Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

MUSSOLINI

AS REVEALED IN HIS POLITICAL SPEECHES

MUSSOLINI
AS REVEALED IN HIS POLITICAL SPEECHES
(November 1914–August 1923)

SELECTED, TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY

BARONE BERNARDO QUARANTA di SAN SEVERINO

1923

LONDON & TORONTO

J. M. DENT & SONS LTD.

NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.

Only Authorised Edition

All rights reserved

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

To

THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN SENATE

TOMMASO TITTONI

The most limpid waters in the world appear turbid when compared to the purity of the waters of the Lethe.

INTRODUCTION
A NOTE ON ITALIAN FASCISMO

In an interesting article published last year in our Press, Ettore Ciccotti shows that Italian Fascismo does not represent an absolutely new political event, but is part of the general historic development of nations. In the first years of its appearance it was compared to the “krypteia” of Sparta, to the “eterie” of Athens, and to similar phenomena, which are repeated as a manifestation of self-defence of strong and active groups or classes, uniting and forming centres of resistance; exercising thus, by their extended action, general functions of State in a period in which its protection is weak or inefficient, and shows signs of disintegration or degeneration. Other examples of this phenomenon can be found in the history of the Church and in the Italian Communes, in England, Germany, in the Clubs of the French Revolution, and in the rest of Europe. When in a nation which shows such signs this form of vitality does not exist, we witness the general collapse of that nation, as in Russia at this moment, where only the radical uprooting of Bolshevism might lead to the general resurrection of the country.

The after-war period in Italy, as elsewhere, had caused complete apathy, slackness and disorder in Parliamentary State functions, characterised by many elaborate programmes, but few facts. The Italian working classes, moreover, had been hypnotised by the nefarious gospel of Lenin, which had powerfully contributed to bring about the grave state of affairs in Italy in 1920, when the Communist peril had reached its acute stage. The continued strikes in all industries had caused prices to rise at a tremendous pace; the production of commodities had been reduced to a minimum; the enormous deficit in the railway and postal departments, the debt and the general budget of the State were alarming, while foreign exchanges had reached fantastic figures. The arrogance of the Communist elements had become unbearable, and officers at times were obliged to dress in plain clothes in order not to be attacked by Bolshevists, while soldiers, Carabineers and Guardie Regie were frequently insulted and in some instances even killed by Communists.

But the gallant fighters of the Trentino, of the Carso and of the Grappa, the volunteers who had saved Italy and arrested the advance of the enemy on the Piave could not reconcile themselves to this state of affairs, to the idea of watching with folded arms the complete loss of the fruits of victory for which half a million men had left their lives on the battlefields. These brave youths, with an indomitable courage, ready to face all, full of the purest ideals and passionate love for our country, representing a new force and a new Italy, had already in April 1919 grouped themselves together in a “fascio” (bundle), as the “Fascio Nazionale dei Combattenti” (National Fasces of Combatants), under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, who was the inspirer and organiser of the movement and had himself been their comrade at the front.

They became stronger every day and dealt the initial blow to Communism in 1921, when the first encounter took place between Fascisti and Communists at Bologna, which marks the waning of Bolshevism and the rise of Fascismo.

But it was not an easy matter for the new movement to make its way, as in its laborious progress it met with endless difficulties, and above all had to fight the apathy of the people and the general scepticism regarding it. Fascismo had to deal with peculiar mentalities, to fight various organisations, including the State, which felt itself being undermined by this new political group, while its chief enemy, the Bolshevist faction, had made endless victims among its rank and file during the past.

It was not possible, however, for the Fascisti to deal with the Communists otherwise than by using violence, as normal means would have been entirely inadequate against the seditious elements (made all the more arrogant by the manifest impotence of the State and the laisser faire attitude of public opinion), in view of the daily increasing number of crimes committed against property and peaceful individuals.

Fascisti, moreover, started a strong movement against the composition of the Chamber, maintaining that it no longer represented the nation, that it had grown prematurely old and must, therefore, be quickly dissolved and a new appeal to the electors be made as soon as possible. They had been deeply concerned, on the other hand, with the Italian economic crisis, which, according to Edmondo Rossoni, the able organiser and Secretary-General of the Syndicalist Corporations, could not be overcome without an increase in the production of commodities to be obtained by a more rigorous discipline in the labour question; thus an economic victory followed the victory on the battlefields. The masses of the working classes, many of them previously Socialists and Communists, enrolled themselves among the Fascisti syndicates scattered all over Italy and were able to settle various important disputes.

The alleged dissension between Fascismo and the Italian Monarchy had always been a favourite weapon in the hands of the anti-Fascisti elements. The Hon. Mussolini, in his speech at the great Fascista Mass Meeting at Naples on 24th October of last year, clearly manifested his party feeling in the matter, as can be gathered by his own words uttered there (see Part IV. page [171], of this collection). The attitude of Fascismo towards Monarchy clearly defined by its leader was very opportune, and contributed to the greater popularity of the movement throughout the country, where this institution rests on a solid base, represents Italian unity, and is to-day associated with its illustrious representative, King Victor Emmanuel III., an example of domestic virtue in private life, one of the most cultured men of our times, beloved by all classes, who at the front proved himself the first soldier among soldiers and gained the popularity of the whole nation.

The Army was secretly or openly greatly in favour of Fascismo, the successful efforts of which to save the country from the Social-Communist factions it could not forget. The soldiers could, therefore, never have marched against the Fascisti—who represented Italian patriotism. The very generals of the regular Army, such as Generals Fara, Ceccherini, Graziani, de Bono, and others, in black shirts, themselves directed the famous “March to Rome.”

With reference to religion, Mussolini’s Government promised to respect all creeds, especially Catholicism. At Ouchy he said to the Press: “My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a formidable force which must be respected and defended. I am, therefore, against anti-clerical and atheistic democracy, which represents an old and useless toy. I maintain that Catholicism is a great spiritual power, and I trust that the relations between Church and State will henceforward be more friendly.” And while the Minister for Public Instruction, Senator Gentile, has introduced compulsory religious instruction in the elementary public schools, the Under-Secretary of the same Ministry, Hon. Dario Lupi, one of Mussolini’s closest friends, issued, as one of his first acts, a timely and peremptory order to the school authorities requesting the immediate replacement of the Crucifix and the picture of the King.

Fascismo, which during the last months of 1922 had seen its membership increasing by leaps and bounds, finally won with a note of fanaticism the very heart of the country from the Alps to the southern shores of Sicily. Latterly it had exercised the functions of State almost undisturbed, and did not spare either institutions or individuals in the pursuit of its end. It had demanded and successfully obtained the dismissal of the Pangermanist Mayor of Bolzano, Herr Perathoner; it had occupied the Giunta Provinciale of Trento, causing the removal of the Italian Governor, maintaining that he had been too weak in his attitude towards arrogant Pangermanists in that region; and had acted successfully as arbitrator in the labour dispute between Cantiere Orlando of Leghorn and the Government itself. It was no wonder, then, if after the big October meeting of last year at Naples and the “March to Rome” with the famous Quadrumvirate formed by General Cesare de Bono, Hon. Cesare Maria de Vecchi, Italo Balbo, and Michele Bianchi, then Secretary-General of the Party, Mussolini, the creator of this mighty movement, was summoned by the King to form the new Fascista Cabinet.

It might be a cause of surprise to the superficial observer, this sudden ascent to power of a party which, a few days before it took the government into its hands, had been threatened with martial law, an order which the King wisely refused to sign, thus avoiding civil war. But whoever has followed the development and progress of Fascismo during the last four years, considers its great strength and power in the country, its formidable membership (now over a million strong) compared with that of any other party (the Socialists are reduced to seventy thousand), and takes into account the high and patriotic principles on which this movement is founded will not wonder that the party got to power through an extra-parliamentary crisis. We cannot and must not forget that these “black shirts”—as the Fascisti are called—have really saved Italy from Bolshevism, which was sucking her very life-blood, and that they are thereby entitled to the gratitude of our country and of the world at large. “The Moscow conspirators, whose object was the overthrow of Western civilisation, swept with a wide net,” writes Lord Rothermere in his recent article, Mussolini: What Europe owes to him. “They made great headway in Germany, especially in Berlin; they seized Budapest under the direction of a convicted thief, but it was upon Italy they counted most, and when Mussolini struck against them in Italy, he was fighting a battle for all Europe.”

I do not think—and the Hon. Mussolini agreed with me in one of the conversations I had with him—that people abroad, especially in England and the United States, know much about Fascismo. It had been diagnosed as a sporadic revolutionary movement, which sooner or later would be put down by drastic measures. Not many have realised that in this after-war period there is no more important historical phenomenon than Fascismo, which, as our Prime Minister said, “is at the same time political, military, religious, economic and syndicalist, and represents all the hopes, the aspirations and requirements of the people.” The popular air “Giovinezza” (Youth), the official song of the Fascisti, with its thrilling notes, which magnetised the heart of the people, the characteristic black shirts with the shield of the “fascio” on their breasts, the “gagliardetti” (Fascisti standards)—all these have largely contributed towards rousing a delirium of enthusiasm among the masses for the great cause.

But three other important elements account for the success of the “National Fascista Party” (as it is now officially constituted, with its “Great National Council”), namely its military organisation, its powerful Press, and, above all, the personality of Mussolini himself, the “Duce,” as he is called. The military organisation is entirely on Roman lines, with Roman names of “legion,” “Consul,” “cohort,” “Senior,” “Centurion,” “Decurion,” “Triari,” etc. The symbol of Fascismo is the same as that of the lictors of Imperial Rome—a bundle of rods with an axe in the centre—and the Fascista salute is that of the ancient Romans—by outstretched arm. The coins which are being struck bear on one side the King’s head and on the other the Roman “fascio;” in the same way special gold coins of one hundred lire will be issued shortly, to celebrate the first anniversary of the “March to Rome.” There is the most rigorous discipline, and the motto: “No discussion, only obedience,” has proved of immense value in all the sudden mobilisations and demobilisations carried out, often at a few hours notice, which could give points to the best organised army in the world. On the occasion of the mass meeting preceding the “March to Rome,” which was attended by over half a million men, in less than twenty-four hours forty thousand left the town in perfect order and without the slightest hitch.

Fascismo possesses a large Press, which comprises five dailies and a large number of weekly, fortnightly and monthly publications and a publishing house in Milan.

But the decisive factor in the great victory of Fascismo is due to the personality of the great leader of this army of Italy’s salvation, the very soul of this mighty movement.

Few public men of our time have had a more rapid, brilliant and interesting career than Benito Mussolini, the son of a blacksmith. He is the youngest of his predecessors in this office, as he was born only forty years ago at Predappio, in the province of Forli, where the villagers still call him simply “Our Benit.” He was deeply attached to his mother, Rosa Maltoni, and her death caused him intense sorrow. He has one sister, Edvige, and a younger brother, Arnaldo, who, since the elder one has become Prime Minister, has taken his place as editor of Il Popolo d’Italia. Mussolini first worked in his father’s forge and then, having occupied for a time the position of village schoolmaster, emigrated to Switzerland, from which country he was, however, expelled on account of articles he had written advocating the Marxist doctrines. Returning once more to Italy, he became an active member of the Socialist Party and finally editor of its organ, the Avanti. Upon the outbreak of war in 1914, with his keen political insight, Mussolini saw the necessity of Italian intervention, and in consequence was forced to leave the official Socialist Party, giving up all the positions he held in it. He founded his Popolo d’Italia, and began fiercely to sound the trumpets of war, inciting his country to abandon her neutral attitude and to throw in her lot with the Allies. He gained his end, and in 1915 he went to the front as a simple soldier in the 11th Bersagliere Regiment. In 1917, as the result of the bursting of a shell, he received thirty-eight simultaneous wounds; he was obliged to go to hospital, was promoted on the field, and invalided out of the Army. He then returned to Milan, and having resumed the editorship of his paper, the Popolo d’Italia, began his political battles, and continued to fight through its columns, spurring his countrymen on to final victory.

