Yes, the attempt was successful but the assassination failed. They weren't thwarted or abandoned as far more assassination attempts against Mussolini were.
I disagree, the next paragraph says only one came close to succeeding. I think it should have said “completed” attempts at least to avoid this obvious confusion.
I also wouldn't word it that way, but it is technically correct. The four "successful" attempts all involve Mussolini in situations where slightly worse luck would have killed him, missed shots or bombs thrown and a sniper arrested just before he reached a balcony. Meanwhile there were many other plots against his life that didn't ever put him in danger.
I'm also quite confused on the wording here - I would guess you can have multiple people succeed at assassinating someone (if they are all intent on their plan, they all follow the steps of their plan and the target ends up dead whether directly due to their actions or not) but not if the target remains alive.
It's especially confusing considering that Mussolini eventually met his end at the hands of partisans. So, the event that actually did end his life ... was not a successful assassination?
His death was not an “assassination attempt”, but an instance of rough military justice. He was detained while trying to escape a country his troops had lost control of, and subsequently executed. This was (and is) a common instance in military conflicts.
>“He was very misogynistic, as was the entire fascist regime,” she says. “He was shocked to be shot by a woman. And he was shocked to be shot by a foreigner. It was a kind of injury to his great ego.”
>[...]
>As Stonor Saunders explains to the World, misogyny and stigma surrounding mental illness played a role in silencing Gibson’s story for decades.
Chauvenism isn't misogyny, but this historian has faith that mountains can be moved so illusion may become reality.
Your accusation is unwarranted. The repeated unsupported use of this now-common epithet does not fit the times or situations it describes. Does any challenge of unstated premises constitute flamebait to you?
"This historian has faith that mountains can be moved so illusion may become reality" reads as sarcasm to me. If you didn't mean it that way, then your comment lacked enough information to make your good intentions clear.
alternative history tends to two paths. The one you say: it would have headed off some X. And, the weight of circumstance: no, somebody else would have filled the need for X, X was going to happen come what may.
They can if they're built around a cult of personality, of which Mussolini's Italy is often considered an archetype. Though, I have no idea what might have replaced Mussolini's regime.
In 1926 Italy had already vastly changed the state (i.e. the parliament could no control the government, elections were tilted in favour of the fascist party) but it was still technically a democracy, it's only in November 1926 that non-fascist parties and organizations were abolished.
So, interestingly this specific attempt might have pushed things in 2 directions: faster and harsher repression, or the rise of a less fundamentalist leader.
Trump was hardly a dictator (he would have loved to be) and he couldn't make any non-reversible changes to the system. He probably won't have any sensible effects in the future of humanity.
He vastly accelerated the climate crisis and caused a huge amount of damage by pretending it doesn't exist. He also steered us closer towards a nuclear confrontation.
This is true in general, but not in the extreme case of fascistic systems built on the perception of power and on cults of personalities. Killing Mussolini would have dealt a very serious blow to fascist Italy, probably enough to facilitate a collapse.
The three key elements are : perception of strength being central to ideology, aestheticized politics, and cult of personality.
I think by "successful" they mean something like "successfully completed." Four attempts to kill Mussolini were carried out to completion, but only one actually succeeded in injuring him, while the others basically just missed.
> Gibson’s home country of Ireland is hoping to belatedly recognize her legacy, reports Orla Barry for public radio program the World. The Dublin City Council recently passed a motion giving initial approval for the installation of a plaque in Gibson’s honor.
Is it a good policy for a nation to glorify and honor an attempt at assassinating the leader of a nation? Compare to John Brown the abolitionist, who raided a federal armory in an attempt to start a slave revolt (and was executed for treason). Might it be better to say "don't do these things no matter how important you think your cause is"?
So, how many current world leaders would be on your "justifiable to assassinate" list? Kim Jong-un, perhaps? Should it be official U.S. policy to have the CIA working on trying to kill him? Kim Jong-un presumably thinks we're just as evil as we might think he is; should he feel justified in trying to assassinate the leaders of Western countries? How about Putin, people say he jails his political opponents and rigs his elections, does he count? Should there be a Cold War of Assassination going on?
Why not start with the leaders of the USA, Israel and the West for their notorious war crimes?
At least North Korea hasn't invaded anyone for the last 60 years. As they said in the Nuremberg trials, aggression is the ultimate war crimes, a capital one.
Killing Kim Jong Un will not make anything better. Foreign state assasinations especially never work out.
