Comparison of the Foreign Policies of Mussolini and Hitler until 1939

With the end of WWI multiple problems surfaced. Fascism took a form under the name of Mussolini, followed by Hitler as well. Communism ruled in the east, and the fear of it in the west, was strong. The League of Nations, the few lasting remains of the Treaty of Versailles, seemed to be shattering while wars continued on. Thus it came down to the individual powers to try to keep the few remaining strands of peace together. With the rise of new powers this became more and more difficult especially with the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Their way of action was usually far more drastic then England or France would have liked. To that their foreign policies were mostly focused on their own gains and not that of international peace. Until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies.

Why both Mussolini and Hitler acted at certain times in certain ways has been discussed by multiple historians. Some think that both had fixed agendas and followed them all the way through. Other saw them as opportunists and took every chance they had. However the nationalistic goals were there and can be clearly traced through their actions.

For Mussolini and Hitler there was nothing more important than their countries. Thus both of their foreign policies were motivated by the main leading cause of nationalism. Mussolini having risen to power already in the 1920s had nationalistic aims to make Italy greater. He wanted to return Italy to its former Roman Empire glory. This meant increasing Italian landholdings, resources, and economic as well as militaristic strength. It also meant connections to greater powers. These actions can be seen by his expansions into Abyssinia and Albania as well as his method of autarky (economic self-sufficiency). Even his links with U.S. one of the rising powers of the time made it clear that Mussolini was aiming for Italy to become a world power once again.

Hitler also had similar nationalistic aims, focusing on German glory. Although in his original plans he wished to claim the old colonies lost after WWI, he decided for a more realistic goal of expansion to the east. The unity of the German people, revision of the Treaty of Versailles, economic strength (also the idea of autarky), military strength, and alliances with great powers (Britain was a possibility here) included some of his aims.

All these aims can be reflected back upon each of these members in their actions of foreign policy, using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances.

Of course there is the counterargument that neither Hitler nor Mussolini had any plans. In truth they were just opportunists. Not even their nationalistic parties had an influence on their actions. Rather they were focused on gaining glory for themselves.

From a Revisionists viewpoint, the aims of fascism can be seen as forever changing. As Mommsen in his book “National Socialism: Continuity and Change” puts it: “It is questionable… whether National Socialist foreign policy can be considered as an unchanging pursuit of established priorities.” He then goes on to say that “Hitler’s foreign policy aims…knew no bounds.” A counterfactualist would question that what if Mussolini had not risen to power at all and therefore created fascism, would Hitler even have existed? What if there never would have been either leader, would their still have been such a nationalistic focused foreign policy of each respective country?

The first method used by both Mussolini and Hitler to accomplish their nationalistic foreign policies was militarism.

Mussolini wanted a glorified Italy, and for this he needed to expand. However to expand he needed an army, and a strong one. This is why he started to build his army. Italy had been looked down upon during the Washington Naval Conference, limiting its naval power. Why should Mussolini abide to this? In order to gain more resources, to return Italy to its former glory, Mussolini needed an army, thus he started to rearm.

Hitler had similar feelings. In the Treaty of Versailles Germany had been given a limited amount of army, no air force, and no navy. To that the Rhineland area had to stay a demilitarized zone. This was enough to cause problems for any nationalistic aims for a greater Germany. If the own land was not even fully controlled by a German army, how could one ever hope to expand to the east?

Another important aspect which shows that the nationalistic aims of the foreign policies were converted by militarism was the Spanish Civil War. With the aid of Mussolini and Hitler, Franco was able to rise in Spain. Of course both Italy and Germany would be happy about an ally in the west however this was not their major goal. For Hitler, what better place was there than the Spanish Civil War to test his military machine, especially new inventions such as rockets? For any foreign policies aims of expanding Germany, Hitler needed to have a well-trained army, and he needed to be sure it could work. Mussolini had other aims in the Spanish Civil War. While he too may have been testing his army, he most importantly wanted to have glory in war for Italy. To show the might of Italy to the rest of the world. Thus both countries used militarism to prepare their countries for further goals of their nationalistic foreign policies.

A counterargument to the whole idea of militarism playing a role in the foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler is that since all of their aims were more based on expansion, this could be achieved through clever political games. Therefore the main focus was actually was gaining political strength not military strength.

The actions of both Mussolini and Hitler can be analyzed from different viewpoints of historians. For example from a militaristic historian viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini were only able to pursuit political as well as physical land goals (nationalistic goals) with military power.  A cliometric historian in contrast would credit the fast growing economies of both countries to the aggressive foreign polices of Mussolini and Hitler. Since only through this economic upswing could they guarantee their polices a success and keep a happy home front.

With the full aid of militarism, Mussolini and Hitler, following their nationalistic foreign policy aims of expansion and greatness of their countries, decided to follow a path of Imperialism. This was however not possible without the militaristic strengths and actions mentioned before.

One of the most similar actions both Mussolini and Hitler take are that of protectorates. Albania for Italy became a protectorate in 1926. For Germany, it was Czechoslovakia (for a short time). Both had the wish to expand and both used whatever means necessary. A small difference can be found though: Italy was focused on colonies while Germany wished more for expansion within Europe.

Interesting to note is that the foreign policy aims of both are first done through political means and then by military force. Hitler first receives the Sudetenland through the Munich Conference, a clear political tactic. However then he continues to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, to the great horror of its citizens.

Italy follows the same steps. Forming Albania as a protectorate in 1926, Mussolini then invades it directly in April of 1939.

Other imperialist actions taken by Mussolini for his nationalistic foreign policy aims is the invasion of Ethiopia. Having lost before to this country, Italy did not wish to keep this humiliation unaddressed. To that, the imperialistic wish to expand further and gain more resources, had a clear factor as well.