With no exaggeration it can be stated that since the advent to power of Mussolini every day has seen a steady advance in the direction of the rebuilding of the country within and a notable enhancement of our prestige abroad. His strenuous everyday work is inspired by an indomitable determination to make Italy worthy of the glories of Vittorio Veneto, strengthened and disciplined, and he will spare neither himself nor those around him in his attempt to bring about its realisation.

He wishes to secure Italy’s rightful position in the world. Mussolini’s foreign policy of dignity, honesty and justice has already been outlined in his opening speech before the Chamber, and can be summarised thus: “No imperialism, no aggressions, but an attitude which shall do away with the policy of humility which has made Italy more like the Cinderella and humble servant of other nations. Respect for international treaties at no matter what cost. Fidelity and friendship towards the nations that give Italy serious proofs of reciprocating it. Maintenance of Eastern equilibrium, on which depends the tranquillity of the Balkan States and, therefore, European and world peace.”

It is enough to cast an eye on the numerous legislative and administrative work accomplished by Mussolini’s Government in these first eleven months to convince oneself that he is in deep earnest as to the vast programme of reconstruction he means to carry through. With reference to domestic matters, the Fascista Government has passed a great number of bills and projects of laws concerning the Electoral Reform Bill approved by the Chamber last July, radical reform of the entire school system, institution of the National Militia, and abolition of the Guardie Regie (which was a poor substitute for the Carabineers), industrialisation of Public Services (Posts, Telegraphs, Railways), abolition of Death Duties between near relations, enactment of Decree on the Eight Hours Work Bill, reformation of the Civil Law Codes, reduction of Ministerial departments, now only nine, which formerly were sixteen, and formation of the recent Ministry of National Economy, under which are grouped various others: Industry, Agriculture, Labour, etc., reduction of the National Debt by over a milliard, a comforting contribution towards the balance of the Budget, as is gathered by the speech delivered in June, at Milan, by the Minister of Finance, Hon. De Stefani.

Mussolini, besides having established a real discipline (there are no more strikes since the Fascista Government is in power), and having fully restored the authority of the State, has shown himself to be the most practical anti-waste advocate which the world has yet known. As to foreign policy, besides adhering to the Washington Disarmament Conference, and having signed conventions relative to the laying of cables for a direct telegraphic communication with North, Central and South America, negotiated important commercial treaties with Canada, Russia, Spain, Lithuania, Poland, Siam, Finland, Esthonia, etc., and having exercised beneficial influence in the Ruhr conflict and in the Lausanne Conference, has been an element of equilibrium for the new after-war international policy in the world.

The selection of his speeches contained in this volume is not a mere translation, since, in fact, the exact equivalent of this book as it has been arranged, classified and edited is not to be found in any other language. These speeches, illustrated by the valuable prefatory notes, almost all of which have been supplied to me by one who has been closely associated with Mussolini during the whole of his political career, serve, in my opinion, as could no biography, to reveal the mind, character and personality of Mussolini himself. Delivered at intervals throughout the various stages of his career, from Socialist to Fascista Prime Minister, they enable the reader to follow intimately the events which led up to the Fascista Revolution and its leader’s attainment of his present strong position. The forcible and sober style of his character, shorn of every unnecessary word, betrays the dynamic force and intense earnestness of this man, who has been compared to Cromwell for his drastic and dictatorial methods in the Chamber, and to Napoleon for his eagle-like perception, for his decisiveness and his marvellous power of leadership.

Mussolini is a volcanic genius, a bewitcher of crowds. He seems a regular warrior, with an indomitable daring, great physical and moral courage, and he has seen death near him without wavering. He is the real type of Roman Emperor, with a severe bronzed face, but which hides a kind and generous heart. He is what people call a real “self-made man,” and is a great lover of the violin and of all kinds of sport: fencing, cycling, flying, riding and motoring. Mussolini gets all he wants and quickly, and, as all his party do, knows exactly what he does want.

Apart from all that has been said, the present collection of speeches, besides showing Mussolini’s strong hand in the difficult art of statesmanship, displays clearly in almost every page (and so, possibly, the book may also appeal to others than politicians), additional important elements which are not usually found in a volume of political speeches, namely a richness of sympathy for mankind, a blunt straightforwardness, a gentleness of soul together with exceptional moral strength, pure idealism, which lift him not only above party politics, but also high above the average of mankind.

Such is the builder of New Italy, and the enthusiasm and deep confidence which Mussolini has inspired in our country, and the unanimous approval his work has prompted abroad, are a good omen for Italy’s future fortunes and for the welfare of the world at large.

BERNARDO QUARANTA di SAN SEVERINO.

Siena, Via S. Quirico, N.1.

October 1923.

REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL OF THE MANIFESTO ISSUED BY THE HON. MUSSOLINI AFTER HE AND HIS PARTY SUCCEEDED TO THE GOVERNMENT

(English Translation)

FASCISTA NATIONAL PARTY

Fascisti of all Italy!

Our movement has been crowned with success. The leader of our Party now holds the political power of the State for Italy and abroad. While this New Government represents our triumph, it celebrates, at the same time, our victory in the name of those who by land and by sea promoted it; and it accepts also, for the purpose of pacification, men from other parties, provided they are true to the cause of the Nation. The Italian Fascisti are too intelligent to wish to abuse their victory.

Fascisti!

The supreme Quadrumvirate, which has resigned its powers in favour of the Party, thanks you for the magnificent proof of courage and of discipline which you have given, and salutes you. You have proved yourselves worthy of the fortunes and of the future of your Fatherland.

Demobilise in the same perfectly orderly manner in which you assembled for this great achievement, destined—as we firmly believe—to open a new era in the history of Italy. Return now to your usual occupations, as, in order to arrive at the summit of her fortunes, Italy needs to work. May nothing disturb the glory of these days through which we have just passed—days of superb passion and of Roman greatness.

Long live Italy!

Long live Fascismo!

THE QUADRUMVIRATE.

ERRATA

Page [133], last line, for wars read stars.

Page [140], line 24, for times read temples.

Page [143], This Speech was delivered 20th September 1922.

Page [208], line 1, for Council of Munitions read Council of Ministers.

Page [351], line 21, for 1885 read 1855.

CONTENTS

PART I
MUSSOLINI THE “SOCIALIST”

“DO NOT THINK THAT BY TAKING AWAY MY MEMBERSHIP CARD YOU WILL TAKE AWAY MY FAITH IN THE CAUSE”

Speech delivered on 25th November 1914, at Milan, before the meeting of the Milanese Socialist Section, which had decreed Mussolini’s expulsion from the official Socialist Party.

In the fearless militarism of the dramatic speech with which this volume begins, the Socialistic activity of Benito Mussolini ends—of Benito Mussolini, who from the autumn of 1914 could have been considered the recognised and acclaimed leader of the Italian Socialist Party. He had attained with giant strides the highest rank in the party’s hierarchy, namely the editorship of the Avanti, the chief organ of the political and syndicalist movement. He had been a clever and aggressive writer in a weekly provincial paper of Forli, called La lotta di classe,[^[1]] and an ardent Sunday orator for the “ville” of Romagna. He had revealed himself a “comrade” of tremendous power at the Congress of Reggio Emilia, held in the summer of 1912, where he delivered a memorable speech bitterly criticising the flaccid mentality of Reformism then dominating the party.

[1]. Class struggle.

It was within two months of his success at Reggio Emilia that the revolutionary leaders, feeling the need of strong men, entrusted to Benito Mussolini the editorship of the Avanti, which was the most powerful weapon of the party.

The following speech was delivered before a furious crowd of not less than three thousand holders of membership cards, who hastened from other centres adjacent to Milan, amid a diabolical tumult in an atmosphere of organised hostility, which was the more violent by contrast with the fanatical devotion which Benito Mussolini had evoked during the two years in which he had been the undisputed mouthpiece of the party.

This atmosphere of intolerance and hatred had been fostered by the neutralist adversaries who had succeeded to the management of the Avanti after the present head of the Italian Government had left the party.

As is known, the excited meeting held in the spacious hall of the Casa del Popolo closed with a resolution for the expulsion of the new heretic, which was passed, except by a negligible minority of about fifty supporters, who afterwards stood by Mussolini in the victorious campaign for intervention.

My fate is decided, and it seems as if the sentence were to be executed with a certain solemnity. (Voices: “Louder! Louder!”)

You are severer than ordinary judges who allow the fullest and most exhaustive defence even after the sentence, since they give ten days for the production of the motives of appeal. If, then, it is decided, and you still think that I am unworthy of fighting any longer for your cause—(“Yes! yes!” is shouted by some of the most excited among the audience.)—then expel me. But I have a right to exact a legal act of accusation, and in this meeting the public prosecutor has not yet intervened with regard either to the political or to the moral issues. I shall, therefore, be condemned by an “order of the day” which means nothing. In a case like this, I ought to have been told that I was unworthy to belong any longer to the party for definite reasons, in which case I should have accepted my fate. This, however, has not been said, and a great many of you—if not all—will leave this room with an uneasy conscience. (Deafening voices: “No! no!”)

With reference to the moral question, I repeat once more that I am ready to submit my case to any Committee which cares to make investigations and to issue a report.

As regards the question of discipline, I should say that this has not been examined, because there are just and fitting precedents for my changed attitude, and if I do not quote them it is because I feel myself to be secure and have an easy conscience.

You think to sign my death warrant, but you are mistaken. To-day you hate me, because in your heart of hearts you still love me, because.... (Applause and hisses interrupt the speaker.)

But you have not seen the last of me! Twelve years of my party life are, or ought to be, a sufficient guarantee of my faith in Socialism. Socialism is something which takes root in the heart. What divides me from you now is not a small dispute, but a great question over which the whole of Socialism is divided. Amilcare Cipriani can no longer be your candidate because he declared, both by word of mouth and in writing, that if his seventy-five years allowed him, he would be in the trenches fighting the European military reaction which was stifling revolution.

Time will prove who is right and who is wrong in the formidable question which now confronts Socialism, and which it has never had to face before in the history of humanity, since never before has there been such a conflagration as exists to-day, in which millions of the proletariat are pitted one against the other. This war, which has much in common with those of the Napoleonic period, is not an everyday event. Waterloo was fought in 1814; perhaps 1914 will see some other principles fall to the ground, will see the salvation of liberty, and the beginning of a new era in the world’s history—(Loud applause greets this fitting historical comparison.)—and especially in the history of the proletariat, which at all critical moments has found me here with you in this same spot, just as it found me in the street.

But I tell you that from now onwards I shall never forgive nor have pity on anyone who in this momentous hour does not speak his mind for fear of being hissed or shouted down. (This cutting allusion to the many prominent absentees is understood and warmly applauded by the meeting.)

I shall neither forgive nor have pity on those who are purposely reticent, those who show themselves hypocrites and cowards. And you will find me still on your side. You must not think that the middle classes are enthusiastic about our intervention. They snarl and accuse us of temerity, and fear that the proletariat, once armed with bayonets, will use them for their own ends. (Mingled applause, and cries of “No! no!”)

Do not think that in taking away my membership card you will be taking away my faith in the cause, or that you will prevent my still working for Socialism and revolution. (Hearty applause follows these last words of Mussolini, uttered with great energy and profound conviction. He descends from the platform and makes his way down the great hall.)

PART II
MUSSOLINI THE “MAN OF THE WAR”

FOR THE LIBERTY OF HUMANITY AND THE FUTURE OF ITALY

Speech delivered at the Scuole Mazza, Parma, 13th December 1914.

This speech was delivered under the stress of great excitement. The most ardent supporters of active neutrality were assembled at Parma, a citadel of revolutionary Syndicalism, which opposed Party Socialism, and the majority of whose members, after the outbreak of the European War, sided against the Central Empires and in defence of intervention. Among these we remember Giacinto Menotti Serrati, then Editor-in-chief of the Avanti, and Fulvio Zocchi, a ridiculous and malignant demagogue, now removed from political life.