Homegrown assasinations of fascist leaders whose basis for power is a projection of strength and a cult of personality, with strong existing domestic oppositions?
According to this [0] she had moved to Rome in 1922. Unlike 9-11ers, she didn’t move to the country explicitly to perform the action; she likely grew to dislike Mussolini by spending time in the country. By that metric, I’d call it home-grown.
> In her room at the convent Gibson had amassed a collection of newspaper cuttings critical of Mussolini, and others outlining his movements. She also had a box of bullets. The origin of the revolver, her second, was never determined. The lead detective investigating the case believed Gibson was feigning madness and had not acted alone but possibly in collaboration with catholic modernist dissidents from the poor Trastevere neighbourhood. [...]
> In June 1926, succumbing to immense pressure, Gibson made a confession. Her story was that she had committed the crime to impress an Italian duke named Giovanni Colonna, who she had fallen in love with years before in Switzerland. Vehemently opposed to fascism, she claimed Colonna had communicated his desire for Mussolini's death through a series of clues before gifting her with gun and bullets, that led her to the assassination site that fateful day. The duke was under surveillance for anti-fascist activities, and his movements at the time of the shooting could not be accounted for, lending plausibility to Gibson's account.
Clearly this was not the work of a foreign faction, there was a clear element of Italian involvement.
Words placed into the mouth of a crazy woman (implicating an enemy of the people asking the questions) who was determined to kill -somebody- it’s mentioned elsewhere that she may have wanted to target the Pope.
To be clear: Violet Gibson was in no way Italian or connected in any meaningful way to Italy.
One might also observe that the violent attack in a foreign country might almost be ‘Imperialist’.
And if the attack was politically motivated (I personally think she was a few sandwiches short of a picnic), then she’s down for some political violence.
In that case she’s a bit more facist than anti-facist.
I mean sure, and they're certainly welcome to try. But the balance of world power, and all the things those powers do to ensure that power, almost certainly guarantees failure.
> at the time she pulled the trigger, he was neither a dictator or genocidal
Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922.
As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti.
By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
Whether political violence is warranted rests upon three factors. Firstly, one must consider if you are initiating political violence or simply reacting - which sadly is necessary. Mussolini obviously had instigated political violence much before.
Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother?
Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable.
In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
I fundamentally disagree. On such a basis a white supremisist could justify murder against the ‘violent’ state in the absence of the possibilty of being elected.
Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?
In 1926 Fascist Italy was no worse than the UK and French empires in terms of evil committed and potential to commit more evil. Heck even the Netherlands was comitting more evil at the time.
Fascism as an ideology had an outsized impact on the European political discourse. Partly because many democracies on the continent were young and fragile, partly because radio and cinema had started to spread the news faster than ever, partly because mass-education started at the end of the previous century had resulted in more and more people reading newspapers, partly because it was a reaction other continent-wide movements (socialism and communism) - fascism was observed/fought/supported very keenly across most of Europe since 1920. It generated very strong opinions, as you might imagine, in a context where the role of violence in political life was already hotly debated “on the other side” (leftists had been violently repressed for decades already, so there were demands to respond in kind with terrorist actions and so on - and of course the USSR had taken that to the next level). And it was effectively a negation of representative democracy systems, which were often seen as ineffective in times of deep crisis.
Fascism was heralded by some as “the next step” in political evolution, which rightly horrified a significant number of people who could see the inevitable results. It was not judged by the same parameters of an expansionist foreign power, but by the potential for “evil” in one’s own country.
John Brown has memorials, it is not like he would not be celebrated. Also, are you trying to claim radical pacifism Because you mentioning John Brown opens interesting questions. At which point is it ok to respond to violence with violence? At which point is it ok to defend others with violence? The time at which he did what he done was already violent and the slavery itself was hold by violence.
Brown claimed that slavery is war (and violence) against own people and therefore it is ok to use violence to fight it. Does the expectation of non-violent opposition holds for anti nazi partisans too? What would be difference? What about other war heroes?
Didn't Churchill have fascist sympathies as well. Do you think he should have been shot as well?
And what about the billions of people that sees the US as a fascistic imperialistic hydra? Would it be cool to pick of Obama as well?
What if these guys are falsely accused for being fascists by teenagers who never read a history book in their life.
That being said posts like this doesn't belong on HN and cries for murder most definitely don't. A real shame might as well head over to reddit or 4chan for this parroting of slogans.
There are lots of gray areas in life, and lots of complex questions which require nuanced well thought-out answers.
