Introduction
Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini have some similarities in their style of government and how they came to power. Both dictators were supporters of the ideology of fascism, through which they promoted their interests and developed the direction of their campaigns. A strong bias towards authoritarianism, nationalism, and the absence of democratic mechanisms and institutions of power distinguishes the political ideology they choose. Although the two leaders had certain similarities in the style of management and the use of elements of repression and propaganda, their directions of fascism had significant differences.
Hitlers Rise to Power
The rise to the power of Adolf Hitler began gradually. Throughout the history of the formation of this personality, one could observe a tightening of his attitude to the management style. Way Hitler formed his character due to many historical factors that influenced his character and attitude toward the political system. His rise to power began in the 1920s when he became the leader of the Nazi Party in Germany (Ziegler 4). He used his oratorical skills to propagate his ideas among the people and create like-minded people. In this way, he also managed to create a particular cult of personality around which people could unite not only to support fascism but also to establish it as the country’s political ideology. With the help of certain theses, Hitler instilled in people uncertainty in the Treaty of Versailles and talked about how disadvantageous the situation was for Germany. With persuasive rhetoric and a well-formulated message, he was able to convince many people. The Germans, who were disillusioned with the treaties signed by Germany, accepted Hitler’s idea of Nazism and anti-Semitism without resistance because they wanted to believe that there were external forces that led their country to a sad situation. Hitler’s strong strategy for gaining his support in elections was to unite the people with a few common goals of hatred.
Hitlers Retention of Power and Rule
Hitler promoted his ideas of Nazism in many ways and tried to use effectively any methods available to him. The Nazi newspaper “Völkischer Beobachter” (The People’s Observer) became one of the powerful tools supporting the politician’s propaganda system (Dussel 2). With its help, the dissemination of material correct for Hitler was greatly facilitated, and many people could get acquainted with the new political force to decide whether to support it. Thus, openness and focus on ordinary people became the main focus of Hitler’s campaigning activities.
Many authoritarian elements and centralization characterized Hitler’s leadership style. This can be judged by how quickly after he came to power, many policies and acts were adopted that were supposed to ensure the complete obedience of the people of the new government. The Nazi rule was referred to in the country in many ways, such as the intensification of propaganda and the prohibition of dissent, which was regarded as a betrayal of the motherland (Longerich 195). For several years of his reign, Hitler created a one-party state, providing himself with monotonous power and complete control over all instances of the country. In Germany, at that time, the military dictatorship system, headed by the Fuhrer, prevailed. One of the most trusted tools to help maintain order and suppress protests was the Gestapo (Hager and Krakowski 571). This body of secret police operated in the country to identify people who disagreed with the party’s official position.
Mussolinis Rise to Power
The coming to power of Mussolini had some significant similarities and differences from those events that took place in Germany. Mussolini began his political career earlier than Hitler by founding the National Fascist Party in Italy (Gori and de Carvalho 13). Like his German colleague, Mussolini actively used oratorical skills to convince people of the correctness of his actions and tell them that any other ideology would be a failure for their country. The Italians at that time were greatly disappointed with the economic instability in the old days, which made the new direction of power seem to them more profitable and correct than what had happened before. In this way, Mussolini managed to simultaneously contrast and create an alternative solution without giving a choice.
Mussolinis Retention of Power and Rule
Mussolini’s management style can be described as similar to Hitler’s in that he was prone to authoritarianism and military dictatorship. However, at the same time, there was more freedom in the country than in Germany since Mussolini was ready to cooperate with other parties and conduct joint discussions of state affairs. However, in most cases, he did this not for the general good of the country but to achieve any of his specific goals. At the same time, the government under Mussolini was composed so that different sections of society could be represented by a single organization controlled by the state (Pasetti 2). This meant strengthening the correct corporatist system in Italy, where the government was based. At the same time, like Hitler, Mussolini created a secret police organization responsible for maintaining order in the country by identifying citizens who carried out anti-government activities. Thus, we can say that this control body is a common element in the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini.
Similarities and Differences in Management
Both had similarities in how they gained the people’s trust and came to power. However, there were many circumstances that differed significantly in the regimes of government under Hitler and Mussolini. In Germany, the defeat in the First World War and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles played a significant role, which was distinguished by rather difficult and unpleasant conditions for the country (Neiberg 5). In addition, the worsening economic situation also played a significant role, as a large number of people could not find jobs, and the standard of living was low. Because of this, dissatisfaction accumulated among the population, and when citizens got a chance to elect a Nazi leader who promised to restore justice and pointed out, in his opinion, the perpetrators of the situation, people believed him.
