"what did benito mussolini and hungary's nicholas horthy have in common"

1 answer:

3 0

Benito Mussolini and hungary's Nicholas Horthy, both personalities led a very expanded political movement in Europe before and during the Second World War. Both stood out in the political sphere of their respective countries and supported their revolutionary movements. Both personalities led fascism in Europe.

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Predappio, July 29, 1883, Giulino, April 28, 1945) was an Italian politician, military and journalist; President of the Council of Royal Ministers of Italy from 1922 to 1943 and Duce guide of the Italian Social Republic from 1943 until its execution. He brought to power the National Fascist Party and subsequent Republican Fascist Party, and led a totalitarian regime during the period known as Italian Fascism of the Kingdom of Italy under the blessing of Victor Emmanuel III. In addition, he was the one who led Italy during the Second World War, as part of his imperialist plans in Europe and Africa.

Nicholas Horthy- (Kenderes, June 18, 1868-Estoril, February 9, 1957) was a Hungarian nobleman, military and politician, who served as Regent of Hungary from March 1, 1920 until October 15, 1944. During those years he headed a regime called "conservative autocratic system" 1 with some "essential elements of fascism".

Aide-de-camp to Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, he served in the Austro-Hungarian imperial army during the First World War, and reached the rank of commander-in-chief in 1918. After the armistice he retired to his estates, but returned to public life to become leader of the counterrevolutionary movement that overthrew the communist government of Béla Kun. During the first years of the restoration a harsh repression was unleashed against those suspected of having collaborated with the Béla Kun Government.

You might be interested in

List at least 5 points president Wilson supported at the Paris peace conference in 1919.

STALIN [3.7K]

On this day in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson attends the Paris Peace Conference that would formally end World War I and lay the groundwork for the formation of the League of Nations.

Wilson envisioned a future in which the international community could preempt another conflict as devastating as the First World War and, to that end, he urged leaders from France, Great Britain and Italy to draft at the conference what became known as the Covenant of League of Nations. The document established the concept of a formal league to mediate international disputes in the hope of preventing another world war.

Once drawn, the world’s leaders brought the covenant to their respective governing bodies for approval. In the U.S., Wilson’s promise of mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike rankled the isolationist Republican majority in Congress. Republicans resented Wilson’s failure to appoint one of their representatives to the peace delegation and an equally stubborn Wilson refused his opponents’ offers to compromise. Wary of the covenant’s vague language and potential impact on America’s sovereignty, Congress refused to adopt the international agreement for a League of Nations.

At a stalemate with Congress, President Wilson embarked on an arduous tour across the country to sell the idea of a League of Nations directly to the American people. He argued that isolationism did not work in a world in which violent revolutions and nationalist fervor spilled over international borders and stressed that the League of Nations embodied American values of self-government and the desire to settle conflicts peacefully.

The tour’s intense schedule cost Wilson his health. During the tour he suffered persistent headaches and, upon his return to Washington, he suffered a stroke. He recovered and continued to advocate passage of the covenant, but the stroke and Republican Warren Harding’s election to the presidency in 1921 effectively ended his campaign to get the League of Nations ratified. The League was eventually created, but without the participation of the United States.

7 0

3 years ago

Who spied for the union during the civil war

Liula [17]

Answer:Allan Pinkerton

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

A thesis statement about Golda Meir’s significance would link which phrases? Select all that apply.

Oksanka [162]

The correct phrases to link:

early settler in Israel
female head of state

Details:

Golda Meir was born in Kiev, Ukraine (then part of the Russian Empire), in 1898. Her family emigrated to the United States in 1906, where they settled in Milwaukee, WI. Golda Meir became a Zionist activist and helped raise funds for the settlement and establishment of Israel. She and her husband moved to the Palestine Mandate territory in 1921, becoming settlers in a kibbutz there. (Kibbutzes were collective farming settlements.)

Meir later went on to become prime minister of Israel, holding that office from 1969 to 1974. She was the fourth prime minister of Israel, and has been the only woman to hold that office. Meir was in office as prime minister during the time that Israeli athletes were attacked at the Munich Olympics in 1972, and also during the October War in 1973 (also known as the Yom Kippur War or the Ramadan War).

8 0

3 years ago

Why was controlling Mississippi River so important to the north ?

stiv31 [10]

Answer:

The Mississippi River is the main river transportation system in the nation, and back in the Civil War, this river was even more important for transportation.

Explanation:

The North could now transport troops and supplies deep into the center of the Confederacy.

6 0

3 years ago

Analyze the political, economic, and social ideas that influenced the Haitian Revolution. Compare and contrast these ideas with

zmey [24]

The major factor that led to the Haitian Revolution was the cruelty of slave owners towards their "possessions". The majority of the slaves endured starvation and harsh workdays that led to grave injuries and diseases, which remained untreated. Despite the efforts of the French goverment to supress the emerging rebellions by granting official citizenship to the most prominent of haitians, slavery ended up being abolished and the nation became ultimately independent.

The American and French revolutions were sparked by unfair leaders who belived themselves as beings with ultimate power. Socially, the Americans were mistreated in all aspects for being members of a colony, while the French struggled with the division of their society - consisting of nobles, the clergy and the common people. Economically, the Americans were charged unfeasable taxes, while the French citizenry dealt with the severe debt caused by the numerous, costly wars previously financed by the government.

While the American and French revolutions may differ economically, and somewhat socially, with the Haitian conflict, their political inconformity towards their unfair rulers remains a similarity that has been historically branded as the catalyzer of many, if not all, rebellions of that period of time.

4 0

3 years ago