It's often useful to problematise simple statements, to draw out different implications and to shed light on what might be un or under considered aspects.
I don't think your comment does this though. Mussolini was a fascist. Not someone with some fascist sympathies, or someone who someone else accused of being fascistic.
Maybe my response was a bit glib. Violence is certainly not something to be undertaken lightly but I think political violence against fascists is justified, and can be considered self-defence.
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN, and please stop using the site primarily for ideological battle? The latter is especially important because it destroys the curiosity that HN is supposed to be for. I had to look back months in your comment history before I saw something that wasn't off this nature...that's bad. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and return to the intended spirit of the site we'd appreciate it.
She wasn't Irish. She was British but born in Ireland. This is part of Ireland's attempt to cobble together some sort of anti fascist history as nationalism rises due to the displacement levels of immigration seeing numbers greater than the historical plantations of her kind, the legacy of which still causes trouble to this day.
More accurate to say she was Anglo-Irish, as she was born in Ireland.
> This is part of Ireland's attempt to cobble together some sort of anti fascist history as nationalism rises due to the displacement levels of immigration seeing numbers greater than the historical plantations of her kind ...
Who is creating this narrative? And what do you mean by "Ireland's attempt"?
Nationalism tends to have a different meaning in Ireland and while there is some anti immigration feeling on the rise I would suggest that it is small and entirely misplaced in a country from which many more people traditionally emigrate.
Personally I think putting up a plaque celebrating someone with mental health problems and a revolver, who attempted to murder someone doesn’t make any sense.
Then why did Violet Gibson try to kill Mussolini, not someone less well protected? If you want to cause as much murder as possible, shouldn't you kill a policeperson or a pacifist activist rather than a fascist dictator?
Or read the original news articles for yourself. I don't think the podcast was unbiased.
Where you'll read comments like "Not the least curious thing about her is that she was an ardent admirer of Mussolini. The idea of a dictator appealed to her. She had regarded Napoleon as one of the world's greatest men"
She was found wandering with a knife.
And even the podcast mentions she wasn't even expecting Mussolini to be there, but she had a gun....
Then HN is, for the lack of a better word, foolish. Politics is violence. What do you think the military does? What do you think the prison system does does? What do you think the police do?
These are all political institutions, and they are all violent; it’s just that the target of the violence is maybe easier for some to ignore (poor black and brown people)
The point seems to be that violence is inherent to politics, therefore does not on its own render an act unjustifiable; not that all violence for political purpose is justified.
It's just pointing out that all political power in this world is ultimately held through the direct or indirect threat of violence. It's not a moral judgement but a fact of the world.
If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.
Yes everyone could go around abiding the law all the time, and we could skip the Gordon riots, the suffragettes, the battle of Cable Street etc... . I'm glad that's not the world we live in and that people have the courage to follow through with their convictions against state oppression, with violence if need be.
I’m going to leave you with a quote from wikipedias page on Fascism:
“Fascism rejects the assertion that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation”
I never mentioned what politics I agree with, nor can you infer in good faith that I'd celebrate the murder of Jo Cox. You're greatly over-generalising my argument in order to try and prove an absurd consequence.
Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.
But you regard violence as legitimate and positive political tactic in some circumstances. So did Thomas Mair. I think that belief is problematic, and should not be encouraged. By making the connection between apparently acceptable-for-plaques political violence and the national-day-of-morning kind, I hope to draw attention to the fact that it’s fundamentally problematic.
Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?
The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.
Again, you're greatly over-generalising what I'm saying. If violence can sometimes be justified, doesn't follow that everyone who uses violence is justified. It certainly doesn't follow that I support fascism.
There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.
So, people die of starvation in civilized countries - that doesn’t make it right - but we also don’t put up plaques celebrating it.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”
For a state this seems somewhat inevitable, however pretty much all state entities have a duty to use as little violence as possible to get the job done. See European human rights act, Geneva convention etc.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
That’s an overgeneralization. It’s like saying that, because a car’s dashboard is made of plastic, the whole car is inherently plastic.
The state has a monopoly on violence, as famously stated, but is not necessarily made of violence, nor should its governance and policy-creation mechanisms necessarily include violence. In fact, the main characteristic of modern democratic institutions is that they removed violence from most of the process.
This seems a little sophistic. Yes, incarceration is not actually violent. It may be "violent" in some metaphorical sense, and some of the other inmates may be violent, but incarceration itself is not violent.
