There remained some suspicion of fascist methods (e.g. in the Italianization campaign in the Alto Adige)¹⁸; Franco‐Italian squabbling in the Balkans was seen as ‘entirely ridiculous’, but generally there was little to upset The Times’ claim that the British and Italian empires were in ‘perfect harmony’.¹⁹ By the end of the decade, Mussolini’s foreign policy was earning favourable reviews.

The Times (7 June 1928) found that the Duce had been ‘indefatigable and successful’ in winning for Italy the place of a Great Power. There was no need to worry about fascist rhetoric while Mussolini was there to regulate it. The Telegraph (10 December 1928) approved the ‘uncompromising realist’ who had an ‘honourable record’ on peace and disarmament. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain, long a devotee of Italy’s holiday sunshine, was on terms of personal friendship with the Duce. ‘I am confident that he [Mussolini] is a patriot and a sincere man; I trust his word when given and I think that we might easily go far before finding an Italian with whom it would be as easy for the British Government to work.’²⁰

[…]

The Telegraph eagerly applauded the fascist labour laws, which it considered a ‘daring innovation’ inspired by ‘pure patriotism’ to change the lackadaisical Italian spirit.²⁷ The Times was more doubtful of fascist laws, recording that Mussolini was too much of a statesman to be ruled by theory. Nevertheless the paper did feel that the fall of the régime would be ’too horrible to contemplate’. The Times was not specific, but for Italy it clearly preferred Mussolinian fascism to giolittismo or communism. The Italians had not reached the British level and so needed to be ruled in a different fashion.²⁸

This was the paradox long underlying British conservative attitudes to […] fascism: only a few foolish extremists wanted to introduce it in Britain, even under the stress of domestic troubles like the General Strike. But for Italy [fascism], whatever the doubts clouding the future, was for the present salutary.

[…]

[Fascism’s] economic [developments] reached a wider audience. The effect of the Depression in Britain shook the assumption that nothing could be learned from other countries. At the end of 1932 The Telegraph (22 December), the businessman’s organ, writing of Italy’s economic successes, attributed them to fascist policies.

‘The country has a government conscious of what it wants to do, and generally able to do it. It has proved its efficiency. One notable example of many that could be cited is the success of its enormous programme of public works, and of land reclamation in particular, which has changed the face of Italy and brought her within sight of being self‐sufficient in wheat.’ […] In fact, before 1933 there was a general belief that Mussolini’s régime had improved Italy’s material well‐being. The Times headlined its report on land reclamation near Rome as ‘an example from Italy’, and asserted that Sicilian prosperity had increased because of the extinction of the Mafia.³³

[…]

The record of the press is almost too good to be true. There was, after all, a strong right wing in Britain. Moreover fascism was such a vague philosophy that politicians and publicists from Milnerites like Lord Lloyd to Christian anti‐communists like Sir Henry Page-Croft can be found expressing favourable opinions of fascism in Italy or nationalism, order, and planning at home.³⁷

To praise Mussolini’s services to Italy, or to advocate similar theories in England, was not the same as accepting a BUF imitation of fascism. Mosley was no Coriolanus. The British Right, submerged in the National Government after 1931, showed little desire to introduce the system of so paltry a country as Italy. Not for nothing were British conservatives conservative. They knew British methods were best. Fascism was foreign and, as J. L. Garvin remarked, ‘crude’.³⁸

[…]

Praise for [Fascist] Italy was more often heard in discussions of foreign policy. At both the Naval and Disarmament Conferences, Mussolini’s cautious realism received a favourable press. [Rome] was seen as pursuing a sensible middle course. In June 1932 the internationally minded Round Table found reason for praise.

[…]

In the Foreign Office the strategic importance of Italy the Great Power received greater recognition. Privately, Austen Chamberl[ai]n compared Mussolini to Bismarck; Sir John Simon greatly approved of the Four Power Pact and considered [Fascist] Italy ‘the real key to European peace’, but in the same breath predicted that [German Fascism] would overwhelm Austria.⁴⁴ His policy continued to drift, and the press saw no grounds for criticism.

(Emphasis added.)

As we can see, while the press did have its reservations, and it was disinterested in officially adopting fascism, it was nevertheless very tolerant and accepting of it in Italy; only when the Fascists competed with liberal imperialism by invading Ethiopia was the press less positive and more centrist.

Tellingly, the Fascist atrocities in Libya are completely unmentioned.