PDA

View Full Version : OT: how far do you agree with the statement



Airmail109
11-27-2005, 09:28 AM
that Mussolinis control of Italy in the period 1925-39 owed more to propaganda than to the use of terror?

Thought this would make an interesting topic + its a question in a practice exam paper I have gotten hold of which I am finding difficult answering!

(on a sidenote LOL ooh look I have writing under my name....thanks to whichever MOD did that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-27-2005, 09:30 AM
Actually, now you've brought him up, I've got a question I can't be @rsed to read up on. Was Mussolini ever elected?

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 09:31 AM
I believe he was once he changed the consitution to give the fascists 2/3rds of the vote automatically. Anyway its not that I cant be arsed to read up on it, I am....lots but its starting to warp my fragile little mind....our college cant afford to give us textbooks so I have lots of photocopied texts and its doing my head in.

jds1978
11-27-2005, 09:40 AM
keep in mind, i'm not an expert on Italian history (i studied Eastern European history at university).....

Il Duce, like Hitler, promised that his system of government would be the much sought after "3rd way" political system. It purported itself as neither Left or Right. Mussolini borrowed liberally from both camps...adopting the revolutionary rhetoric of the Reds and the status quo logic of traditional Conservatives (ie: Church, nationalism, etc).

The research i've done suggests that Il Duce was relatively popular until the out-break of war (June, 1940)

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by jds1978:
keep in mind, i'm not an expert on Italian history (i studied Eastern European history at university).....

Il Duce, like Hitler, promised that his system of government would be the much sought after "3rd way" political system. It purported itself as neither Left or Right. Mussolini borrowed liberally from both camps...adopting the revolutionary rhetoric of the Reds and the status quo logic of traditional Conservatives (ie: Church, nationalism, etc).

The research i've done suggests that Il Duce was relatively popular until the out-break of war (June, 1940)

Yes his popularity kind of plummeted around that period, his anti-semetic policies didnt do him any favours either. Im doing A-level history but my teachers are useless in that they arnt interested in you on an individual basis, is there any sort of set way in answering a "how far do you agree" with question?

I agree with the view that Mussolini owed more to the use of propaganda than the use of terror, but now I have to back my position up.

However propaganda was only one facto in helping to sustain the regime. It seems that Mussolini became very popular in 1936 and increasingly unpopular in 1940. But how far was the former due to the success of propaganda, and the latter due to its failiure? TO what extent were propaganda succeses due to the methods used, or the messages being conveyed?

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-27-2005, 10:11 AM
Ah, I see. Don't think I was having a pop at you in my last post - I really was thinking aloud to myself. Anyhoooo....as for agreeing or disagreeing, I'd have some valid sources and references to hand for whichever way I go.
I believe that historians are now referred to as 'interpreters' in certain circles, as their view of the facts is an interpretation. Did Mussolini actually employ any form of efficient state terror? What were the consequences of speaking out against him? Did the Italian national character come into the equation? As opposed the German respect for order and efficiency, did the Italian attitude of 'Who cares? The trains run on time and there's a job at the factory for me' enter into the equation? Was it indeed manipulated? Is such a national stereotypical image welcome in the 21st century? Could you replace the word propaganda with bombast when referring to Il Duce? I personally lean towards the propaganda over terror argument, but would put several reasons why into an exam answer. I would also take time to examine the terror over propaganda argument if presented in a similar way.

So to sum up, there's no crime in disagreeing with a teacher, just have some valid points to hand when you do.

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
Ah, I see. Don't think I was having a pop at you in my last post - I really was thinking aloud to myself. Anyhoooo....as for agreeing or disagreeing, I'd have some valid sources and references to hand for whichever way I go.
I believe that historians are now referred to as 'interpreters' in certain circles, as their view of the facts is an interpretation. Did Mussolini actually employ any form of efficient state terror? What were the consequences of speaking out against him? Did the Italian national character come into the equation? As opposed the German respect for order and efficiency, did the Italian attitude of 'Who cares? The trains run on time and there's a job at the factory for me' enter into the equation? Was it indeed manipulated? Is such a national stereotypical image welcome in the 21st century? Could you replace the word propaganda with bombast when referring to Il Duce? I personally lean towards the propaganda over terror argument, but would put several reasons why into an exam answer. I would also take time to examine the terror over propaganda argument if presented in a similar way.

So to sum up, there's no crime in disagreeing with a teacher, just have some valid points to hand when you do.

Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Saying those questions out loud has cleared up some of the gremlins running around my head! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And the advice you gave is good! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Im starting to lean slightly differently now in my argument.

(here are some of my thoughts out loud)

So what was the overall effect of the propaganda? Did it help Mussolini gain social control? The answer is Yes and No, Yes in that up until 1936 at least, most people consumed most of the propaganda most of the time, though more often than not at a skin deep level. People decided that they may as well just go along with the regime, the duce was popular, opposition was rare and patriotism is fairly natural. Propaganda managed to achieve an overall acceptance of the regime, it did however fail in stirring up war like emotions and devotion to the regime. Which is evident in the fascists downright failure to get the population to support war.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-27-2005, 10:23 AM
Sometimes it's easier from the ouside looking in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 10:28 AM
My head feels like its going to explode.......

Yes it is easier sometimes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 10:32 AM
I would argue that propaganda is far more important than terror in achieving consent, but perhaps not control as in my opinion propaganda had only achieved acceptance of the regime and this would not be enough to silence critics.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-27-2005, 11:16 AM
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm

Might give you an interesting point to bring up.

MEGILE
11-27-2005, 11:26 AM
I abstain

<-------------------> this far.

Airmail109
11-27-2005, 12:29 PM
LOLOL!

Thx! Low_flyer!

SeaNorris
11-27-2005, 12:57 PM
Agree 99%

danjama
11-27-2005, 01:34 PM
Why on earth did u take History? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Hey, airmail, im predicted BBA for my results http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

jds1978
11-27-2005, 03:32 PM
part of the problem of studying dictatorships is the vast ammount of BS you have to sift through. Everything must be suspect. Facts. Figures. Stats. Personal recollections.

Good luck Aimail! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif