Yeah, but where in the back? 
I’m fascinated by Europe’s love of fascism. I’m able to observe it from some remove, unlike America’s love of fascism. I look at France’s Le Pen and am reminded of my feelings about the pre-war Polish government and the Polish people’s reaction to Hitler–“He’s a fascist but he’s not OUR fascist.” What the hell is it about people WANTING to be led by right-wing demagogues?
Europe has a history of States scrapping with each other, that alone makes them keener on strong leadership.
Add to that a failing economy and ‘someone who will sort things out’ becomes an attractive prospect.
The UK had its bout with Cromwell, but after that the island was relatively safe from internal and external invasion - well a lot safer than our continental neighbours - similarly the USA is effectively an island.
My take is that Dictatorship is a response to external threats and incompetently managed economies. An alternative way of stating it is that Parliamentary Democracy is a luxury.
Reason number 1 - as already mentioned, no death camps as such, relatively fewer atrocities than Germany or Japan (more like 0.0025% than 25%)
Reason number 2 - politically expedient at the end of the war, as Italy had come over to the allied side, nations rebuilding, reconciliation vs. revenge, fascists still present in Italian power structures seen as natural allies against the Red Menace etc. I should add that the nascent cold war should never be overlooked in understanding some of the more egregious mythologizing about WWII.
As for the big question, why we love our fascists, well, I’d venture that it’s because they’re big strong clean-living heroic types who’ll protect us against the bad guys ? Better to have them in the tent pissing out, than the other way around ? Tribal instinct, alpha-male etc ?
Maurice Papon is a great case study of how a war criminal could not only escape punishment, but remain an influential figure. Short version, he participated in the deportation of French Jews to death camps in the 40s, oversaw a couple of very dubious incidents as Paris chief of police in the 50s and 60s, rose as far as government minister in the 70s, spent the 80s on trial for war crimes, and was ultimately convicted in the 90s. He died a couple of months ago.
The problem with the Italian Navy is that it wasn’t allowed to be used effectively. While it’s true that it didn’t have an itegral air arm, this may not have been the disaster in the making that other posters have been suggesting. The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to provide air cover and air attack capability to a fleet independant of land air support.
The Italian Navy of WWII wasn’t meant to be used for deep striking against England, or to destroy convoys from the US, it was meant to control the Mediterranean. It’s not unreasonable, I think, to make the argument that a fleet that’s never going to be more than several hundred miles from Italy doesn’t need an integral air arm.
(Yes, I’m aware that Midway and Taranto both offer arguments for having carriers even when land-based aircraft might have been available - but even there, the lessons of those famous instances of naval air victories aren’t quite applicable to the Italian Navy: Without England’s Empire, or the sheer scope of the Pacific to provide reasons why integral naval air would be worth the investment it would require compared to building a similar capability for the Mediterranean using land-based aircraft. Both combatants had other compelling reasons to build aircraft carriers, and then took advantage of that capability in specific operations that were outside of the original considerations for building that capability.)
More of a flaw for the Italian Navy had been the problems with chain of command and the near-universal inadequacy of early WWII AA armament on all capital ships. The little I know about the whole North African campaign, and the fight for Malta has left me wondering why the Italians didn’t use their surface fleet to more thoroughly isolate the island. The reading I’ve done implies (and I seem to recall at least one specific claim) that at one point the island was a tanker load of fuel away from having to surrender, simply because it wouldn’t have been able to keep defending itself. And the Axis, while not knowing the exact degree of the difficulties that Malta was in, had a very good idea of just how desperate the situation had to be getting.
I do not think Tojo can be considered like Hitler or Mussolini.Japan had about 5-or 6 PMs from 1933-1945.Tojo was not a dictator.He was a war criminal though.
The Japanese system did not need a single dictator, of course. Tojo was the leading figure among the rulers of Japan, and is rightly despised for his role. One caveat is that Japan’s war crimes were not as organized as Germany’s. Local commands and groups were quite happy to do whatever atrocities they pleased, and it was simply understood that no one cared about it at the top. Of course, the rulers also approved some individual nastiness of their own.
Well, there were both concentration camps and extermination camps. Obviously, the latter were much worse.