Most interesting dictator?

[GoodSarmatian]

What, no Hugo Chavez?

Err, no...this thread is only about Dictators.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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?

Fair enough, I concede the point. Italian tanks, motorized divisions, aireal bombardment, heavy artillery, new methods of combating disease, automatic weapons, improved military drilling etc. were completely unimportant developments. The mighty Ethiopian army was ready to defeat all of these things, if it was not for poison gas.

 

[1889]

I don't see why Mussolini or Italy deserves anything other than a foot note for being the first to use weapons and tactics common to the other European powers, if indeed they truly were first to use them.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No one claims Mussolini was the first to use chemical warfare, he just happened to use them to do something no one else had ever done before.

 

[Atlas14]

I am going to go with Saddam Hussein, because he is known to have committed atrocities, yet I am still fascinated by the controversy surrounding the April Glaspie note.

 

[Sofista]

I don't see why Mussolini or Italy deserves anything other than a foot note for being the first to use weapons and tactics common to the other European powers, if indeed they truly were first to use them.

A bit off topic: it seems we were the first to bomb something, in 1911.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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?

This isn't about Italy! It's about whether Hitler looked up to Mussolini or not, and whether Mussolini thought Hitler was a moron or not.

 

[Azale]

Pol Pot. In my opinion, only Caligula and Nero near him in insanity level.

Where is Alexander the Great? You know, the greatest mass murderer of ancient times?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Pol Pot. In my opinion, only Caligula and Nero near him in insanity level.

Where is Alexander the Great? You know, the greatest mass murderer of ancient times?

I thought that was Shalmaneser III?

Or was it Cyrus the Great?

Or perhaps Artaxerxes II?

It might also have been Agamemnon.

 

[aelf]

Fair enough, I concede the point. Italian tanks, motorized divisions, aireal bombardment, heavy artillery, new methods of combating disease, automatic weapons, improved military drilling etc. were completely unimportant developments. The mighty Ethiopian army was ready to defeat all of these things, if it was not for poison gas.

You still haven't explained why the Italians felt the need to use illegal methods to crush the Ethiopians. The truth is they were beaten just decades ago, despite their purported modernity. There was clearly some fear that they would somehow screw up. Again. And it wouldn't be surprising. Despite its immense modernity, the US army today can't simply win against the insurgents in Iraq.

This isn't about Italy! It's about whether Hitler looked up to Mussolini or not, and whether Mussolini thought Hitler was a moron or not.

Well, you brought Abyssinia into the discussion, and I think that the campaign was rather pathetically and cowardly conducted, not the great victory that Mussolini tried to sell it as. I'm surprised you guys bought into his propaganda at this day and age.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You still haven't explained why the Italians felt the need to use illegal methods to crush the Ethiopians. The truth is they were beaten just decades ago, despite their purported modernity. There was clearly some fear that they would somehow screw up. Again. And it wouldn't be surprising. Despite its immense modernity, the US army today can't simply win against the insurgents in Iraq.

Thats entirely the point. Mussolini's predecessors were unable to defeat the ethiopians because the Italian army was actually of comparitable quality to Ethiopians in the First Italo-Abyssynian war, by the second, Italy had modernized and was able to defeat the Ethiopians.
In every single engagement of the second Italo-Abyssynian war, the Ethiopians lossed, regardless of the employment of chemical weapons.
If you believe that the use of chemical warfare somehow shows the Italian army was weak, or that they were in danger of loosing, do you hold the same view of the Second Sino-Japanese war?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, you brought Abyssinia into the discussion, and I think that the campaign was rather pathetically and cowardly conducted, not the great victory that Mussolini tried to sell it as. I'm surprised you guys bought into his propaganda at this day and age.

But Mussolini did it nonetheless. It was a "great" victory in the sense that the casualties of the subjugated power in relation to the the invading power were fantastic in magnitude and fell very much in Mussolini's favor, and the great ease with which the invading Italians bested their African adversaries. It was not "great" in the moral sense, for the reasons you detailed. I think the whole argument stems from this misunderstanding of language use and context.