But, notwithstanding this pressure from outside, the people of Parma, mindful of their Garibaldian and anti-Austrian traditions, sided enthusiastically with Mussolini and Alcesto De Ambris, the leader of Syndicalism and member of Parliament for the city, who had been the first to support the section of the extremists.

Citizens,—It is in your interest to listen to me quietly and with tolerance. I shall be brief, precise and sincere to the point of rudeness.

The last great continental war was from 1870 to 1871. Prussia, guided by Bismarck and Moltke, defeated France and robbed her of two flourishing and populous provinces. The Treaty of Frankfurt marked the triumph of Bismarck’s policy, which aimed at the incontestable hegemony of Prussia in Central Europe and the gradual Slavisation of the Balkan zones of Austria-Hungary. One recalls these features of Bismarck’s policy in trying to understand the different international crises which took place in Europe from ’70 up to the bewildering and extremely painful situation of to-day. From ’70 onwards there were only remoter wars among the peoples of Eastern Europe, such as those between Russia and Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, or wars in the colonies. There was, in consequence, a widespread conviction that a European or world war was no longer possible. The most diverse reasons were put forward to maintain this argument.

Illusions and Sophisms. It was suggested, for example, that the perfecting of the instruments for making war must destroy its possibility. Ridiculous! War has always been deadly. The perfecting of arms is relative to the progress—technical, mechanical and military—of the human race. In this respect the warlike machines of the ancient Romans are the equivalent of the mortars of 420 calibre. They are made with the object of killing, and they do kill. The perfecting of instruments of war is no hindrance to warlike instincts. It might have the opposite effect.

Reliance was also placed on “human kindness” and other sentiments of humanity, of brotherhood and love, which ought, it was maintained, to bind all the different branches of the species “man” together regardless of barriers of land or sea. Another illusion! It is very true that these feelings of sympathy and brotherliness exist; our century has, in truth, seen the rapid multiplication of philanthropic works for the alleviation of the hardships both of men and of animals; but along with these impulses exist others, profounder, higher and more vital. We should not explain the universal phenomenon of war by attributing it to the caprices of monarchs, race-hatred or economic rivalry; we must take into account other feelings which each of us carries in his heart, and which made Proudhon exclaim, with that perennial truth which hides beneath the mask of paradox, that war was of “divine origin.”

It was also maintained that the encouragement of closer international relations—economic, artistic, intellectual, political and sporting—by causing the peoples to become better acquainted, would have prevented the outbreak of war among civilised nations. Norman Angell had founded his book upon the impossibility of war, proving that all the nations involved—victors and vanquished alike—would have their economic life completely convulsed and ruined in consequence. Another illusion laid bare! Lack of observation. The purely economic man does not exist. The story of the world is not merely a page of book-keeping; and material interests—luckily—are not the only mainspring of human actions. It is true that international relations have multiplied; that there is, or was, freer interchange—political and economic—between the peoples of the different countries than there was a century ago. But parallel with this phenomenon is another, which is that the people, with the diffusion of culture and the formation of an economic system of a national type, tend to isolate themselves psychologically and morally.

Internationalism. Side by side with the peaceful middle-class movement, which is not worth examination, flourished another of an international character, that of the working classes. At the outbreak of war this class, too, gave evidence of its inefficiency. The Germans, who ought to have set the example, flocked as a man to the Kaiser’s banner. The treachery of the Germans forced the Socialists of the other countries to fall back upon the basis of nationality and the necessity of national defence. The German unity automatically determined the unity of the other countries. It is said, and justly, that international relations are like love; it takes two to carry them on. Internationalism is ended; that which existed yesterday is dead, and it is impossible to foresee what form it will take to-morrow. Reality cannot be done away with and cannot be ignored, and the reality is that millions and millions of men, for the most part of the working classes, are standing opposite one another to-day on the blood-drenched battlefields of Europe. The neutrals, who shout themselves hoarse crying “Down with war!” do not realise the grotesque cowardice contained in that cry to-day. It is irony of the most atrocious kind to shout “Down with war!” while men are fighting and dying in the trenches.

The Real Situation. Between the two groups, the Triple Entente and the Austro-German Alliance, Italy has remained—neutral. In the Triple Entente there is heroic Serbia, who has broken loose from the Austrian yoke; there is martyred Belgium, who refused to sell herself; there is republican France who has been attacked; there is democratic England; there is autocratic Russia, though her foundations are undermined by revolution. On the other side there is Austria, clerical and feudal, and Germany, militarist and aggressive. At the outbreak of war Italy proclaimed herself neutral. Was the “exception” contemplated in the treaties? It seems as if it were so, especially in view of the recent revelations made by Giolitti. If the neutrality of the Government meant indifference, the neutrality of the Socialists and the economic organisations had an entirely different character and significance. The Socialist neutrality intended a general strike in the case of alliance with Austria; no practical opposition in the case of a war against her. A distinction was made, therefore, between one war and another. Further, the classes were allowed to be called up.

If the Government had mobilised, all the Socialists would have found it a natural and logical proceeding. They admitted, therefore, that a nation has the right and duty to defend itself by recourse to arms, in case of attack from outside. Neutrality understood in this way had necessarily to lead—with the progress of events, especially in Belgium—to the idea of intervention.

The Bourgeoisie is Neutral. It is controversial whether Italy has a bourgeoisie in the generally accepted sense of the word. Rather than the bourgeoisie and lower classes, there are rich and poor. In any case, it is untrue that the Italian middle classes are, at the moment, jingoist. On the contrary they are neutral and desperately pacifist. The banking world is neutral, the industrial classes have reorganised their business, and the agrarian population, small and great, are pacifists by tradition and temperament; the political and academic middle classes are neutral. Look at the Senate! There are perhaps exceptions, young men who do not wish to stagnate in the dead pool of neutrality; but the middle classes, taken as a whole, are hostile to war and neutral. As a conclusive proof, compare the tone of the middle-class papers to-day with that shown at the time of the Libyan campaign, and note the difference. The trumpet-call which then sounded for war is muffled now. The language of the middle-class Press is uncertain, wavering and mysterious, neutral in word but, in effect, in favour of the Allies. Where are the trumpets that summoned us in the September of 1911? The secret is out, and ought to make the Socialists, who are not stupid, stop and think. On the one side are all the conservative and stagnant elements, and on the other the revolutionary and the living forces of the country. It is necessary to choose.

We want the War! But we want the war and we want it at once. It is not true that military preparation is lacking. What does this waiting for the spring to come mean?

Socialism ought not, and cannot, be against all wars because in that case it would have to deny fifty years of history. Do you want to judge and condemn in the same breath the war in Tripoli and the result of the French Revolution of 1793? And Garibaldi? Is he, too, a jingoist? You must distinguish between one war and another, as between one crime and another, one case of bloodshed and another. Bovio said: “All the water in the sea would not suffice to remove the stain from the hands of Lady Macbeth, but a basinful would wash the blood from the hands of Garibaldi.”

Guesde, in a congress of French Socialists held a few weeks before the outbreak of war, declared that, in case of a conflagration, the nation that was most Socialist would be the victim of the nation that was least. To prove this, notice the behaviour of the Italian Socialists. Look at them in Parliament. Treves lost time by quibbling. At one moment he exclaimed, “We shall not deny the country.” In fact the country cannot be denied. One does not deny one’s mother, even if she does not offer one all her gifts, even if she does force one to earn one’s living in the alluring streets of the world. (Great applause.)

Treves said more: “We shall not oppose a war of defence.” If this is admitted, the necessity of arming ourselves is admitted. You will not open the gates of Italy yet to the Austrian army, because they will come to pillage the houses and violate the women! I know it well. There are base wretches who blame Belgium for defending herself. She might have pocketed the money of the Germans, they say, and allowed them a free passage; while resistance meant laying herself open to the scientific and systematic destruction of her towns. But Belgium lives, and will live, because she refused to sell herself ignobly. If she had done so, she would be dead for all time. (Great applause, and cries of “Long live Belgium!” The cheering lasts for some minutes.)

The War of Defence. When do you want to begin to defend yourselves? When the enemy’s knee is on your chest? Wouldn’t it be better to begin a little earlier? Wouldn’t it be better to begin to-day when it would not cost so much, rather than wait until to-morrow when it might be disastrous? Do you wish to maintain a splendid isolation? But in that case we must arm; arm and create a colossal militarism.

The Socialists, and I am still one, although an exasperated one, never brought forward the question of irredentism, but left it to the Republicans. We are in favour of a national war. But there are also reasons, purely socialist in character, which spur us on towards intervention.

The Europe of To-morrow. It is said that the Europe of to-morrow will not be any different from the Europe of yesterday. This is the most absurd and alarming hypothesis. If you accept it, there is some absolute meaning for your neutrality. It is not worth while sacrificing oneself in order to leave things as they were before. But both mind and heart refuse to believe that this spilling of blood over three continents will lead to nothing. Everything leads one to believe, on the contrary, that the Europe of to-morrow will be profoundly transformed. Greater liberty or greater reaction? More or less militarism? Which of the two groups of Powers, by their victory, would assure us of better conditions of liberty for the working classes? There is no doubt about the answer. And in what way do you wish to assist in the triumph of the Triple Entente? Perhaps with articles in the papers and “orders of the day” in committee? Are these sentimental manifestations enough to raise up Belgium again? To relieve France? This France which bled for Europe in the revolutions and wars from ’89 to ’71 and from ’71 to ’14? Do you then offer to the France of the “Rights of Man” nothing but words?

Against Apathy. Tell me—and this is the supreme reason for intervention—tell me, is it human, civilised, socialistic, to stop quietly at the window while blood is flowing in torrents, and to say, “I am not going to move, it does not matter to me a bit”? Can the formula of “sacred egoism” devised by the Hon. Salandra be accepted by the working classes? No! I do not think so. The law of solidarity does not stop at economic competition; it goes beyond. Yesterday it was both fine and necessary to contribute in aid of struggling companions; but to-day they ask you to shed your blood for them. They implore it. Intervention will shorten the period of terrible carnage. That will be to the advantage of all, even of the Germans, our enemies. Will you refuse this proof of solidarity? If you do, with what dignity will you, Italian proletarians, show yourselves abroad to-morrow? Do you not fear that your German comrades will reject you, because you betrayed the Triple Entente? Do you not fear that those in France and Belgium, showing you their land still scarred by graves and trenches, and pointing out with pride their ruined towns, will say to you: “Where were you, and what did you do, O Italian Proletarians, when we fought desperately against the Austro-German militarism to free Europe from the incubus of the hegemony of the Kaiser?” In that day you will not know how to answer; in that day you will be ashamed to be Italian, but it will be too late!

The People’s War. Let us take up again the Italian traditions. The people who want the war want it without delay. In two months’ time it might be an act of brigandage; to-day it is a war to be fought with courage and dignity.

War and Socialism are incompatible, understood in their universal sense, but every epoch and every people has had its wars. Life is relative; the absolute only exists in the cold and unfruitful abstract. Those who set too much store by their skins will not go into the trenches, and you will not find them even in the streets in the day of battle. He who refuses to fight to-day is an accomplice of the Kaiser, and a prop of the tottering throne of Francis Joseph. Do you wish mechanical Germany, intoxicated by Bismarck, to be once more the free and unprejudiced Germany of the first half of last century? Do you wish for a German Republic extending from the Rhine to the Vistula? Does the idea of the Kaiser, a prisoner and banished to some remote island, make you laugh? Germany will only find her soul through defeat. With the defeat of Germany the new and brilliant spring will burst over Europe.

It is necessary to act, to move, to fight and, if necessary, to die. Neutrals have never dominated events. They have always gone under. It is blood which moves the wheels of history! (Frantic bursts of applause.)

