Skip to main content

What was Mussolini's role in the outbreak of World War 2?

Benito Mussolini did not play a very direct role in the outbreak of WWII.  Italy did not start the war.  In fact, it did not even enter the war until Germany had already defeated France.  Therefore, we cannot say that Mussolini played a very large role in starting the war.


While Mussolini did not play a direct role in starting the war, he contributed to it in three indirect ways.  First, Mussolini was an inspiration for Hitler and the Nazis.  Mussolini and his fascist movement took power in Italy more than a decade before the Nazis came to power in Germany.  The Nazis shared many beliefs with the Italian fascists and the rise of fascism in Italy helped inspire Hitler and the Nazis to believe that they could take power in Germany.  By helping Hitler come to power, Mussolini helped start WWII.


Second, Mussolini helped bring about WWII by allying Italy with Germany.  With Italy as an ally, Germany did not have to worry about having to fight a war in the south when it started WWII.  This allowed Hitler to be more confident about invading Poland and then France.  He knew that he would not have to fight two enemies at once.  By giving Hitler this security, Mussolini helped start WWII.


Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mussolini helped to discredit the League of Nations, which was supposed to help keep the peace after WWI.  One of the things the League was supposed to do was to prevent countries from fighting wars of aggression against one another.  However, when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the League did nothing.  This helped show that the League was really powerless and that there was nothing to stop an aggressive country from taking what it wanted by military force.  By helping to expose the weakness of the League of Nations, Mussolini helped to convince Hitler that he could take what he wanted through the use of military force.  This, too, helped to start WWII.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more