Most interesting dictator?

[jeps]

Alexander Kara?or?evi? (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes), Tojo, Hitler, Nicolae Ceau?escu, and the Kim-Il's (Il-Sung Jong-Il) are all interesting, as are Mao and Stalin

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, you sounded like you wanted to give the man the credit for beating the living daylights out of the Ethiopians. I would give that credit to gas To him and the Italians at that time, I would give the credit for being absolute bullies and cowards.

As opposed to Hitler's chivalrous tactics of Bombing Rotterdam and surprise invasions?

 

[aelf]

As opposed to Hitler's chivalrous tactics of Bombing Rotterdam and surprise invasions?

I didn't give Hitler credit for anything.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why not? He did do an awful lot of stuff. The word "credit" doesn't necessarily imply that you approve of it, just that you recognize who did it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I didn't give Hitler credit for anything.

But these are the two we're comparing. Does Mussolini deserve more credit for the conquest of Abyssynia or does Hitler for the conquests in the west?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But these are the two we're comparing. Does Mussolini deserve more credit for the conquest of Abyssynia or does Hitler for the conquests in the west?

I thought we were debating whether or not Hitler admired Mussolini?

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is a part of that. But it should be beyond debate. Hitler absolutely admired Mussolini, until perhaps the very end.

 

[Yoda Power]

Turkmenbashi, it's so obvious.

 

[scy12]

I am interested in Hitler due to the way he archived his rise to Power.

 

[aelf]

Why not? He did do an awful lot of stuff. The word "credit" doesn't necessarily imply that you approve of it, just that you recognize who did it.

I didn't postulate about the word 'credit' either. I'm associating credit with something good, so what?

But these are the two we're comparing. Does Mussolini deserve more credit for the conquest of Abyssynia or does Hitler for the conquests in the west?

I was merely pointing out that Abyssinia was nothing to be proud of. At least Hitler's conquests are due to military brilliance. It was not his brilliance, though, so it was not something that we should attribute to him either - much in the same way as you wouldn't attribute the ending of Depression to FDR.

In short, I find it darkly amusing that Abyssinia is held up to be one of Mussolini's achievements. It's like saying "Hey, congratulate me for beating this kid up with a baseball bat!" when you would have gotten more than a bloodied nose if you got into a real fist fight with him. It's both morally twisted and pathetic.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Use of Poison gas was not what decided the Abyssinian campaign. Modernization did.

 

[luiz]

Turkmenbashi, it's so obvious.

Yep, a man who renamed January atfter himself certainly deserves some credit

 

[Sofista]

not really a dictator, but anyone wanting to read about picturesque rulers should give Elagabalus a look.

 

[aelf]

The Use of Poison gas was not what decided the Abyssinian campaign. Modernization did.

It did make what would otherwise be a pretty bad campaign for a major power easier. If modernization included using new, lethal and illegal weapons indiscriminately, I guess you're right. But I still wouldn't associate Mussolini's Abyssinian campaign with any glory.

 

[Aegis]

What, no Hugo Chavez?

 

[Gladi]

Yep, a man who renamed January atfter himself certainly deserves some credit

Bright day
You mean Augustus Ceasar?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But I still wouldn't associate Mussolini's Abyssinian campaign with any glory.

Actually, you seem to be the only one making that connection. No one else is saying that it is "glorious" or a good thing, merely that it was a major and difficult accomplishment.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Bright day
You mean Augustus Ceasar?

I think that was more the people naming the month after him than him taking the initiative himself. Octavian was hardly an ostentatious figure.

 

[Stormrage]

I cannot belive you didn`t put Tito directly in the poll..

 

[aelf]

Actually, you seem to be the only one making that connection. No one else is saying that it is "glorious" or a good thing, merely that it was a major and difficult accomplishment.

Let's examine what I meant more carefully before we jump to draw blanket conclusions...

That was in 1896 when they lost to Menelik II. I assure you, in the Second Italio-Abysinnian War, the Italians beat the living hell out of Ethiopia all by themselves, and that WAS Mussolini's doing.

Remember, one of the reasons Italy went in to Abyssinia was to avenge the national disgrace in the First Italo-Abyssinian war, and he clearly accomplished what his predecessors could not. Mussolini never created the mighty empire he dreamed of, but he took a 3rd Rate European power and moved it up to a second rate one.

In both quotes, the description of the Abyssinian campaign was quite clearly one of great victory, accomplishment and even imperial glory. I moved to disconnect the reality from such colourful talk. Besides being an uneven fight, the campaign saw Italy effectively try to bully the Ethiopians into submission with the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons. Clearly, the Italians were still afraid of losing to the Ethiopians, such that they decided to use illegal tactics to ensure the latter's defeat. If Italy was as great as you guys claim it was, why couldn't it have conquered Ethiopia in a conventional way? Why resort to such cruelty and foul play?