The point remains, though, that Fascist Italy bested the Ethiopians in combat, and without the help of their German ally-to-be, and that the Italian people loved Mussolini for laying the groundwork for an Italian Empire.

 

[ParkCungHee]

and my point was that the popular perception of Mussolini as the Bufoon and Hitler as the Evil Genius isn't based so much on either leader, as the countries they led. Mussolini, for better or worse, was able to accomplish what his predecessors could not. Hitler was given the greatest military establishment in the world, a strong industrial base, and a technologically advanced nation. He did nothing the someone else in his position could not have done (if not better).

 

[aelf]

Thats entirely the point. Mussolini's predecessors were unable to defeat the ethiopians because the Italian army was actually of comparitable quality to Ethiopians in the First Italo-Abyssynian war, by the second, Italy had modernized and was able to defeat the Ethiopians.
In every single engagement of the second Italo-Abyssynian war, the Ethiopians lossed, regardless of the employment of chemical weapons.
If you believe that the use of chemical warfare somehow shows the Italian army was weak, or that they were in danger of loosing, do you hold the same view of the Second Sino-Japanese war?

Actually, the Italian loss in the first Abyssinian war was due to tactical stupidity more than anything else. The Italian army was better armed and more modern compared to Ethiopia's.

And you're talking about the second Abyssinian War on hindsight. Sure, now we know that the Italians would not have needed to use chemical weapons to win, but they didn't know that at that time. There must be a reason why they saw a need to use it. But, as I originally stated, it's probably not a question of whether they would win in the first place, but whether they would win easily or face the prospect of being embarassed despite the reforms they have made. Mussolini would not accept anything other than an easy victory over what he perceived as inferior foes to prove Italy's superiority. Thus, Italy's reputation was inflated (although it didn't quite work out that way when the world found out about the chemical weapons).

But Mussolini did it nonetheless. It was a "great" victory in the sense that the casualties of the subjugated power in relation to the the invading power were fantastic in magnitude and fell very much in Mussolini's favor, and the great ease with which the invading Italians bested their African adversaries. It was not "great" in the moral sense, for the reasons you detailed. I think the whole argument stems from this misunderstanding of language use and context.

The point remains, though, that Fascist Italy bested the Ethiopians in combat, and without the help of their German ally-to-be, and that the Italian people loved Mussolini for laying the groundwork for an Italian Empire.

Fair enough. Couching the campaign in glorious terms that Mussolini himself would have approved of isn't quite correct, though, IMO. That's what it came across as.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, the Italian loss in the first Abyssinian war was due to tactical stupidity more than anything else. The Italian army was better armed and more modern compared to Ethiopia's.

And you're talking about the second Abyssinian War on hindsight. Sure, now we know that the Italians would not have needed to use chemical weapons to win, but they didn't know that at that time. There must be a reason why they saw a need to use it. But, as I originally stated, it's probably not a question of whether they would win in the first place, but whether they would win easily or face the prospect of being embarassed despite the reforms they have made. Mussolini would not accept anything other than an easy victory over what he perceived as inferior foes to prove Italy's superiority. Thus, Italy's reputation was inflated (although it didn't quite work out that way when the world found out about the chemical weapons).

Inflated at the time, yes. But we've swung to far in the opposite direction, the common retrospective is that Mussolini was a joke, and Hitler the real threat. I'm not trying to improve Mussolini's image, I'm saying he was a real and serious danger, and its fortunate that his nation was backwards technologically and in its officer corps.

 

[aelf]

Inflated at the time, yes. But we've swung to far in the opposite direction, the common retrospective is that Mussolini was a joke, and Hitler the real threat. I'm not trying to improve Mussolini's image, I'm saying he was a real and serious danger, and its fortunate that his nation was backwards technologically and in its officer corps.

