Talk:Hoare–Laval Pact

Fascist apologia

The second half of this article represents a POV interpretation of Mussolini's foreign policy in the tradition of Renzo De Felice. The claim that Mussolini was forced into an alliance with Hitler is utter bullshit. MacGregor Knox, a professor of international history at LSE, has thoroughly disproved this argument. There is precious little proof to suggest that Mussolini would have remained faithful to the Stresa Front had Britain and France consented to his conquest of Ethiopia. On the other hand, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that Mussolini planned to align with Hitler well before the invasion of Ethiopia. I’ve removed the counterfactual paragraph that claims to ascertain Mussolini’s intentions and in the event that the Hoare-Laval Pact would have been implemented. -V-

The statement that Hoar went to Paris and did the deal is wrong and the footnote for it is out of date. Richard Lamb the Drift to War: 1922 to 1939 states that 2 December 1935 the cabinet gave it imprimatur to the plan. See page 157. This no doubt reflects the declassified of cabinet documents.

-HRB- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:480:A10:5145:52CF:6FAF:46C5 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Could this page be merged with the Second Italo-Abyssinian War page they are relevant to each other.

I disagree with a merger. The Hoare-Laval Pact is related to the war, but there is enough to warrant a separate article. I have to agree with V above. This article is just an apologia for Fascist Italy at present. This argument that Britain and France "forced" Mussolini to ally with Hitler is nonsense. Both the French and British made lots of efforts to make up to Mussolini after 1936 to no effect and much damage to their own prestige. Anyhow, the de Felice interpretation of Mussolini is based on the assumption that he was a "normal leader". MacGregor Knox in his article about "An anti-anti-fascist orthodoxy?" has inflicted a devastating exposure of de Felice, who systematically distorted history in order to glorify Mussolini. After reading Knox's article, it is hard to take de Felice seriously as a historian. Michael Ledeen, one of de Felice's proteges, tried to defend him by attacking Knox as a "stuffy" British historian living in rainy London who is allegedly jealous of the hedonist lifestyle lived by de Felice in sunny Rome. First thing, Knox is American, not British, being a very proud veteran of the Vietnam war. Yes, Knox teaches at LSE, but that does not make him British. It is surprising that Ledeen thinks that Knox is British because he lives in London. Anybody who knows anything about Knox should know that he is a Vietnam veteran, which should provide a pretty good clue that he is an American. Second, and much much importantly, Ledeen doesn't not actually tried to rebut what Knox wrote, instead resorting to dubious speculation about Knox's life based on objectionable national stereotypes (i.e Knox is a "stuffy" British historian jealous of the fun-loving, easy-going Italian). If that is the best that de Felice's fans can come up with as a way of defense of their hero, then I think we can safely say that Knox has won this particular historical dispute. One might add in the work of the Canadian historian Bruce Strang, who has shown that Mussolini's plans for an empire in the Mediterranean at the expense of Britain and France go back to even before he came to power. Back in October 2014, I found the same tedious apologist argument being made on the Mussolini article, and I had to rewrite much of that article to reflect what really happened, citing the most interesting essay by Barry Sullivan. Thankfully, four years later, my good work still stands on the Mussolini article and I see this article also needs a major rewrite as well.----A.S. Brown (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC) 00:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)