“EITHER WAR OR THE END OF ITALY’S NAME AS A GREAT POWER”

Speech delivered at Milan, 25th January 1915.

The progress of Milanese, which is to say of Italian interventionalism, thanks to the authority and the influence of the Lombard metropolis, the throbbing heart of the country, begins with the meeting held in the great hall of the Istituto Tecnico Carlo Cattaneo. At this meeting there were present forty-five “fasci,” called “fasci di azione rivoluzionaria,” formed almost entirely in the principal regional and provincial centres. Among the most notable supporters were a group of soldiers of the 61st and 62nd Infantry, the poet Ceccardo Roccatagliata Ceccardi, and the old Garibaldian patriot Ergisto Bezzi, called the “Ferruccio” of the Trentino.

I thank you for your greeting, and am happy and proud to be present at this meeting which represents, perhaps, in these six months of a neutrality of commercialism and smuggling, branded with Socialism, a new fact of the utmost importance and significance.

While listening to the reports which were made here, my mind carried me back to the first Congresses of the International, when the representatives of the various sections of the different countries prepared written reports which gave full details as to the situations of the respective peoples. This was a splendid means of coming to a closer understanding. I pass now to speak of the international state of affairs.

The diplomatic and political situation cannot be spoken of without the military. The military situation is stationary, although, to-day, it is clearly in favour of the Germans, who occupy the whole of Belgium, with the exception of 880 square kilometres, who hold ten rich and populous departments of France, and a great part of Russian Poland. Besides, the recent attack upon Dunkirk and the activity of the submarines and dirigibles show that the Germans are still full of fight, and wish to carry the war on literally to the utmost limits of their powers of attack and defence. Thus the intervention of Italy is not late. I think the right moment has come now, when the military situation hangs in the balance. There is neither advance nor retreat on either side, for which reason it would be a good thing to decide the game by the introduction of a new factor, the intervention of Italy and Roumania.

The principal international events of this week have been the Berchtold resignations, the consideration of intervention by Roumania, and the treaty of the Triple Entente for the regulation of Russia’s financial difficulties.

Russia. It really seems to me that there was a moment of slackness in the pursuit of the war on the part of Austria and Russia. It is enough to call to mind a short paragraph in an official Russian paper, the Ruskoie Slovo, in order to realise that there was a time when Russia wavered.

“It is true,” says the paper, “that on the 4th September, Russia, France, England, Belgium and Serbia undertook not to make peace individually; but this pledge brings with it the necessity of supporting the expenses of war in common, especially now that Turkey has come to the help of the Central Powers. Our treasury is empty. Where can we obtain that money which is more important than men? If England refuses, we shall be obliged to end the war in any way convenient to Russia.” Really threatening words these, of which England, however, understood the meaning, and immediately took steps to prevent their realisation by launching the loan of fifteen milliards in favour of Russia to be subscribed to in the capitals of the Triple Entente. And, in fact, immediately after the announcement of the loan the tone of the official papers changed, and there was no more talk of making a separate peace.

Austria. There were other symptoms of restlessness in Austria. Clearly, up to the present, Austria has been sacrificed the most. She has lost Galicia and been defeated by the Russians and Serbs.

It may be then that the resignation of Berchtold is an indication that Austrian politics are taking a new direction. In what sense? I do not think in the pacifist sense. Austria is tied to Germany, and Germany leans upon Austria and Hungary. Burian’s journey to the German General Staff was made, I think, with the object of obtaining military aid for Hungary. Austria and Hungary are preparing themselves against Roumania, because this nation will probably intervene before Italy.

Roumania. Roumania has four million men concentrated in Transylvania under the rule of Austria-Hungary; she is a young nation with a perfect army of 500,000 men, and she will be obliged to end her hesitation, probably owing to the fact that the Russians are at her frontier. Nothing would embarrass the Roumanians as much as this, since they remember that in 1878 the Russians occupied Bessarabia. When the Russians, therefore, are in Transylvania, the intervention of Roumania will be decided at once.

Valona. One fact that has a certain importance where Italy is concerned is the occupation of Valona, which has come about in curious circumstances with the occupation of Sasseno, and the landing of the marines before the Bersaglieri. I do not think that there are really rebels in Albania; and I think that Italy will stop at Valona. I do not think either that Valona will run any serious risk, because the Albanians have rifles but no artillery. Albania does not exist in the true sense of the word, as the Albanians are divided both by race and tribe, and I do not think that an organised movement is to be feared.

Switzerland. One point that we must take into consideration is the position of Switzerland—a point, to my mind, rather obscure. It is true that we can feel, to a certain extent, reassured by the fact that the President of Switzerland at the moment is an Italian. But without doubt a restless state of mind prevails among the German element there. The voice of race calls louder than the voice of political union; the German Swiss lay down laws; they circulate pamphlets which say “Let us remain Swiss”; they go in search of the Swiss spirit, but I think that it would be difficult to find it. In any case, it is certain that they make acid comments on the articles in the Popolo d’Italia! Taken as a whole it can be said that a Pan-German movement has developed in German Switzerland, which manifests open sympathy towards the Central Powers.

Zahn, a Swiss writer, in this way published an ode and sent money to the German Red Cross. A political personality of Basel sent information about the troops and the Swiss defence to the Frankfurter Zeitung. The novelist Schapfer, of Basel, went to Berlin to extol Germany and to sing Deutschland über Alles at a public meeting. The journalist Schappner advocated in the Neues Deutschland that Switzerland should abandon her neutral position in order to help Germany, and have as compensation Upper Savoy, the Gex region and a part of Franche-Comté so that she might form an advanced post of Germany towards the south, declaring at the same time an alliance with Austria-Hungary which would enable Switzerland to extend her boundaries also towards Italy.

The Neue Zurcher Nachrichten has even gone to the extent of taunting Belgium with her unhappy fate, saying that the neutrality of Belgium would have been violated by her own Government, and calling her the betrayer of Germany, and saying that Germany had every right to punish her.

These are all documents which are worth while knowing about, because they denote a state of mind that might have a surprise in store for us. Switzerland is made up of twenty-four cantons, in one of which the Italian language is spoken; but I don’t think that much reliance can be placed on that fact. For the rest, I know that the General Staff preoccupies itself a good deal with the possibility that, either through love or fear, Switzerland will allow the Kaiser’s troops to pass through Swiss territory, in which case they would then find themselves at once in Lombardy.

The Dilemma of Italy. This meeting, therefore, asks for the repudiation of the Treaty of the Triple Alliance as the first step to mobilisation and war. Otherwise, if the treaty is still in force, you can see how it can be interpreted in any sense. At first it bound us to intervene on the side of Austria and Germany, and we were taxed with being traitors when we declared ourselves neutral. To-day it proves that it is our duty to remain neutral. Treaties then are interpreted according to the letter, according to the spirit and according to the convenience of those who have to interpret them! Necessity demands, therefore, the explicit repudiation of the Treaty of the Triple Alliance. Perhaps this can be made the casus belli. We are not diplomats, but it is certain that if Italy repudiates the Treaty of the Triple Alliance, Germany will ask for explanations, and if, at the same time, there was mobilisation against Austria and Germany, we should be able to reach the stage in which a solution by arms would be forced upon us. For us the casus belli was magnificent and solemn; it was that created by the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. Italy ought to intervene in the name of jus gentium, in the name of her own national security. She has not been able to do so then; but now we must decide. “Either war, or the end of our name as a great power.” Let us build gambling-houses and hotels and grow fat. A people can have this ideal also, which is shared by the lower zoological species!

In reality the German working classes have embraced the cause of Prussian militarism, and so, my friends, the chief reason for remaining neutral falls to the ground. You Italian Socialists are preparing to commit the same crime of which you accuse the German Socialists. We, in the meantime, question the right of the German Socialists to call themselves Socialists any more. The International compact is only of value when it is signed and respected by all the contracting parties. Since the Germans are the first to have broken it, the Italians are no longer under obligation to hold by a contract which might mean their ruin.

It is a fact, however, that Italy is “still bound to the Triple Alliance.” This Government of ours is pusillanimous, because the repudiation of the Triple Alliance does not mean a declaration of war or even mobilisation. But, meanwhile, this would prove that the Italian people vindicate their right to independence of action in this period of history.

The Revolutionary War. To say that we are causing a revolution in order to obtain war, is to say something which we cannot maintain. We have not the strength. We find ourselves face to face with formidable coalitions, but the fasci of action have this object, to create that state of mind which will impose war upon the country.

To-morrow, if Italy does not make war, a revolutionary position will be inevitably decided, and discontent will spring up everywhere. Those same men who to-day are in favour of neutrality, when they feel themselves humiliated as men and Italians, will ask the responsible powers to account for it, and then will be our chance. Then we shall have our war. Then we shall say to the dominant classes: “You have not proved yourselves capable of fulfilling your task; you have deceived us and destroyed our aspirations. Your first care should have been the completion of the unity of the country, and you have ignored it. You have been warned about it by democracy in general and by the Republican Party particularly.” This will be a case which will surely end in condemnation; in condemnation which cannot be other than capital. And then perhaps we shall issue from this harassing period of history. Every day we feel that there is something in Italy which does not work, that there is a cog missing in the gear, or a wheel that does not go round. The country is young, but its institutions are old; and when—if I may be allowed to quote once more from Karl Marx, the old Pangermanist—a conflict between new forces and old institutions begins to shape itself, that means that the new wine cannot any longer be kept in the old skins, or the inevitable will occur. The old forces of the political and social life of Italy will fall into fragments. (Loud applause.)

“TO THE COMPLETE VANQUISHING OF THE HUNS”

Speech delivered at Sesto San Giovanni, 1st December 1917.

After the Caporetto disaster the patriotic organisations of Milan had consolidated their union, previously undermined by the opponents of war, who, thanks to the leniency of the Government, had been able to work in the interest of the enemy. They developed the existing sphere of propaganda, advocating resistance within the country. One of the centres most infected by neutralist opposition was undoubtedly Sesto San Giovanni, a large borough of the working classes at the gates of Milan, completely controlled by Social-Communist administration.

Mussolini, having just left the military hospital, where he had been lying ill as a result of many wounds received when a “bersagliere” of the 11th Regiment, spoke in this hostile citadel as only he could speak; and it is certainly beyond question that his frank and incisive eloquence was mainly instrumental in dispersing the bitter anti-war feelings fomented by stubborn and impudent Socialist neutralism.

Workmen and citizens! The other evening, after three years’ silence, I spoke to the audience of the Scala; an imposing audience and a large hall; but I prefer this friendly gathering of workmen and soldiers, because, in spite of everything, I am, and shall always remain, one with the masses which produce and work, and the implacable adversary of every parasite.

The International Illusion. I am here to talk to you of the war, and to remind you of an article, which some of you will still remember, in which, in a certain degree, I foresaw this truce. “A truce of arms” I called it then, and I repeat these words to-day. When one speaks of war, one must do so with a clear conscience and without all those useless ornaments of speech typical of an old, artificial style of literature. We must remember that while we stand together here to think of them, the best among our men, our brothers, your sons and your husbands are consuming themselves, suffering and perhaps dying for us, for our country and for our civilisation! We wished for the war, it is true, but because the arrogance of other men imposed it upon us. We had entertained the illusion that it was possible to realise the international dream among the peoples, but, while we were sincerely putting our faith in this beautiful chimera, the German “Internationals,” with Bebel at their head, were declaring themselves to be first Germans, and afterwards Socialists! And in the International Congresses the Germans always systematically refused to bind themselves to decisive action with the Socialists of other countries, under the specious pretext that the retrograde constitution of their country did not allow them, without jeopardising their organisation, to conclude international agreements. They held too much by their organisations, by their hundred and one deputies and by the fat and swollen purse of marks, which is the only thing which has been saved from German Socialism. (Loud applause.)

While Germany was preparing for war by organising formidable means of dominion and massacre, nobody in England, France, Italy or Russia dreamed of the imminence of the terrible scourge.

