Differences Of Adolf Hitler And Mussolini's Rise To Power

1059 Words 5 Pages
Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were like each other in many ways. Both were devoted Fascists, and both became dictators of their countries at similar times using similar strategies. This was not surprising, as Hitler had seen the success of Mussolini’s rise to power and was inspired to do the same in Germany. The two shared a common, clever strategy in taking power in a completely legal fashion. Their arrival in their governments and the laws they made that allowed them to run legal dictatorships were a major factor in their rise to power. How each man gained popularity was similar as well because of their shared views on issues such as Communism. However despite all these similarities, Hitler and Mussolini did have their differences. They …show more content…
Mussolini’s March on Rome (1922) proved to be successful as King Victor Emmanuel III handed over the position of prime minister to Mussolini out of fear of the possibility of a civil war or being overthrown by his rivals. While it took Hitler a bit more time to learn that a violent takeover was not the wisest plan, he too took power legally by making his party the biggest and most popular in the Reichstag through clever campaigning tactics. President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933, convinced he could eventually get rid of him when the trouble in Germany died down. However, both Mussolini and Hitler used their positions of power to their advantage and created laws that gradually forced out all political parties other than their own, as Italy and the then Weimar Republic were previously governed by governments with proportional representation. Mussolini created the Acerbo Law (1923) to get the Fascist Party the most seats and therefore the most power in the Chamber of Deputies, while Hitler created the Enabling Bill (1933), which allowed him to bypass the parliament’s approval when making laws. These actions allowed Mussolini and Hitler to begin their brutal dictatorships, and perhaps the most impressive part of this series of events is that they achieved their goals without breaking the …show more content…
Firstly, Mussolini’s party and promises appealed more to the rich, as socialism in Italy was gaining more ground and they feared a Bolshevik-style revolution as seen in Russia in previous years. When the upper class saw how easily Mussolini’s combat squads crushed the workers’ movement in 1919, they, the government, and prominent politicians were quick to praise and thank Mussolini, especially financially. This helped the Fascists appear more respectable to the Italian public and Mussolini’s image as Italy’s saviour was bolstered. Hitler, on the other hand, appealed more towards the middle and lower class of the Weimar Republic. This was because Hitler stepped in at a desperate time for the people of the Weimar Republic; the Great Depression had begun and many people were living in poverty and were unable to afford their basic necessities. Those people remembered the turmoil in Germany after World War I and feared both the poverty and precarious politics of Germany in 1919. Hitler’s Twenty-Five Points of the Nazi Party Programme (1930) offered aid and relief to all those affected by the Great Depression and looking for a solution. Along with these points, Hitler bolstered support for himself by blaming the Jews for all Germany’s problems and declaring the Aryans the “master

Related Documents