Il Duce Fatale

[Webmaster]

by Joseph Salemi » Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:42 pm

Has it occurred to anyone that Mussolini, alone among all the figures of twentieth-century history, is uniquely responsible for involving his country in both World Wars? Not even Hitler can claim that dubious honor.

As a prominent Socialist journalist in 1915, Mussolini played a major role in stirring up war hysteria among the Italians. He broke with the pacifist elements of the Socialist movement, and lent his voice instead to those wild cries for "Guerra!" that were coming from crazy types like D'Annunzio. This agitation eventually brought Italy into the useless bloodbath of World War I. It was totally unnecessary, as Italy's sensible politicians and diplomats had managed to avoid her treaty entanglements in 1914.

There's no need to repeat how Mussolini also managed to drag Italy into the disaster of World War II, for no purpose whatsoever.

For Italy, this man was truly "Il Duce Fatale."

-----------------

by Veltro » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:50 pm

Excellent observation Joseph

Was not the first one a more righteous one?

Eddy

-----------------

by voloire » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:56 am

Italy would have been involved in WWI even without Mussolini's activity.
There is a very good opera referring to this argument,
"Storia Politica della prima guerra mondiale" by Pietro Melograni.
I don't know if it has been translated in English, but it's very clear about this theme.

----------------

by Gian » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:14 am

It is true that Mussolini had a part in the push towards intervention in WWI, but he was not determinant. D'Annunzio was much more influential, as well as Nationalists, Socialist Reformists, and Moderate Liberals.

And don't forget that there was still a widespread nationalistic attitude towards Germany and especially Austria, inherited from the Risorgimento - the Independence Wars. All this created an enormous pressure that brought to the denunciation of the Triple Alliance and to the London pact.

----------------

by Veltro » Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:46 am

Of course Italy would have been involved at some point or other, however, Joseph is pointing out that il duce was outgoing for Italy's entry in both cases.

Voloire, what part of Northern Italy are you from?

Eddy

 

[Webmaster]

by me ne frego » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:26 pm

England and France promised Italy land if she entered the war. which she did; and when the war was over she got stu cazzo. plain and simple.

---------

by voloire » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:30 pm

Brescia

------------

by Joseph Salemi » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:24 am

Didn't Italy receive some Austrian territory in the north called "Italia Irredenta" after the end of World War I? I know that she did not get Fiume, because of Woodrow Wilson's idiocy.

---------------

by Gian » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:06 pm

Yes! at the Paris peace conference (1919) Italy received Trento, Trieste, and Southern Tirol, Fiume and Pola with Istria, Zara, Dalmatia, and the Dodecanese. In consequence of the opposition of Yugoslavia and of US president Wilson, Italy did not obtain Fiume and withdrew from the talks.

in September of '19, Fiume was occupied by D'Annunzio's "Legionaries", who established the "Kvarner regency", and caused a deep crisis as a retaliation against the treaty of Rapallo (Nov. 12, 1920): Istria (except the "free city" of Fiume) remained Italian, and Dalmatia (except Zara) remained Yugoslavian territory.

D'Annunzio's refusal of the treaty - followed by a declaration of war against Italy - invited the bombardment by Italian royal forces which led to his surrender of the city at the end of the year. Italian troops took over in January 1921. The election of an autonomist-led constituent assembly for the territory did not put an end to the strife: a brief Italian nationalist seizure of power was ended by the intervention of an Italian royal commissioner, and a short-lived local Fascist takeover in March 1922 ended in a third Italian military occupation.

This period of diplomatic acrimony closed with the Treaty of Rome (January 27, 1924), which assigned Fiume to Italy and Sušak to Yugoslavia.

Following a secret treaty with Greece, Italy later obtained protectorate on Albania and annexed Valona alongside the deserted (but strategically important) island of Sazan (Saseno) facing the Albanian coast.

------------

by Nicholas » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:58 am

While Mussolini was one in the choir calling for Italy's entrance into the war, he was wrong for that as well. Italy did not receive the territories mentioned, she had to go and take them because by the end of the war it was an "every man for himself" situation in Europe.
I know this may be off-topic, but has anyone ever considered that Italy's entry into WWI on the allied side tipped the scales of the war as they tied up over 1,000,000 Austrian and German troops which could have been used on the French front? That many troops and all that material would have made all the difference in the world especially in 1915-16 and the allies would probably have sued for peace in 1916 or early 1917 before the US entry in the war. That is without Italy honoring her treaty obligations and entering the war on the German side. With that said, Italy should have been the recipient of a lot more territory as well as a greater share of reparatory damages and some more gratitude and respect in general.
Mussolini never did learn his lesson to stay out of wars involving France and Germany.

 

[Webmaster]

by Joseph Salemi » Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:31 am

Yes, I see your point. The million or more of Austrian and German troops would have been a major addition to the Western Front, and the Allies would have been in deep trouble. Consider how very close the Allies came to defeat after Russia withdrew from the war after Brest-Litovsk, when Germany was able to transfer a huge number of divisions from the east to the west.

------------

by Gian » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:28 pm

Joseph Salemi wrote:Yes, I see your point. [SNIP] Consider how very close the Allies came to defeat after Russia withdrew from the war after Brest-Litovsk, when Germany was able to transfer a huge number of divisions from the east to the west.

This is the case of Caporetto, where Austrians could build up a massive strike force, together with battle-hardened German units (it was their baptism of fire on the Italian front) - with devastating consequences for our troops.

Fortunately, only one German officer managed to cross the Piave River on a reconnaissance patrol.
His name was Erwin Rommel.

------------

by Ennio » Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:30 pm

"Yes, I see your point. The million or more of Austrian and German troops would have been a major addition to the Western Front, and the Allies would have been in deep trouble. "

Far deeper than normally admitted. Not only that a million troops Austrian/German may have tilted the balance in the West, but the implementation of the German Schlieffen Plan would have benefited by a subtraction of further French troops that should have remained in the Alps and Tunisia to block any move from Italy in those directions, and the vital addition of two Italian Army Corps which should have deployed in Germany, in the Strasburg region. When Italy declared its neutrality in 1914, not only France was free to scrape most of its troops from the Alps and Tunisia, but von Moltke had hastily to patch up his deployment by moving to Strasburg the two Army Corps that were sorely missed at the Marne, messing up completely the Schlieffen Plan. And saving France from defeat as early as October 1914.
Definitely, France owes to Italy it's very national survival, paid with a handful of land South of the Alps and which belonged to Austria anyway.
I am glad they did not get the Olympic games of 2012, eheheh

--------------

by Joseph Salemi » Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:08 pm

The French have always been ungrateful bastards. We Americans helped to pull their chestnuts out of the fire in 1917 and again in 1944, and still, they have contempt for us.

What's really insufferable is their arrogant belief that they are still the elite rulers of Europe, and everyone else has to kowtow to their wishes. Their current President is a perfect example of this self-importance.

-----------

by lupo » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:18 pm

me ne frego wrote:england and france promissed italy land if she entered the war. which she did; and when the war was over she got stu cazzo. plain and simple.

Haha, that's funny. Stu Cazzo

Yeah, Italy was royally fu@ked over. She was promised Istria, Dalmatia and Trentino, ALtoAdige and a share in the division of the German and Turkish Empires...She really did get stu cazzo. As soon as the war was won the French and British greedily carved up the colonies and shunted Italy completely and conveniently forgot there promises to her of Italia Irridenta...Its no wonder Italy turned against her one time allies.