Hitler in contrast, has no wish to expand outside of Europe and therefore could not solely rely on military actions. Both however use military force to put pressure on the western powers, who wish to avoid war to get what they want in imperialistically. Mussolini invades Abyssinian and then receives a piece from the League of Nations. Hitler too, used military force especially in the aspect of Czechoslovakia to gain the upper hand on the Munich Conference table (meeting of Italy, England, France, and Germany) and gained Sudetenland. Therefore all in all, it was through the use of militarism, that imperialism could be used to continue on the nationalistic foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler.

In the case of Hitler, it can be argued that what he pursued was in fact not imperialism but simply war. Imperialism is usually only argued for countries which are expanding outside of their countries. This would then work in the idea of Mussolini since he wanted colonies outside of the European continent.

From a political viewpoint, Hitler and Mussolini pursued political strength and in order to have more influence over the negotiating table, they wanted to have more land. Thus the strength of imperialism and militarism was needed. From a Marxism stand point, there was no reason at all for these focuses on imperialism and nationalism since all borders would soon dissolve for one united people, the working people. Thus the struggle of Mussolini and Hitler for more land, more power, was simply pointless.

The foreign policies of Mussolini and Hitler, mostly motivated by Nationalism, then continued on to use alliances in exchange for areas were imperialism and militarism failed.

Hitler wanted ‘Lebensraum’ (living space) for his German people. To that, his racial theories of the Aryan race caused great dislike for Eastern countries. While it can be argued, Hitler’s main goal towards the east was Russia. However a two front war had proven catastrophic for Germany in WWI. To that, the need for an ally was stronger to the years leading up to WWII then the main goal. For Hitler, alliances were only for the moment, “scraps of paper” as he would famously call the agreement between England and Germany at Munich.

One most important use of alliances, were militarism and imperialism served impossible at the time was the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler wanted to gain Poland, and Stalin wanted to keep Germany from Russia’s throat. Both were happy, for the most part. Although Hitler’s nationalistic foreign policy aims focused on expansion to the east, there was no way he could risk a war with Russia yet. Hitler, while he may have been aiming for war, still hoped to gain as much land as he could by militarism and then political negotiations before total war was needed.

Mussolini also tried to use the work of alliances to in a way complete his foreign policies. A strong Italy alone could not stand long therefore he needed something to support him. To that, the more connections one had the more powerful one seemed. Allies could meet victory or defeat. However just like Hitler, Mussolini varied in his alliances. At first, with the Stresa Conference, it seemed as if Italy would side with Britain and France. A strong Stresa front against Germany. However this holding together with Britain, just like Germany with the Munich Conference, would not hold long. Britain wanted peace, Germany and Italy wanted expansion, and if war was needed they were open to it. To that it was Britain which often criticized Mussolini’s actions, just like the invasion of Abyssinia. In contrast Germany supported Italy. It was therefore only natural that the two countries would in the end join hand in hand in the Pact of Steel. This alliance worked since Mussolini had no wish to in anyway expand northwards, therefore this did not come into any conflict with his nationalistic foreign policy aims. The old former glory was focused on gaining colonies. Germany, too had no wish for Italian land. It was focused on the unity of the German race as well as expansion to the east.  Thus with the use of alliances, both countries could keep things politically under control until possible militaristic actions could be taken to fulfill the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

One could counter argue that Mussolini never considered alliances as a way to reach his goals. He saw it more as a needed method for being present in the world. If he could cut himself off and rule separately like the Roman emperor had done there would be no problem.

Hitler in contrast, it could be argued, saw alliances as the first mean to create a path for militarism, which then leads to imperialism. This can be seen by the actions he took to gain control of the Sudetenland. At first he seemed to ally himself with Britain, even signing the famous ‘scarp of paper’ at the Munich conference, declaring he had peaceful intentions, when he suddenly turned around, claimed the Sudetenland (politically legally) and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia as well.

Using prosopography, history taught through the eyes of a common man, then the path Hitler was taking to lead Germany was very confusing. As a common man he wished to follow his leader, and if his leader saw it fit to make allies with Russia or Britain it was fine as long as the up swinging economy and life style stayed. From a militaristic standpoint, Mussolini used alliances for nothing more then to gain more power for himself militarily speaking. This meant making alliances with countries whose land Italy wanted was a hindrance to the nationalistic foreign policy goals.

 

Analyzing the foreign polices of Hitler and Mussolini and aligning them with each other is something we can do now. At the time, each was acting for their individual goals, and for them the similarities may not have been as apparent. There is also the problem that we ourselves were not there at the time. We cannot in any way know whether they were both really opportunists or not. We do not have the feeling of anxiety at the time. To that, my analyses may be off. I, limited to a few textbooks and my view (which could be biased and only reflect one standpoint) can limit this analyses. Even questioning their similarities and difference of Mussolini’s foreign policy and Hitler’s can already cause complication. All we have to go on are the few things left behind.

Looking at the events mentioned above, it is possible to see that until 1939, the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini were both mainly motivated by nationalism using the means of militarism, imperialism, and alliances to enforce these nationalistic foreign policies. Nationalistic aims included bringing glory for their countries, economic strength, and expansion. It is of course hard to say who influenced who. Both living at the same time they may have subconsciously influenced each other. However what each leader wanted was clear, and how they went about it is clear as well. While it may be true to state that had it not been for the policy of Appeasement and the Failure of the League neither Hitler nor Mussolini had have gotten so far, there is no way we can ever be sure. We can only look at what facts we have and try to formulate our own opinions.