Given its marquee association with the Nazi Party, it can be easy to overlook that fascism began not in Germany during the 1930s but in Italy a decade beforehand. It was there in the aftermath of the First World War that a group of disaffected nationalists opposed to both the discredited Liberal regime and the surging socialist movement gained power, imposing a one-party rule that would last until 1943. And at the head of this government was Benito Mussolini, an ex-Socialist and army veteran who as the self-styled Duce of the Fascist Party dominated Italian politics for nearly a quarter of a century, playing a central role in events form the early 1920s until the end of the Second World War in Europe.

Mussolini’s prominence in such pivotal historical events has ensured him a good deal of attention from historians and biographers, giving readers interested in learning about his life a range of approaches and perspectives from which to choose. Among the best of these options is Richard Bosworth’s study of Mussolini and his time. In it he sifts through the propaganda-fueled myths and anti-fascist criticisms to provide an account of his controversial subject that examines critically his political views, the nature of his regime, and his responsibility for the decisions that brought Italy to ruin in the 1940s. It’s one that favors analysis over description, which its key to its value as a work on its subject.

This focus becomes apparent in the early chapters, in which Bosworth describes Mussolini’s childhood and education within the context of the times. Growing up in the Romagna, young Benito was raised in a crowded household. Seeking to avoid his country’s mandatory military service, he emigrated to Switzerland, where he worked odd jobs in construction before taking advantage of a general amnesty for draft dodgers. Though Mussolini was qualified as a schoolteacher it was politics which engaged his interest, and he had established himself as an activist and newspaper for the socialist cause in the years leading up to the First World War.

The war in Europe precipitated Mussolini’s break with the socialist cause. While most Italian socialists opposed the war, as the editor of the Socialist newspaper Avanti! Mussolini soon came out in favor of Italian intervention. Expelled from the Socialist Party, Mussolini soon embraced other heretical ideas, and when Italy joined the war in 1915 Mussolini soon enlisted for the fight. Bosworth’s coverage of Mussolini’s wartime service is disappointingly thin, as he focuses more on Mussolini’s political evolution during this period rather than on his activities in uniform. It’s a choice that embodies both the strengths and weaknesses of Bosworth’s approach to covering his subject’s life.

In some ways Mussolini’s nationalistic disaffection with the socialists’ opposition to the war anticipated the general malaise effecting postwar Italian politics. In this respect he and the fascist movement were ideally positioned, combining as they did the rejection of both the status quo of Liberalism and the socialist alterative. Yet Bosworth stresses the continuities between the fascist regime and its predecessors. For all of his revolutionary talk, Mussolini did little to disrupt the underlying status quo of power, relying on similar systems of clientage and patronage that has characterized Italian politics for decades. Though fascists now dominated Italian government, their rule proved far less vicious than those who were inspired by Mussolini’s example to establish similar regimes throughout Europe.

In part because of this Mussolini soon found himself struggling to maintain his position at the forefront of European politics. Initially as willing to confirm to the international status quo as he was the domestic one, the unraveling of the Versailles settlement created opportunities too tempting to resist. Realizing them increasingly tied Mussolini’s regime to Nazi Germany, which soon reduced Italy to the status of a junior partner. The even more ill-advised decision to join the Second Word War on Hitler’s side soon exposed the hollowness of the Italian military and the superficiality of the changes the fascists had wrought on Italy. By the time he was dismissed as prime minister Mussolini was a rapidly aging shell of his former self, soon to become little more than a figurehead for a war that would only bring further misery to the country he had once governed.

As a prominent scholar of modern Italy, Bosworth brings a social historian’s perspective to understanding Mussolini and his legacy. This proves a valuable asset in describing his subject’s background and the broader effects of his regime, as context and consequence are never far from his consideration. Yet Bosworth often takes his readers’ familiarity with Italian history and the fascist movement for granted, leading him to gloss over the background to the events he covers. Often key personalities are introduced by their last names only, with their roles and importance only hinted at. Not only can this blunt the point that Bosworth is making, it unnecessarily limits the audience for his book. This is particularly unfortunate, for while some may get lost in the flurry of names and passing references to other events in Italian history, those who persist will benefit enormously from Bosworth’s sharp analysis and persuasive assessment of his subject. While this may not be a biography of Mussolini for beginners, it is one no English-language reader who wishes to understand him can ignore. ( )

Naar mijn idee heeft Bosworth hier een vrij evenwichtige biografie geschreven van een man die heel erg uiteenlopende reacties opriep en blijft oproepen. Bosworth laat ook de verschillende visies de revue passeren maar niet zonder ze te plaatsen binnen hun eigen context, en dat zorgt voor het evenwichtige. Dat wil niet zeggen dat Bosworth nalaat zijn eigen visie weer te geven. "More likely, what they signify is Mussolini's chameleon-like ability to take on the colour and tone of the discourse which surrounded him." (p. 111) Origineel blijkt Mussolini dus niet echt te zijn geweest; veel van de typische rituele groeten, gebaren en gebruiken van de fascistische era werden overgenomen van elders of van anderen. Eerder imitaties en vooral wanneer het om boze ideeën of attitudes ging (p. 123) wat maakt dat Mussolini veeleer geïnteresseerd leek in de indruk te weten dan in werkelijk weten. "There was much about Mussolini's role as leader which foreshadowed that world in which political chiefs have turned into travelling salespeople, more fascinated by image and spin than devoted to a deeper comprehension of society." (p. 142) De manier waarop Mussolini met prangende problemen omging, was dikwijls "another case of shutting his eyes and hoping that, somehow, the worst would not happen." (p. 268)
De man die van bij aanvang vooral gedreven werd door zijn eigen wil en boosheid, en meende dat alle Italianen mee met hem in constante revolutie moesten zijn (zonder echt weten waar naar toe), verdroeg steeds minder wederwoord of tegenargument. Uiteindelijk leidde dat zelfs naar een soort dogma dat de duce altijd gelijk heeft. Mussolini was dan ook goed in het houden van filippica's "but they never quite spelled out how amendment was meant to proceed and never quite explained why, given that the regime had been in office for twenty years, its achievement had proven so empty. In that regard, Mussolini was perfectly capable of the grossest contradiction." (p. 317) De eindbalans kan dan ook niet anders dan negatief uitvallen. "For this man, who had once been first of his class and had never lacked intelligence of a kind, the wages of cynicism and Darwinism, the only ideas which could still survive in the confusion of his mind, had indeed been dishonour and death." (p. 331)
Erg interessant bij deze nieuwe editie van 2010 is het laatste hoofdstuk over hoe de geest van Mussolini na 1945 in de Italiaanse geschiedschrijving en politiek is blijven hangen en nog steeds uiteenlopende visies genereert, en hoe velen ertoe geneigd zijn om een eigen versie van Mussolini naar voor te schuiven passend binnen de eigen agenda. Bosworth's schrijfstijl is nogal academisch zodat het niet de meest vlotte lectuur oplevert. Maar hij is wel erg breed gedocumenteerd en genuanceerd in de manier waarop hij met het beschikbare historisch materiaal omspringt. En dat kan zeker niet van alle Mussolini biografen worden gezegd. ( )

A biography of a thug - very analytical and detailed about his rise and fall. Could have used more information about public opinion in Italy during the time period, but a worthy and well-done book nonetheless. ( )

I'm from the netherlands, i do read lot of english books.. easy, but this book is written with to many
words that u normaly dont use, at least not the common ppl.. i stopped readin at page 90 and i actualy wanted too stop
at 20 =p Its a pain too read, so dont waste ur money on it.

I found this to be a bit rambling. However, it is the only bio of Mussolini I have come across. ( )