The True Germany. We had a very wrong idea of Germany. We only knew the Germany of the flaxen-haired Gretchens and of home-sick novels, and not that of Von Bernhardi, Harden and the Hohenzollerns.

It was Germany who wanted the war. Harden said so in an ill-considered outburst of sincerity. The Socialists, who claimed more land for the expansion of the German people, wanted it; spectacled professors incapable of synthesis, but terrible in analysis, prepared it; the military caste imposed it. The pretext for the unchaining of these forces was soon found. Two revolver shots in 1914; some bombs thrown; two imperial corpses hurried away in a court coach were the pretext. The war, for which the Central Powers were prepared, blazed up on all sides.

The Socialist Intervention. We Socialists who were in favour of intervention advocated war, because we divined that it contained within it the seeds of revolution. It is not the first instance of revolutionary war. There were the Napoleonic wars, the war of 1870, the enterprises of Garibaldi, in which, had we lived in those days, we should have joined in the same spirit and the same faith.

Karl Marx, too, was a jingoist. In 1855 he wrote that Germany would have been obliged to declare war against Russia; and in 1870 he said of the French: “They must be defeated! They will never be sufficiently beaten.” And when in 1871 the Socialists of France, with Latin ingenuousness, after declaring the Republic, sent a passionate appeal to the Germans for peace, Karl Marx said: “These imbeciles of Frenchmen claim that for their rag of a republic we should renounce all the advantages of this war.”

One does not deny one’s Country. It is possible to remain a Socialist and be in favour of certain wars. When the country is in danger, it is not possible to remain pacifist. A man cannot ignore his country any more than a tree can ignore the earth which provides it with sustenance. (Applause.) Our people have understood it, and you, who carry in your veins some drops of the warrior-blood of those men of Legnano who drove away Barbarossa, of the people of the Cinque Giornate, join with me to-day in inciting our soldiers to free our land from the shame of servitude. (Applause.) To deny one’s country, especially in a critical hour of her existence, is to deny one’s mother!

It was thought that the soldiers’ strike would bring peace. But, when our soldiers found that the enemy, instead of throwing down their rifles, mounted cannons and field-guns, instead of fraternising, massacred old men, women and children, and far from returning to their own country, advanced into ours, they only waited until a large enough river divided them from the adversary to place before them once again the impassable barrier of the Italian forces. (Loud applause.)

Our set-back is not due to fear of the Germans. The victors of eleven battles, the soldiers of the Carso, Bainsizza, Monte Santo, Cucco and of Sabotino do not fear spiked helmets. The armies of all the combatant countries have had moments of bewilderment, but not one recovered itself as quickly as we have. After only one week of retreat, our troops faced the enemy again and forced them back.

A Resolute Resistance. We have skirted the abyss; we might have been lost, but we have saved ourselves. While the Germans were hoping for still further revolution, the soldiers re-established the force of resistance which had been weakened; and now at the front the only fraternity is that of rifle shots. (Applause.)

When the storm is passed we shall be proud of having done our duty. Wilson, convinced pacifist, was drawn into the war by an elevated humanitarian motive, which made him feel that to prolong the war was an act of intolerable complicity with the Germans, and he gives us an example.

The war will end with our victory; but in order to win, you, workmen, must produce more. We must have guns, shells, rifles and bombs in great quantities. Arms and munitions, at this moment, represent our salvation. To-morrow, when our factories again produce ploughs and spades and instruments for agriculture, we shall have the joy of a duty done. To-day, and until the barbarians are defeated for ever, instruments of war must increase in number under the impulse of your decisive will to win. (Loud applause and demonstration of affection and sympathy.)

“NO TURNING BACK!”

Speech delivered in the Augusteo at Rome, 24th February 1918.

The speech delivered at the Augusteo in Rome may be included among those made by the most fervent patriots to rouse the country to a resolute effort after the Caporetto disaster. It was a summons to resistance, and a strong indictment against the heads of the Government in Italy which was responsible for the moral collapse which took place in the Army, due to the evil influences of blackmail and neutralist Parliamentarism at work in the country. The salient feature of this meeting was the leaving of the hall by the generals representing the “Corpo d’Armata” and the Ministry of War. But it was entirely owing to this meeting of exasperated patriots that the general policy of the then Prime Minister ceased to be lenient to the enemy’s sympathisers and that active resistance paved the way to the victory of the country in arms.

I wonder if there is anyone among you who remembers a meeting in favour of intervention in the war, that we held three years ago in one of the squares in Rome? We were dispersed by the police, but we were in the right. We moved on, and history moved on with us.

Three cities created history. But it does not matter. It is always the cities which create history; the villages are content to endure it. We, after three years of war, notwithstanding Caporetto, solemnly and truly reaffirm all that was deep, pure and immortal in those days in May.

Remember! It was just in the May of 1915 that Italy was not afraid of knowing how to live, because she was not afraid of knowing how to die!

The Mistake of May. But we made a great mistake then, that we have since paid for bitterly. We, who wished for the war, ought to have taken command of the situation. (Loud applause.) The Italian people—which is not the plebeian crowd which gets drunk in taverns, for twenty centuries of history have not civilised us for nothing—the Italian people had, even then, a vague apprehension of the dangers which threatened its mission.

In the May of 1915 the nation as a whole presented a marvellous concentration of human force. We men of ’84, when we forded the Upper Isonzo, thought that it was never again to be crossed by the Germans. When we gained the other side, with one accord we shouted: “Long live Italy!” (Loud applause from the whole assembly, who echo the cry.) It was fine human material which we handed over to those men who carried on war as if it were a tiresome task more tedious than the rest. We gave it over—for a war which, after twenty centuries of history, was the first war of the Italian people—to men who did not understand it; to men who represented the past; to bureaucrats who have spilled much too much ink over the trials and sufferings of the people.

But we are here to say to you: Gentlemen! the Germans are on the Piave, the Germans have broken down one gate of the Veneto and are in the process of breaking down the other. The moment has come to see if our hearts are made of steel. (Enthusiastic applause.)

I know these soldiers, because, as a simple soldier myself, I have lived among them, leading the life of a simple soldier. I have seen them under all the different aspects of military life. I have seen them in the barracks, in the hard, bare military transports while going to the front, in the trenches, in the dugouts under ceaseless bombardment when the shells rained down death; I have seen them when every heart has stopped beating, awaiting the command of the officer, “Over the top”; I know them, these sons of Italy, and I tell you, they have not been merely soldiers, they have been saints and martyrs! (Loud burst of applause.)

The Causes of Caporetto. How then did Caporetto happen? Let us search our consciences courageously as a great people.

Ah! yes! At first, it may have had a military reason, not later. Later we were face to face with a gigantic hallucination. (Applause.) Great words were flashed across the horizon. The formulæ of “salvation” had come from Russia, and from Rome came a fierce outcry against the war, saying that it was “a useless massacre.” You cannot conceive the profound disturbance this outcry caused in the minds of the multitude. And, as if that were not enough, without anyone having the courage to take summary proceedings against the authors, another sacrilegious message came from Parliament: “No more trenches next winter.” And, it is true, we are not any longer in the trenches beyond the Isonzo; we are on this side of the Piave.

Justice for All. All this was the result of a falsehood that lay at the bottom of our national life. The words “political liberty” had been said. Ah! liberty to betray, to murder the country, to pour out more blood, as said the man in France. (General applause. Cries of “Long live Clémenceau!”) This political liberty is a paradox. It is criminal to think that men are requisitioned, dressed, armed and sent to be killed, whilst every liberty of speech and power of protest is denied them; that they are terribly punished for the slightest act or word not in keeping with given orders, while at the same time, behind, in the secret meeting-places, in the club-houses of brutalised drunkards, plans are allowed to be matured and words to be spoken which are death to the war. (Loud general applause.)

But did you not feel, after 24th October, that there was a great change in us, both collectively and individually? Did you not feel that the vultures had torn away the flesh and fixed their claws in the open wounds? Did you not understand that we were going back to ’66? Did you not take into account the danger that the military system of ’66 would be accompanied by the same diplomatic manœuvring which we have not yet expiated? One does not deny one’s country, one conquers it! (Warm applause.)

The Example of Russia. Take a lesson from what has happened in Russia. The Latin sages used to say that Nature does not work by sudden leaps. I think, on the contrary, that she does sometimes. But in Russia they wanted to make things move too fast. They got rid of Czarism in order to form the democratic republic of Rodzianko and Miliukoff. That was in itself a big step, and I pass over the intermediate action of the Grand Duke Michael. But, not satisfied with this republic, they wished to become more Socialist and called for Kerensky. Kerensky went, because he was a mere figurehead—(Laughter.)—and now there are other people who still want to make things move too fast. But now the Germans, under the pretence of a future pseudo-democracy, have unmasked their brutal and barbarous annexationist projects. At Petrograd, it is said, all citizens must dig trenches, and those falling under suspicion of vagabondage or espionage will be shot immediately.

An Iron Policy. But meanwhile the Germans advance, and I think they are impelled by three motives: military, political and dynastic. I think that the Hohenzollerns propose to put the Romanoffs back on the throne. Well! I don’t care if they do! As the Russian people have proved that they don’t know how to live under a régime of liberty, let them live in slavery. But, in the meantime, the defection of the Russians increases our task.

It is not the moment to bewail idly or to follow a weak policy. I seek ferocious men! I want the fierce man who possesses energy—the energy to smash, the inexorable determination to punish and to strike without hesitation, and the higher the position of the culprit the better. (Loud applause from the assembly which understands the allusion.)

You send the simple soldier, burdened with a family, full of cares, and whom you have never taught anything about the country, to court-martial because he has disobeyed some order. If you put this soldier with his back against the wall, I approve of what you do, because I am a believer in rigid discipline. But you must not have two kinds of law. If there is a general who infringes the Sacchi decree, strike him too. If there is a deputy who, after the experience of Caporetto, says again that war is a “useless massacre,” I tell you that he, too, ought to be arrested and punished! (Ovation.)

Whoever has been to the front and lived in the trenches, knows what an effect the reading of certain speeches and Parliamentary reports had upon the minds of the soldiers. The poor man in the trenches asked himself: “Why must I suffer and die, if they are still discussing at Rome whether there ought to be war, if those who are at the head of affairs there do not know whether or not it is a good thing to be fighting?” That is deplorable and criminal talk, gentlemen! And now, even after Caporetto, after defeat, irresponsible people are allowed to make public anti-war demonstrations. (Loud applause.)

Ghosts! After Caporetto men showed themselves again whom we thought to have swept away for ever. But we have driven them back into their holes, because we are still on our legs.

Yes! Many of our comrades have not come back from the Carso and from among the Alps. But we carry their sacred memory in our hearts. I think of the indescribable torture of mind of those men of the Third Armata, when they had to abandon the Carso. I think they must have cried out, “For what reason, as the result of what unexpected catastrophe, are we forced to abandon these rocks?” Because in the end one loves the tracks, the stones, the trenches and the dugouts among which men have lived and suffered. We love the Carso, this heap of stones dotted with little crosses which mark the graves of those fallen in the cause of the liberty of our country. (Applause.) We love the Carso, from which we can view the coveted coast-line, the riviera of our Trieste. We still carry, alive and splendid, the torch of the dead; the torch of those who fell in the face of the enemy. And we are not moved by motives of gain. We want clear and explicit recognition of the fact that we have done our duty. And we find ourselves still in the breach, that we may tell this people, in case they have forgotten, that there is no turning back. There is no possibility of choosing. Worry your brains as you will, there is nothing else to be done, nothing else can be thought of!

Until Victory. The game is such that we must go on, because there is no other solution than this; victory or defeat! And it is the life or death of the nation that is at stake. Also those who assumed power with different ideas, with the intention of mending the situation, have had to change their minds. There is no turning back; we must win!