True. But I was actually going a bit OT in taking on your description of the Abyssinian War. Anyway, IMO, Mussolini is considered a joke not because he is incapable as a leader, but because ultimately he didn't have the goods to deliver the results he promised (a solid military power). Also, IIRC, his economic policies weren't that great.

 

[Sofista]

Actually, the Italian loss in the first Abyssinian war was due to tactical stupidity more than anything else. The Italian army was better armed and more modern compared to Ethiopia's.

Ethiopians had rifles - not exactly bows and slings.

General Baratieri knew full well that this combined with the numeric forces (17 000 vs 100 000) were bound to result in failure, whatever the case. So he tried to get reinforcements. When it was denied (politicians want wars, but dislike funding them, just look at the occupation of Iraq; also, the powerful socialist movement in Italy organized strikes and blocking of supply lines at the rally cry of "Me-ne-lik!") he tried to resign, but was forced to join battle instead.

And his map at Adua was wrong, making him deploy troops far more loosely than anyone would. Compared with the logistics of the well-organized natives and their better knowledge - naturally! - of the country, and there you have it.

 

[aelf]

Ethiopians had rifles - not exactly bows and slings.

I know that They still weren't as well equipped or well organised as the Italian army.

General Baratieri knew full well that this combined with the numeric forces (17 000 vs 100 000) were bound to result in failure, whatever the case. So he tried to get reinforcements. When it was denied (politicians want wars, but dislike funding them, just look at the occupation of Iraq; also, the powerful socialist movement in Italy organized strikes and blocking of supply lines at the rally cry of "Me-ne-lik!") he tried to resign, but was forced to join battle instead.

And his map at Adua was wrong, making him deploy troops far more loosely than anyone would. Compared with the logistics of the well-organized natives and their better knowledge - naturally! - of the country, and there you have it.

You can continue trying to justify the defeat of the Italian army. If it were not for this, that wouldn't have happened... etc. The geographical misinterpretation amounted to tactical stupidity. No commander has a good excuse for getting lost. What happened to reconaissance?

And fewer Ethiopians actually died compared to Italians, so obviously it was not just an issue of Ethiopia having too many expendable soldiers. The Italians totally screwed up their positioning and advance. And the logistics on the well-organised natives were such that they (the natives) were almost out of supplies by then.

 

[Sofista]

I know that They still weren't as well equipped or well organised as the Italian army.

Right. But then, colonial wars were one-sided affairs whenever technology was concerned. No glory in colonial conquests, true for everyone, do you agree?

You can continue trying to justify the defeat of the Italian army. If it were not for this, that wouldn't have happened... etc. The geographical misinterpretation amounted to tactical stupidity. No commander has a good excuse for getting lost. What happened to reconaissance?

And fewer Ethiopians actually died compared to Italians, so obviously it was not just an issue of Ethiopia having too many expendable soldiers. The Italians totally screwed up their positioning and advance. And the logistics on the well-organised natives were such that they (the natives) were almost out of supplies by then.

Justify, justify... it had causes, that's all. Shall we agree that:

1) Ethiopians maneuvered skillfully;
2) the Italian plan suffered from poor preparation and grave underestimation of the locals numbers and ability;
3) when you lose 13 000 soldiers and your contingent numbered 17 000, it's time to pack and leave?

 

[aelf]

Right. But then, colonial wars were one-sided affairs whenever technology was concerned. No glory in colonial conquests, true for everyone, do you agree?

Not exactly true either. Sometimes better equipment and superior discipline, tactics and organisation prevailed against vastly superior numbers. I believe that's where glory in colonial conquests was derived from.

Justify, justify... it had causes, that's all. Shall we agree that:

1) Ethiopians maneuvered skillfully;
2) the Italian plan suffered from poor preparation and grave underestimation of the locals numbers and ability;
3) when you lose 13 000 soldiers and your contingent numbered 17 000, it's time to pack and leave?

Yes, but you can't deny that it was an embarassing loss, one that the Italians were probably too eager not to repeat