In Italy, a similar context of trust in fascism developed among citizens due to the problematic situation in the country, which was due to political instability and insecurity. People were utterly disappointed with the government, which could not provide sufficiently acceptable economic conditions (Adorno 158). In addition, communism represented a great danger in the minds of the Italians, and Mussolini was elected as an opposition to this movement. Thus, the Italian people chose politics based on a hopeless situation, which makes this situation similar to the elections in Germany.
Hitler’s and Mussolini’s methods for gaining and holding power were similar. This is due to the fact that the German dictator essentially adopted the techniques of Mussolini, who came to power earlier. However, further rule in the countries differed in the degree of polarization of power. Hitler eliminated all opposition movements in the country by consolidating all power entirely within his circle of proxies (Steinback 43). The Gestapo, as a state control body, had the right to eliminate all representatives of dissent. Mussolini’s management was significantly different since he established a corporatist system in the country, the central aspect of which was the benefit to the state. At the same time, despite the virtual absence of pluralism of political opinions, various social groups could actively express their opinions. This was ensured by the creation of suitable social unions where workers could express their opinions on current issues in different areas (Martini 3). At the same time, oppositional opinions were also strongly suppressed, but Mussolini allowed cooperation to achieve his goals.
The leadership styles used by Hitler and Mussolini differed in several key areas, such as central ideology, power structure, and worldview. The ideological basis of Germany under Hitler’s rule was Nazism, which made him want to destroy all other nations except the Germans (Klikauer 1). In Italy at this time, the primary basis for the rule of Mussolini was fascism, which was changed to direct all efforts to strengthen the state. Mussolini was much more loyal to other countries and did not have a principled position on their destruction. The hierarchical structure of power was also more characteristic of the Nazi regime in Germany since Mussolini concentrated power only up to certain limits.
Conclusion
It is important to say that the Nazi regime in Germany and the Fascist regime in Italy had many similarities. Hitler changed and adapted to his needs the ideology that Mussolini introduced in his country. In Germany, political bias was made in the direction of total restrictions on the ability of popular expression and the concentration of all power in the hands of one person. With sufficiently large similarities in aspects of coming to power, Mussolini and Hitler had significant differences in the way they managed the state and held their positions. This was traced right up to the different structures of the market and economic systems of Italy and Germany. Different models of government also meant different goals pursued by the rulers in World War II.
Works Cited
Adorno, Theodor W. “The meaning of working through the past.” Remembering the Holocaust in Germany, Austria, Italy and Israel. Brill, 2021. 157-169. Web.
Dussel, Konrad. “Photographic Omnipresence”? Hitler pictures in the press of the Nazi state.” Publizistik 64 (2019): 447-477. Web.
Gori, Annarita, and Rita Almeida de Carvalho. “Italian Fascism and the Portuguese Estado Novo: international claims and national resistance.” Intellectual History Review 30.2 (2020): 295-319. Web.
Hager, Anselm, and Krzysztof Krakowski. “Does state repression spark protests? evidence from secret police surveillance in communist Poland.” American Political Science Review 116.2 (2022): 564-579. Web.
Klikauer, Thomas. “An Efficient “Propagandistic Instrument of Mobilisation”.” The European Legacy (2023): 1-5. Web.
Longerich, Peter. Hitler: A biography. Oxford University Press, USA, 2019.
Martini, Andrea. “The Re-emergence of Fascism and Its Impact on European Democracies in the Immediate Postwar Period.” Journal of Contemporary History (2022): 00220094221141665. Web.
Neiberg, Michael S. The Treaty of Versailles: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Pasetti, Matteo. ““The cleanest, neatest, most effectively operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen”: On the reception of Fascist corporatism in the USA.” Forum Italicum. Sage UK: London, England: SAGE Publications, 2023. Web.
Steinback, Athahn. Thinking Beyond The Führer: The Ideological and Structural Evolution of National Socialism, 1919-1934. 2019. MA dissertation. Web.
Ziegler, Luke T. “A House Divided: How Hitler Exploited the Politics of Weimar Germany.” Tenor of Our Times 11.1 (2022): 18. Web.