I've had clients get incarcerated, and I've had clients facing potential capital sentences, and there is a world of difference.
Generally, my impression is that HN is not against such thing.
Nevertheless, when we are talking about Mussolini or 1926, violence and politics were mixed. There was no such thing as politics without mix of violence, because the question of "who should we be violent against" was the major political question of the time.
Moreover at that time, Mussoliny himself was source of a lot of that violence.
Before using a time machine to kill Hitler you should brush up on your German, all of the potential successors were a lot more stable, the war might have ended very differently if Göring or Goebbels came to power. As the saying goes, Hitler was the best general the Allies had. If the US had entered the war a week later or if Germany did not declare war on the Soviet Union, the outcome would have likely have been in Germany’s favor.
Very unlikely. Germany had no chance of invading Britain as its navy was a joke. Without invading the Soviet Union, it would have run out of oil even faster than it historically did, crippling its ability to defend against bombing attacks.
Without an Eastern Front, more troops may have been available to defend against a naval invasion. But eventually, Stalin would have likely opened the front himself. Even if not, a lot of troops would have been necessary to guard against a possible Soviet invasion anyway.
132 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 230 ms ] threadBack to the editors with this article!
>[...]
>As Stonor Saunders explains to the World, misogyny and stigma surrounding mental illness played a role in silencing Gibson’s story for decades.
Chauvenism isn't misogyny, but this historian has faith that mountains can be moved so illusion may become reality.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So, interestingly this specific attempt might have pushed things in 2 directions: faster and harsher repression, or the rise of a less fundamentalist leader.
There's plenty of material for ucronic writing :)
The three key elements are : perception of strength being central to ideology, aestheticized politics, and cult of personality.
I’m very lost.
Is it a good policy for a nation to glorify and honor an attempt at assassinating the leader of a nation? Compare to John Brown the abolitionist, who raided a federal armory in an attempt to start a slave revolt (and was executed for treason). Might it be better to say "don't do these things no matter how important you think your cause is"?
I don't see either why one should oppose a plaque for John Brown.
At least North Korea hasn't invaded anyone for the last 60 years. As they said in the Nuremberg trials, aggression is the ultimate war crimes, a capital one.
What is the point of including the USA and Israel if you are going to append the West?
Or was it too hard to list the individual perpetrators and just went for what felt good?
[PS. Not a westerner]
Homegrown assasinations of fascist leaders whose basis for power is a projection of strength and a cult of personality, with strong existing domestic oppositions?
That's very different in outcome.
By that measure 9-11 was home grown!
[0] https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/profile-viole...
Says 1924, and that she was already toying with the idea of martyrdom.
> In her room at the convent Gibson had amassed a collection of newspaper cuttings critical of Mussolini, and others outlining his movements. She also had a box of bullets. The origin of the revolver, her second, was never determined. The lead detective investigating the case believed Gibson was feigning madness and had not acted alone but possibly in collaboration with catholic modernist dissidents from the poor Trastevere neighbourhood. [...]
> In June 1926, succumbing to immense pressure, Gibson made a confession. Her story was that she had committed the crime to impress an Italian duke named Giovanni Colonna, who she had fallen in love with years before in Switzerland. Vehemently opposed to fascism, she claimed Colonna had communicated his desire for Mussolini's death through a series of clues before gifting her with gun and bullets, that led her to the assassination site that fateful day. The duke was under surveillance for anti-fascist activities, and his movements at the time of the shooting could not be accounted for, lending plausibility to Gibson's account.
Clearly this was not the work of a foreign faction, there was a clear element of Italian involvement.
Not home grown.
Anyway, there is no point arguing about this.
Will you at least concede the point that she’d been in Italy for less than 2 years?
One might also observe that the violent attack in a foreign country might almost be ‘Imperialist’.
And if the attack was politically motivated (I personally think she was a few sandwiches short of a picnic), then she’s down for some political violence.
In that case she’s a bit more facist than anti-facist.
Perhaps violence is the right way to address all people who have politics we don’t agree with?
Thomas Mair agrees with you.
Historians typically mark the official beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship in 1924, when, following the assassination of socialist MP Giacomo Matteotti by fascists and the subsequent clamour, he went to Parliament and basically told MPs to “shut up or else”. And let’s not forget that he had been appointed Prime Minister with a de-facto coup in 1922.