The warning has come from Russia. The Russian rulers tried to turn back and make peace. They have talked for days, weeks and months without coming to any conclusions, because if Massimalism had sent lawyers more or less smart, Prussia had sent armed generals who from time to time tapped the pavement with their swords so that German rights might be the better understood. Then they accepted peace. But Prussia, thirsty for land, the Prussia of the Hohenzollerns, insatiable and implacable, marches into Russia and occupies territory.

If there is anybody to-day who does not wish for peace, who prevents talk of peace, who wants to continue the war, you must not seek him among the people, but at Berlin in the company of Hindenburg and Ludendorff. These are the enemies of mankind and to these one does not kneel. No! The Latin race holds itself upright! (Ovation.)

We who desired the war and make it our boast that we did so, we who do not go humbly soliciting electoral divisions, we shall not follow the cowardly demagogic example of those who wish to ingratiate themselves with the people. Democracy does not signify descent. It means ascent. It means raising up those who are down. And so for all the sacred and youthful blood that has been shed, and that we have not forgotten, and for the sake of all that is still to be shed, let us renew the solemn pact of our faith in the certainty of victory.

No! Italy will not die, because Italy is immortal! (Frantic applause.)

THE FATAL VICTORY

Speech delivered at the Teatro Comunale, Bologna, 24th May 1918.

On this occasion the principal speaker was the Editor of Il Popolo d’Italia, who had recovered his physical efficiency after severe wounds received on the Carso, and had a real influence in securing victory because of the encouragement he gave to the spirit of resistance within the country.

Bologna was then a stronghold of the opponents of war, on account of the net of political and syndicalist organisation stretching throughout the province, and of Socialist supremacy in the communes and dependent administrations. It is, unfortunately, well known that the State had by then ceased exercising any authority other than merely formal in this province.

A mark of Socialist power, which proves also the profound anti-national feeling of the defeated politicians who to-day stammer so many lying excuses, is offered by the absolute prohibition of manifestations calculated to glorify the Italian Army.

Mussolini’s speech at the “Comunale” temporarily reunited the sane sections of Bologna to the rest of Italy, then in great anxiety for her fate and future.

Combatants and Citizens! Will you allow me to pass over without unnecessary delay the polemics which preceded my coming to this city? If, as says our great poet Carducci, “one does not seek for butterflies beneath the arch of Titus,” one does not seek for them either beneath the arches of this, our ancient and magnificent town of Bologna, especially as one would probably not find butterflies at all, but bats dazed and frightened by this glorious May sunshine.

The form of my speech will not surprise you. In those days, three years ago, all the Italy that was conscious of life and possessed of will-power, the only Italy which has a right to transform her chaotic succession of events into history, burned with an intense ardour—our ardour. I have noticed now for some time that there are opportunists who are trying to open a door for eventual responsibilities and who are carefully and laboriously cataloguing the reasons why Italy could not remain neutral.

Destiny and Will. Very well! I admit that there has been fatality, I admit this compulsion, which was the result of a number of causes which it is useless to dwell upon, but I add that at a certain moment we imprinted the mark of our will upon this concatenation of events, and to-day, after three years, we are not penitent of what we have done. We leave this weak, spiritual attitude to those who seek applause, seats in Parliament, and personal satisfaction; those who thoroughly despise, as I do, all parliamenteering and demagogism, are far away from all this.

What Machiavelli says in chapter vi. of the Principe, about those who, by their own inherent qualities, attained the position of princes, Moses, Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus, can be applied not only to the individual, but to the nation. “And examining,” says the Florentine Secretary, “their lives and actions, one does not see that they had other fortune than that of the opportunity which gave them the material and enabled them to shape it as seemed best to them; and without that opportunity the virtue of their souls would have been lost, and without that virtue the opportunity would have come in vain.”

As to the Italian people in that glorious May, it can be said that without the opportunity of the war the virtue of our people would have been lost; but without this virtue the opportunity of the war would have come in vain.

I have found an echo of the thought of Machiavelli in the book of Maeterlinck, the great Belgian poet, the poet who, perhaps, more than any of his contemporaries, has given expression to the most delicate and complex movements of the human soul. Maeterlinck in his book Wisdom and Destiny admits the existence of a mechanical, external fate, but says that a human being can react against it. “An event in itself,” he says in chapter viii. of this book, “is pure water which the fountain pours out over us, and which has not generally in itself either taste, colour or perfume. It becomes beautiful or sad, sweet or bitter, life-giving or mortal, according to the soul which receives it. Thousands of adventures, all of which seem to contain the seeds of heroism, continually happen to those who surround us, whilst no heroism arises when the adventure is over. But Christ met a group of children in his path, an adulteress, a Samaritan, and three times in succession humanity rose to divine heights.” The war has been as a jet of pure water for our nation. It has been deadly for Spain, for instance, but life-giving to us. We desired it. We chose. Before making our choice we argued and struggled, and the struggle sometimes assumed the aspect of violence; but we won, and now we are proud of those days, and are glad to think that the memory of the crowds which filled the streets and squares of our cities disturbs those who were defeated and those who even to-day, by the most insidious means, try to extinguish the sacred flame and the faith of our people. They accepted this war as one accepts a heavy burden, and their leader, followed by the curses of the people, withdrew, like an old feudal lord, to his remote native country, and we can only wish that he will always remain there.

Enough of Old Age! But, as I am never tired of repeating, we young men made one fatal mistake then, which we have paid for bitterly; we entrusted this ardent youth of ours to the most grievous old age. When I say old age, I do not establish merely a chronological fact. I think some people are born old, that there are those at twenty who are in a mental and physical decline, whereas some men—the marvellous Tiger of France, for instance—at seventy have all the vibration and fire of virile youth. I speak of the old men who are old men, who are behind the times, who are encumbrances. They neither understood nor realised the fundamental truths underlying the war.

Besides the people, the meaning of this war in its historical aspect and development has been perceived by two classes of men: the poets and the industrial world. By the poets, because with their extreme sensitiveness they grasp truths which remain half veiled to the ordinary person; and by the industrial world, because it understands that this war is a war of machines. Between the two let us also put the journalists, who have enough of the poet in them not to belong to the industrial world, and are enough of the industrial world not to be poets. And the journalists have often forestalled the Government. I speak of the great journalists who keep their ears open, on the alert to catch vibrations from the outside world. The journalist has sometimes foreseen what those responsible, alas! have recognised too late.

Quality versus Quantity. This war has so far been one of quantity. Now, it is realised that the masses do not beat the masses, an army does not vanquish an army, quantity does not overcome quantity. The problem must be faced from another point of view—that of quality. This war, which began by being tremendously democratic, is now tending to become aristocratic. Soldiers are becoming warriors. A selection is being made from the armed mass. The struggle, now carried on almost exclusively in the air, has lost the characteristics it had in 1914.

The first novelist who foresaw the problems of the war of quality was Wells. Read his book The War on Three Fronts. It is in this book that he advised the exploitation of the “quality” of the Latin and Anglo-Saxon races. Because, whereas the Germans only work in close formation, only give good results through the automatism of the masses, the Latin feels the joy of personal audacity, the fascination of risk, and has the taste for adventure; which taste, says Wells, is limited in Germany to the descendants of the feudal nobility, while with us it is to be found also among the people.

Another truth which those responsible realised late was that, in order to win the armies, the people must be won, that is to say, that the armies must be taken in the rear. This would be difficult where Germany was concerned, as she is ethnically, politically and morally compact. But we are face to face with an enemy against whom we could have acted in this way from the very first. We ought to have penetrated the mosaic of the Austrian State.

A Great People. Among the peoples who cannot be taken in the rear by surprise, is ours. My praise is sincere. The people in the trenches are great, and those who have not fought are great. For deficiency you must look among those old men of whom I spoke just now.

I have lived among our brave soldiers in the trenches and listened to them talking in their little groups. I have seen them during their bad times and in epic moments of enthusiasm. And when, after the sad 24th October, there was a certain distrust of them, I would not allow it, because it seemed to me impossible that the soldiers, who had won battles in circumstances more difficult than those prevailing in any other theatre of war, had become all at once weak cowards, who fled at the mere crackling of a machine-gun. And it was not so, because if it had been, no river would have stopped the invading forces, and if we stopped them on the Piave, it means we could have resisted also on the Isonzo. (Applause.)

I was reading in the train last night a book of poems written in the trenches by a Captain Arturo Arpigati. The literature of the war is the only readable literature, but it must have been written by men who have really been at the front. In this verse I recognised my one-time fellow-soldiers, the humble and great soldiers of our war. Here it is:

Col vecchio suo magico sguardo

il Dovere, nume d’acciaio

gli inconsci anche soggioga.

benché ne balbettino il nome,

ecco, essi, la madre difendono

ed è la madre di tutti;

e sono essi la Guerra,

e sono essi la Fronte,

sono essi la Vittoria;

dai loro elmetti ferrei

spicca il volo la gloria:

essi martiri e santi,

sono l’eroica Patria, essi. I Fanti![^[2]]

But the highest praise of the people in arms is contained in the thousand bulletins of the Supreme Command. The unarmed also deserve praise, both those in cities—inevitably nervous and restless by reason of the association of thousands of human beings and the contact of thousands of temperaments—and those in the country. From the Valle Padana to the Tavoliere delle Puglie, from the vine-clad hills of Montferrat to the plains of the Conca d’Oro, the houses of the peasants stand empty, and with the houses the stables. The women have seen the father and the son depart together, the thoughtful territorial of over forty and the adventurous youth. It is useless to expect from the humble people of the proletariat a highly developed sense of nationality. It cannot possess what we have never done anything to cultivate. From the people who have exchanged the spade for the gun we simply ask for obedience, and the Italian people, the people of the country and of the factories, obey. A sad episode, some signs of restlessness are not enough to spoil this picture. It had been said that we should not hold out six months; that at the announcement of the names of the dead the families would rebel; that the sight of the maimed at the street corners would rouse the people to action. Three years have now passed—three long years. The mothers of the fallen take a sacred pride in their grief. The maimed do not ask to be called “glorious,” and refuse to be pitied. Food is scarce, but the people still resist. The troop trains go to the front adorned with flowers as in the May of 1915. The dignity and peace in the towns and in the country is simply marvellous! The national crisis, which lasted from August to October of 1917, and which is summed up in the two names of Turin and Caporetto, has been in a certain sense salutary. It was the repercussion of the great crisis which hurled Russia into the abyss.

[2]. As of old, Duty, of the steel hand, enchains even the ignorant by the magic of her glance. While as yet they can barely stutter her name, lo! they defend their mother, who is the mother of all.

And they are the war, and they are the battle front, and they are the victory. Glory is reflected from their steel helmets.

They, the soldiers, are the martyrs and saints and the heroic country.

The Russian Tragedy. Was there any definite motive in the Leninist policy which led Russia to make the “painful, forced and shameful Peace of Brest”? Yes! there was. The massimalists really believe in the possibility of revolution by “contagion.” They hoped to infect the Germans with the massimalist bacillus. They did not succeed; Germany is refractory. The very “minoritaries” are far from proclaiming themselves Bolshevists. And more, these “minoritaries,” who ought to represent the fermenting yeast, are continually losing ground. In three elections there have been three overwhelming defeats. The “majoritaries” triumph. They are the same now as in the August of 1914, accomplices of Pangermanism. They want to win. After Brest-Litowsk the Socialists lay low; after the Peace of Bucharest they kept silence.

We have seen what have been the results in Russia of the Leninist gospel, we have seen how the German Socialists, who accepted “neither annexations nor indemnities and the right of the people to decide their own fate,” have interpreted this doctrine. The Germans took possession of 540,000 square kilometres of territory in Russia with a population of fifty-five millions; then they went on to Roumania and plundered her. If the Peace of Brest-Litowsk was shameful for Russia, the Peace of Bucharest was not. The Roumanians were taken in the rear, and could not resist.

