermore, when Mussolini says 'the state does not intend to abdicate its authority before anyone. Whoever defies the state will be punished. This is an explicit warning to all citizens '’ this contradicts his call for protecting freedom because this suggests that if opposition was shown to the state, then the ‘fundamental freedoms’ Mussolini was previously calling for would be terminated. This was the case for the majority of political opponents who opposed the state. Sonnessa says that local councillors, deputies and prefects from the Socialists and the Communists were most likely subject to Fascist imprisonment. Conversely, it is arguable that this did not mean anything because Mussolini had not made any serious dictatorial moves at least in the short-term: the press was left mostly free, political parties in the National Parliament were allowed to continue to exist and Mussolini also entered
While this could suggest he wanted violence to end because this shows opposition, it is not a very strong opposition which suggests that he was actually reluctant to do so because it is not calling for a dissolution of the paramilitary groups, which would be a stronger preventive action. Historians relate to this source in a number of ways because it is debateable how much the paramilitary squads helped Mussolini in his rise to power. Denis Mack-Smith for example demonstrates that Mussolini continued to state publicly that violence must end but in practice he needed it to threaten opponents. But John Horne and Richard Garwerth disagree with this argument and say his opposition to violence strengthened his position as it won him confidence of Parliament. They argue he had support from the King, various church leaders and also conservative opinion. They also show that the inability of his enemies to oppose him shows their weakness and internal divisions. However, their analysis still shows that Mussolini was in a weak position because they acknowledge he needed coalition support, it is just that the coalition approved his actions. Therefore, this essay agrees more with Mack-Smith’s argument because his argument is more coherent in showing that his reliance on other parties meant he was in a weak position because he needed to act alone in order to be completely certain …show more content…
However, the fact that the phrase 'whatever cost ' only applies to the rule of law suggests that he is more interested in upholding this than ‘fundamental freedoms’, which might even be eroded by the rule of law. Furthermore, the Fascists’ interpretation to the rule of law was different compared to democrats was different it just aimed to protect Mussolini and his government over anything else. Furthermore, when Mussolini says 'the state does not intend to abdicate its authority before anyone. Whoever defies the state will be punished. This is an explicit warning to all citizens '’ this contradicts his call for protecting freedom because this suggests that if opposition was shown to the state, then the ‘fundamental freedoms’ Mussolini was previously calling for would be terminated. This was the case for the majority of political opponents who opposed the state. Sonnessa says that local councillors, deputies and prefects from the Socialists and the Communists were most likely subject to Fascist imprisonment. Conversely, it is arguable that this did not mean anything because Mussolini had not made any serious dictatorial moves at least in the short-term: the press was left mostly free, political parties in the National Parliament were allowed to continue to exist and Mussolini also entered