As for “genocidal”, I’m not sure what parameters could be used. The infamous invasion of Ethiopia with chemical weapons had not happened yet, and obviously the Racial Laws were a long way away, but he had already begun the “pacification” of Libya (war started in 1923). Also, political violence against the opposition was already large-scale, as shown with Matteotti.
By 1926 it was pretty clear he wasn’t a simple political leader for sure, and he had already spoken at length against representative democracy. Whether that deserved an assassination attempt, is debatable; but there is little question that by 1926 he could be defined as a violent dictator.
Then, one must consider efficacy - if it's going to be useless then why bother?
Finally, one must consider the presence of altermatives. If you can at all avoid it, then political violence is not really justifiable.
In this case, the three elements converged, and it's in those cases that political violence can be warranted if done for good. This isn't even controversial, people defend the violence of the US Founding Fathers which engaged in much more violence for much, much, much less.
Presumably on that basis you see the killing of Jo Cox as justified?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Fascism was heralded by some as “the next step” in political evolution, which rightly horrified a significant number of people who could see the inevitable results. It was not judged by the same parameters of an expansionist foreign power, but by the potential for “evil” in one’s own country.
Brown claimed that slavery is war (and violence) against own people and therefore it is ok to use violence to fight it. Does the expectation of non-violent opposition holds for anti nazi partisans too? What would be difference? What about other war heroes?
And what about the billions of people that sees the US as a fascistic imperialistic hydra? Would it be cool to pick of Obama as well?
What if these guys are falsely accused for being fascists by teenagers who never read a history book in their life.
That being said posts like this doesn't belong on HN and cries for murder most definitely don't. A real shame might as well head over to reddit or 4chan for this parroting of slogans.
It's often useful to problematise simple statements, to draw out different implications and to shed light on what might be un or under considered aspects.
I don't think your comment does this though. Mussolini was a fascist. Not someone with some fascist sympathies, or someone who someone else accused of being fascistic.
Maybe my response was a bit glib. Violence is certainly not something to be undertaken lightly but I think political violence against fascists is justified, and can be considered self-defence.
Apparently it’s Facebook.
Cool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ethiopia
Especially political opponents that stops slavery.
(Edit not that I am particularly pro Mussolini, but maybe things aren't always black and white).
> This is part of Ireland's attempt to cobble together some sort of anti fascist history as nationalism rises due to the displacement levels of immigration seeing numbers greater than the historical plantations of her kind ...
Who is creating this narrative? And what do you mean by "Ireland's attempt"?
Listen to it.
Where you'll read comments like "Not the least curious thing about her is that she was an ardent admirer of Mussolini. The idea of a dictator appealed to her. She had regarded Napoleon as one of the world's greatest men"
She was found wandering with a knife.
And even the podcast mentions she wasn't even expecting Mussolini to be there, but she had a gun....
https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=...
I'm also reminded of the term "premature anti-fascist", used against people who were against Fascism too early before WW2.
These are all political institutions, and they are all violent; it’s just that the target of the violence is maybe easier for some to ignore (poor black and brown people)
Thomas Mair didn’t like the Jo Coxs politics so he took a shot too.
I guess you’ll be setting up a kickstarter for a plaque for him too?
Cool
Do you reject all violence? Under all circumstances? Some think that to be admirable. I think it's nonsense.
If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.
Of course if you voiced unpopular opinions publicly you might get shot by someone who cites Violet Gibson or Thomas Mair as an inspiration.
Or you know - we could not put up plaques to attempted murderers.
Because as I pointed out - you only cited examples whose politics you agree with.
Take the mental leap.
Congratulations.
Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.
Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?
The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.
There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”
We don't, though. Violence is legal if it's being carried out by state-sanctioned actors such as the police or army in the course of their duties.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
No, that's not my principle and I've corrected you multiple times.
The state has a monopoly on violence, as famously stated, but is not necessarily made of violence, nor should its governance and policy-creation mechanisms necessarily include violence. In fact, the main characteristic of modern democratic institutions is that they removed violence from most of the process.
I've had clients get incarcerated, and I've had clients facing potential capital sentences, and there is a world of difference.
Nevertheless, when we are talking about Mussolini or 1926, violence and politics were mixed. There was no such thing as politics without mix of violence, because the question of "who should we be violent against" was the major political question of the time.
Moreover at that time, Mussoliny himself was source of a lot of that violence.
Without an Eastern Front, more troops may have been available to defend against a naval invasion. But eventually, Stalin would have likely opened the front himself. Even if not, a lot of troops would have been necessary to guard against a possible Soviet invasion anyway.