In the meantime, Cicerin, the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, made the wireless work. A cynic might remark that if the Roman Republic had a Cicero in a critical hour of her history, Russia has a Cicerin, whom, contrary to the former, nobody takes seriously, because it is impossible to take seriously those who do not know how to take up arms in the defence of their own rights.

The Russian experiment has helped us enormously, both from the socialist and the political points of view. It has opened many eyes which had persistently remained closed. It must be realised that if Germany wins, complete and certain ruin awaits us. Germany has not changed her fundamental instincts. They are the same as those which Tacitus describes to perfection in his Germania in these words: “The Germans do not live in villages, but in separate houses, set wide apart the better to protect them against fire. To shield themselves from the cold, they live in underground dwellings covered with manure or clothe themselves in the skins of small animals, of which they have a great number. Strong in war, but persistent drunkards and gamblers, armed with spears and well supplied with horses, they prefer to gain wealth, when it suits them, by violence rather than by the working of their lands.”

In his De Vita Julii Agricolæ this Roman writer notes a contrast between the Germans and the Britons nineteen centuries ago which is still the same to-day, that is, that while the Britons fight for the defence of their country and their homes, the Germans fight for avarice and lust. These same tribes, driven once to Legnano, have resumed their march beyond the Rhine and are preparing once more to take up the offensive against us. But the “lust” of which Kuhlmann speaks will not carry the Germans beyond the Piave.

We are on our Feet. According to German calculations, the Italian nation, as the result of Caporetto, ought to fall into a state of chaos. Instead, it is on its feet. What vicissitudes may not this last phase of the war bring with it? Will Germany, who has not been able to beat us by ourselves, beat the formidable combination of nations which faces her?

We are one with France, whose soldiers have performed wonders of heroism. And this France, which we knew so little, because we had looked for her only in the cabarets of Montmartre, not frequented by Frenchmen at all but by adventurers from all over the world, has written for us the most splendid pages of heroic deeds. She has known how to rid herself of insidious dangers, to give the death-blow to the plotters of treachery, both great and small, and to make the rifles of the executionary squadrons crackle, a sound which, to one who loves his country, is sweeter than the harmonies of a great opera. Also we, in Italy, must act inexorably where traitors are concerned, if we are to defend our soldiers from attack from behind. Where the existence of the nation and of millions of men is involved, there cannot and must not be a moment’s hesitation about sacrificing the lives of one, ten or a hundred men.

We are one with England, who repeats the words of Nelson, “England expects that every man this day will do his duty.”

And we are one with the United States. This is Internationalism, the real, true and lasting Internationalism, even if it has not got the formulas, dogmas and chrism of Socialism made official. It is in the trenches, where soldiers of different nationalities have crossed six thousand leagues of ocean to come and die in Europe.

You must allow me to be optimistic about the outcome of the war. We shall win because the United States cannot lose, England cannot lose, France cannot lose. The United States has a population of 110 millions; one single levy can produce a million recruits. America, like England, knows that the wealth of society is at stake.

As long as we are in this company there is no danger of a ruinous peace. Not to arrive at the goal of peace means to be crushed; but when we arrive there, we, too, can look the enemy in the face and say that we, too, small, despised people, army of mandolinists, have held out to the end, wept, suffered, but resisted, and have thus the right to a just and lasting peace!

Convalescence. I am an optimist, and see the Italy of to-morrow through rose-coloured spectacles. Enough of the Italy of the hotel-keeper, goal of the idle with their odious Baedekers in their hands; enough of dusting old plaster-work; we are and we wish to be a nation of producers.

We are a people who will expand without aiming at conquest. We shall gain the world’s respect by means of our industries and our work. It will be the august name of Rome which will still guide our forces in the Adriatic, the Gulf of the Mediterranean, and in the Mediterranean, which forms the communication between three continents.

Those who have been wounded know what convalescence means. There comes a day when the surgeon no longer takes his ruthless but life-giving knife from the tray, no longer tortures the suffering flesh. The danger of infection is over, and you feel yourself re-born. A second youth begins. Things, men, the voice of a woman, the caress of a child, the flowering of a tree—everything gives you the ineffable sensation of a return. New blood surges through your veins, and fills you with a feverish desire to work.

The Italian people too will have its convalescence, and it will be a competition for reconstruction after destruction. The flag of the disabled is a symbol of a change in their moral and spiritual life. Just think that certain rascals thought to take advantage of them for their infamous speculations. But the disabled answered: “We will not lend ourselves to this shameful game, we do not intend to accept from your charity and sympathy help which would humiliate us.” And they do not curse their fate, they do not complain, even if they are without an arm or a leg; even those who have lost the divine light of their eyes hold their peace. In vain the enemy hoped to profit by the state of mind of these people. They reply to this by saying that all they had they gave for their country, and to-day they do not wish to be a burden upon her, and so they work and train themselves, and give further proof of their devotion to the sacred cause.

The Returning Battalions. I no longer see relegated to some far future time the day upon which the banners of the disabled will precede the torn and glorious standards of the regiments. And around the standards will be collected the veterans and the people. And there will be the shadow of our dead, from those who fell on the Alps to those who were buried beyond the Isonzo, from those who stormed Gorizia to those who were mowed down between Hermada and the mysterious Timavo, or upon the banks of the Piave. All this sacred phalanx we sum up in three names: Cesare Battisti, who wished deliberately to face martyrdom, and who was never so noble as when he offered his neck to the Hapsburg executioner; Giacomo Venezian, who left the austere halls of your Athenæum in order to go and meet his death upon the road to Trieste; and Filippo Corridoni, born of the people, a fighter for the people, and who died for the people on the first rocky ridges of the Carso.

The returning battalions will move with the slow and measured tread of those who have lived and suffered much and who have seen innumerable others suffer and die. They will say, we shall say:

“Here upon the track which leads back to the harvest field, here in the factory which now forges the instruments of peace, here in the tumultuous city and the silent country, now that the duty was done and the goal reached, let us set up the symbol of our new right. Away with shadows! We, the survivors—we, the returned, vindicate our right to govern Italy, not to her destruction and decay, but in order to lead her ever higher, ever on, to make her—in thought and deed—worthy to take her place among the great nations which will build up the civilisation of the world to-morrow.”

“IN HONOUR OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

Speech delivered at Milan on the occasion of the popular demonstration of 8th April 1918.

The exaggerated welcome lavished upon President Wilson during his visit to Italy is well known; and of all cities Milan accorded him the most generous hospitality. Benito Mussolini, who on that occasion was specially entrusted with the task of addressing the President of the United States on behalf of the Lombard Association of Journalists, had prepared the mind of the Milanese eight months before, by a speech delivered in Piazza Cordusio, extolling the generous and brotherly effort of the great and vigorous American people.

Citizens! Time does not allow long speeches. I do not speak of time by the clock, but of historical time, which for some few weeks has quickened its beat. To-day throughout Italy demonstrations are taking place worthy of this unique moment in the history of humanity. (Applause.)

The people of Bergamo go to Pontida to renew the vows made by the League of the Lombard Communes seven centuries ago, when they took the field against Barbarossa; at Rome an imposing demonstration is in progress beneath the shadow of the imperial walls of the Coliseum; while here the people of Milan, by their numbers and enthusiasm, express the keen sympathy they feel for the noble American Democracy. It was a year ago to-day that America, having loyally waited for the Germans to come to their senses, unsheathed her sword and joined the battle. (Applause.)

Six thousand leagues of ocean have not prevented the United States from fulfilling her definite duty. The importance of her intervention does not consist only in the fact that America gives us, and will give us, men, ammunition and provisions. There is something deeper in the intimate reassurance given us as men and civilised people, as America would never have embraced our cause if she had not been firmly convinced of the right and justice of it. (Applause.)

Citizens! It is for us a source of pride and satisfaction to be associated with twenty-three other nations in this war against Prussian militarism. But it must also be a satisfaction for the United States to fight side by side with a great and powerful England which does not tremble before the varying chances of war; beside a France which is almost sublime in her heroism—(Applause.)—and beside the new Italy, which has now definitely taken her place in the world struggle. (Applause.)

As Italy discovered America, so America and the rest of the New World must discover Italy, not only in the great towns, pulsating with life and humming with industry, but also in the country, where the humble labourers wait with quiet resignation for the dawn of a victorious and just peace to appear on the horizon.

There cannot be anybody now, even the most ignorant, who can sincerely believe that Germany did not want the war, and that Germany does not wish to continue the war in order that she may turn the world into a lot of horrible Prussian barracks. (Applause and cries of “Death to Germany!”)

This is our conviction, and also the conviction of the Americans, a great people numbering more than a hundred million, who have a vast wealth at their command and who have already submitted themselves to the magnificent discipline of war.

An old story comes into my mind. When Christopher Columbus turned the prows of his three poor little ships towards unknown lands and far-off shores, there were those who called him mad and moonstruck; and certainly sometimes during those three months of wandering a sense of despair invaded the hearts of those men lost in the midst of the unknown ocean. But one morning the crew up aloft saw something new upon the horizon. It was a dark, vague line. They shouted “Land! Land!” and three months of misery were forgotten in one delirious moment.

The day will come when from our blood-stained trenches will arise another such cry; the cry of “Victory! Victory!” And there will be the right and just peace for all the nations!

Citizens! On behalf of the Committee of the Wounded and Disabled Soldiers, I thank you for your solemn demonstration and I ask you to join with me in giving three cheers for America and for Italy. (Warm applause and cheers.)

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Speech delivered at Milan, 20th October 1918.

Immediately after the end of the war a group of journalists and politicians, belonging for the most part to the Republican and Radical democracy, took the initiative in a movement supporting the future work of the League of Nations. Later, however, this initiative had to be abandoned by those who were loyal to victory, because it seemed clear to them that the pseudo-idealism of the Allies would prejudice the legitimate interests of the Italian nation. The following speech, however, shows clearly the generosity of Italian ex-soldiers disappointed by the realism of other countries’ national aspirations.

The Executive Committee of the Wounded and Disabled Soldiers has asked me to speak on the order of the day expressing support of the idea of the League of Nations, which, already preconceived in Italy, is now so nobly advocated by President Wilson, and which proclaims the determination of the Italian people to co-operate effectively in bringing about its realisation. I shall do so shortly, as the question is not new, but is already understood throughout the country.

The disabled soldiers have taken the initiative, and it is significant, as only those who have suffered most from the war have the right to say what the peace ought to be, not those who have wilfully opposed it and would have led us to defeat or—not wishing that the people should suffer defeat—to continuous war.

This is the hour particularly suited to the discussion of these problems. Already a League of Nations seems to be in the process of realisation; in the trenches the different peoples are mixed up and are associating with each other. The humblest peasant, dreaming of return to his native village after the hard experiences of the trenches, has widened his spiritual horizon and, for a time, breathes a world atmosphere.

In the other nations, the question has already come under discussion in the papers, the universities and the Parliaments. It could be said that Italy was behindhand, but we might reply that in a certain sense we have forestalled the others. There have been epochs in our history when Italian thought has been almost too universal, but I think perhaps at those times the universality of our literature, our philosophy, our art, of our spirit, in fact, was our highest and noblest title to greatness.

But, without returning to the Middle Ages, two men of the nineteenth century, Cattaneo and Mazzini, prove that Italian thought led, and that the other nations followed the furrow we were the first to plough.

This war may be divided into two periods: the first, from the outbreak of hostilities to the American intervention; the second, from the American intervention up to to-day. In the first, the war has a national and territorial character. The names of Metz, Trento, Fiume and Zara occur frequently, and can be said to sum up our aims. The territorial questions come first. The systemised jurisdiction of the world is not yet spoken of; the war is world-wide in its direct and indirect repercussion in as far as England has already made use of her colonies, since Australians and Indians came to fight in Europe, but it is not yet world-wide in its extension and aims. The second period began with the April of ’17. Already, in the first period, English politicians had begun to disregard the territorial problems; but this process was shaped, hurried on and definitely settled by the intervention of America. But in my modest opinion, the national and territorial questions must not be underrated too much; that would be to play into the hands of the anti-war agitators and the Germans. These are questions of justice. It is a good thing to remember that Wilson, in all his messages, though he certainly made a transposition of values, never failed to establish that vindication of national rights, without which the settlement of Europe and the world of to-morrow in general could have no definite meaning.

When we speak of a League of Nations we must take into account certain dispositions. Cesare Lombroso used to divide men into two categories: the “misoneists” and the “philoneists”: the misoneists, who accept the revealed truths, lean upon them and sleep upon them; the philoneists, who are restless, impatient spirits and as necessary to the world as the wheels and shafts to a cart. For the first the so-called kingdom of the impossible has always extensive boundaries, but the war has enormously reduced that kingdom. That which yesterday was a misty, fantastic Utopia, to-day has become reality and fact.

Our enemies talk too much about the League of Nations. There are furious “Wilsonites” of the latest kind in Austria and in Germany. Now I must say that seeing this kind of people bleating like lambs makes a certain impression on me. (The simile is that of a Republican German paper printed at Berne.) They are the same who burnt the cities of Belgium, who sank ships without leaving a trace, or gave orders to that effect; they are the same who carried off men and women in their retreat. They shout “League of Nations,” but we cannot be mixed up with them. There is evidently an underlying motive. But they will be unmasked by the victorious armies of the Entente.

Some people say, Would not this League of Nations be a substitute for victory? No! on the other hand, it presupposes victory. Wilson has talked of absolute victory.

It is said, in a Socialist review, that a League of Nations is impossible if the Allies gain a military victory, because the desire for revenge would lurk in the depths of the German mind. Now there are three hypotheses as regards the way in which the conflict may end. The first is the victory of the enemy, and this has already fallen through. If this had come about, there would not have been a League of Nations, but a master at Berlin and slaves in the rest of Europe, which would then have become a German colony. The second is a war which ends in neither victory nor defeat; and this is the most repugnant and inhuman of all, as it would leave all the problems unsolved, and give a peace which was only a truce. The third is the solution which is now shaping itself gloriously upon the horizon—our victory. There is no danger of the spirit of revenge being fostered by the Germans to-morrow, because we allies in war would remain allies in peace. Germany will find herself face to face with the same coalition which defeated her, and will have to resign herself to the fait accompli. The League of Nations will be formed without Germany, against Germany, or with Germany when she has expiated her crime by being defeated.

Some people say: “Does it not seem very dangerous to go back to universality, after the experiences of the past?” Ernest Renan must have been up against this problem when he wrote: “The nation which entertains problems of the religious and social order is always weak. Every country which dreams of a kingdom of God, lives on general ideas and carries out work in the interests of the universe, sacrifices through this its own particular destiny and weakens and destroys its efficiency as a territorial power. It was thus with Judea, Greece and Italy. It will, perhaps, be thus with France.”

Renan was a great man, but his prophecy has not been fulfilled. France during the nineteenth century entertained universal ideas, but with the outbreak of war she recovered her national spirit. Internationalism may be dangerous when a single nation advocates it, but to-day all the nations of the world are seeking each other, in order to lay the foundations of a lasting and pacific means of co-existence. Besides this, the racial, historical and moral sense of every nation has been developed by the war. It is not a paradox but a reality that the war, while it has made us find ourselves and exalted the national spirit, has, at the same time, carried us beyond those boundaries which we have defended and conquered.

There is no danger of the levelling of the national spirit as the result of contact with other nations. Solid foundations are needed for national unity, and for this reason the condition of the working classes must be raised. No nation can become greater in which there are enormous masses condemned to the conditions of life of prehistoric humanity.

Another paradox of this war is that the nations fighting against the Germans have not yet formed a peace alliance. The peace manifesto to the peoples of the world ought to have come from Versailles. This could help, among other things, to make the German crisis more acute. It has not been done yet. The people intuitively felt the necessity. Sometimes truths are arrived at more quickly by intuition than by reasoning, and the people felt that that was the path to follow. And we are upon that path to-day. Not long ago Clémenceau said that the liberation of France must be the liberation of humanity.

It is true that to put the idea of the League of Nations into practice would present difficulties, especially at first. According to me the problems which will have to be faced and solved are of a political, economic, military and colonial order. In a month’s time you will have reports upon these subjects, and I do not wish to tire you with hasty anticipations.

We have arrived at a decisive point in history. While we are gathered here the battle is raging; there are millions and millions of men who are fighting their last fight. Let us swear that all this has not been in vain, but that these sacrifices must mark a new phase in the history of humanity. Let us say to ourselves that all that can be tried will be tried, in order to make the purple flower of liberty spring from the blood shed in the cause of freedom, and that justice shall reign sovereign over all the peoples of the renewed world!

IN CELEBRATION OF VICTORY

Speech delivered at Milan, 11th November 1918, before the Monument of the “Cinque Giornate.”

Milan, notwithstanding its multi-coloured local Socialism, had ever remained the burning heart of the country’s resistance and spent herself lavishly for the war. On the morrow of the memorable day of Vittorio Veneto she gave herself up to unrestrained manifestations of patriotic joy.

Benito Mussolini—the ardent advocate of intervention in the harassing times gone by, the indomitable fighter in the Carso trenches, and the fervent advocate of resistance in the hour in which the enemy’s friends were crying for “peace at any price”—Benito Mussolini may well be considered as one of the principal artificers of victory.

The people of Milan felt this in the triumphant rejoicings and the Editor of Il Popolo d’Italia was acclaimed by public gratitude for his part in the union of hearts.

My brothers of the trenches, Citizens! I have never before felt my inefficiency as an orator as deeply as I do now in the face of the greatness of the events and your memorable and imposing manifestation. What can I say to you, when this manifestation is already more than a speech, a hymn—more than a hymn, an epos?

We have arrived at this day after many hardships. I see here, gathered round the monument of the Cinque Giornate, which is the altar of Milan, those who fought first and last, those of the trenches who are the survivors of the sacrifice of devotion, who marked with their blood the destinies of the country, and the disabled who feel themselves no longer maimed since Italy has become great. I see beside them the refugees, who will soon return to their lands and deserted hearths. I remember what I said last year; we must love these brothers of ours, warm them by our firesides, and still more in our hearts. And I see the people of Milan joined together like all the Italian people in a superb act of love.

How many different events in the course of a year! Do you remember these days a year ago? Do you remember last year at the Scala when we swore that the Germans should not pass the Piave? And they did not pass, and the then line of resistance became afterwards the line of advance towards victory. Even in the darkest hours I did not despair, and paid homage to the fighters. We saw in those days the first “poilus” and “tommies”; it was the Entente coming to cement the Alliance in our trenches. After a year of faith and sacrifice has come victory.

We think with gratitude of the fine leaders who led us on to victory, but also, still more, of the anonymous mass of soldiers, our marvellous people, who resisted the invasion on the Piave, and from the Piave sprang forward to rout the enemy.

Remember it here—here where we held the first meeting for war—here, with Filippo Corridoni. (The crowd give a prolonged ovation to the memory of Filippo Corridoni.) We wanted the war, because we were obliged to want it, because it was imposed by historical necessity. To-day we have realised all our ideals; we have secured our national aims; the Italian flag to-day flies from the Brenner to Trieste and Fiume and Italian Zara. We did not know then that there were Italian infantry on the other side of the Adriatic. Now, in all the cities and villages on the eastern shore, the Italians have planted the flag of their country, because that shore, which is Italian, must remain Italian.

We have also accomplished the international aims of our war. When we said, four years ago, that the red flag must wave over the castle at Potsdam, the dream appeared madness. To-day the Kaiser has fled, and with the passing of the Hohenzollerns passes militarism.

The most magnificent political panorama which history records unfolds itself before the eyes of the astonished world. Empires, kingdoms and autocracies crumble like castles built with cards. Austria no longer exists; to-morrow there will no longer be Imperialist Germany. We, with the sacrifice of our blood, have given the German people liberty, while the German people have made a holocaust of their blood in order to deliver us over to the chain of imperialism and military slavery. Upon the ruins of the old world is outlined the dream of a League of Nations.

Victory must also see the realisation of the aims of war within the country—that is to say, the redemption of labour. From now onwards the Italian people must be the arbiters of their destinies, and labour must be redeemed from speculation and misery.

Citizens! At Trento there is the statue of Dante with his hand outstretched towards the Alps. It seemed before that the reproach of the great poet:

Ahi! serva Italia, di dolore ostello,

Nave senza nocchiero in gran tempesta,[^[3]]

rang out admonishing the country. But Italy to-day is no longer a slave, she is the mistress of herself and her future. She is no longer a rudderless ship in a storm, because a glorious horizon has been opened up by her victory.

[3]. .sp 1

Alas! Slave Italy, the home of all griefs,

A ship without rudder in a great storm.

And the people are the rudder of this ship, which, between three seas and three continents, sails serenely and securely towards the port of supreme justice in the light of the redeemed humanity of to-morrow. (Prolonged applause.)

PART III
MUSSOLINI THE “FASCISTA FRIEND OF THE PEOPLE”

WORKMEN’S RIGHTS AFTER THE WAR

Speech delivered 20th March 1919 before the workmen of Dalmine.

The episode of Syndicalist strife, during which the present Prime Minister addressed a crowded meeting of ironworkers, is often recalled as a kind of reproach by Italian Socialists. They would like to attribute to Mussolini and to Fascista Syndicalism the initial responsibility for that dark period in our national life which had its dramatic expression in the occupation of the factories.

But the methods of protest adopted by the patriotic Italian workmen of Dalmine (Bergamo), although primitive on account of the moral immaturity and technical incapacity of the proletariat at that time, were provoked by the insolence of employers. For the rest, the protest was kept within the bounds of correct and calm expression.

A significant item in the story, which reveals the state of mind of the workers, is the following: tricolour flags, which were then frequently insulted by organisations of workmen under the thumb of the Socialist Party, flew from all chimney-tops during the occupation of Dalmine works, while in the workshops below the work itself throbbed cheerfully and briskly.

I have often asked myself if, after the four years of terrible though victorious war in which our bodies and minds have been engaged, the masses of the people would return to move in the same old tracks as before, or whether they would have the courage to change their direction. Dalmine has answered. The order of the day voted by you on Monday is a document of enormous historical importance, which will and must give a general direction to the line taken by all Italian labour.

The intrinsic significance of your action is clearly set forth in the order of the day. You have acted on the grounds of class, but you have not forgotten the nation. You have spoken for the Italian people, and not only for those of your class of metal-workers. In the immediate interests of your category you might have caused a strike in the old style, the negative and destructive style; but, thinking of the interests of the people, you have inaugurated the creative strike which does not interrupt production. You could not deny the nation after having fought for her, when half a million men have given their lives for her. The nation, for which this sacrifice has been made, cannot be denied, because she is a glorious and victorious reality. You are not the poor, the humiliated, the rejected, as the old rhetorical sayings of the Socialists would have you be; you are the producers, and it is in this capacity that you vindicate your right to treat the industrial owners as equals. You are teaching some of them, especially those who have ignored all that has occurred in the world in the last four years, that for the figure of the old industrial magnate, odious and grasping, must be substituted that of the industrial captain.

You have not been able to prove your capacity for creation, on account of shortness of time and of the conditions made for you by the industrial leaders; but you have proved your good-will, and I tell you that you are on the right road, because you are freed from your protectors, and have chosen from among yourselves the men who are to direct you and represent you, and to them only you have entrusted the guardianship of your rights.

The future of the proletariat is a question of will-power and capacity; not of will-power only and not of capacity only, but of both together. You are free from the yoke of political intrigue. Your applause tells me that it is true. I am proud of having fought for intervention. If it were necessary, I would carve in capital letters upon my forehead, so that all cowards might see, that I was among those in the glorious May of ’15 who demanded that the shame of the neutral Italy of those days should cease.