Greater Italy

Preface

I WOULD attempt to trace in this volume the rise of the Kingdom of Italy among nations, with more particular emphasis on the part played by the people of Italy in the affairs of the world during the past three decades.

The share which Italy has had in shaping the history of Europe during this period is a great one. Careful analysis would lead one to conclude that the policy which Italy has pursued has been one of the chief final determinants in world affairs. Italy's open acknowledgment of her partnership in the Triple AIHance brought about the re-grouping of the European Powers which soon crystallised into the two groups of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, facing each other across the chessboard of international affairs. It was only when Germany, with overweening self-confidence, trumpeted loudly her defiant cry of Weltmacht oder Niedergang, that the people of Italy, perceiving the subservience of the position into which they had fallen, with indomitable courage set about to free themselves from German control.

In dealing with Italian affairs, I have sought to lay particular stress on the relations of Italy with the Central Powers, to trace the course of Italian pohcy in its deahngs with Vienna and BerHn, and to show how the "manage force '^ of Rome and Vienna, brought about by the arbitrariness of BerHn, could vi PREFACE

not fail to end in disaster. However, it would be veryshort-sighted to disregard the immense material ad^ vantages and benefits which Italy received as a result of her intimate relations with Germany. It is only by a clear understanding of this intimacy, which, for a generation, existed between Rome and Berlin that we can gauge truthfully the present realist temper of the Italian people.

No history of present-day Italy would be complete without a mention of the occupant of the throne of St. Peter. I have endeavoured to recount briefly, though carefully, the relations between the Vatican and the Quirinal. In so doing I have concerned myself solely with the political aspect of the Papacy. The Papacy, viewed as a poHtical organism, is a problem of immediate and vital importance to the Kingdom of Italy, which must be the object of concern to every student of history. Since the chapter on this subject was written news reaches me from Rome that during the past month there has been a decided change in Papal poUcy; that the Vatican is making serious efforts to conciUate the Allies; that the Pope has addressed severe remonstrances to the Central Powers regarding their policy of deportations and bombardment of open towns; that he has rid himself of certain pro-German personages of his entourage, and is endeavouring to show himself docile and conciliatory towards France.

Of all the Powers engaged in the European War none has more pressing problems, difficult of solution, confronting it, than Italy. The people of Italy believe that they have pre-eminent interests in the Trentino and the Eastern Adriatic, in the ^gean and Asia Minor, as well as in certain regions of northern

PREFACE vii

and eastern Africa. A stable peace in Europe cannot be guaranteed without the just satisfaction of the essential legitimate Italian aspirations. To insure a better understanding of these aspirations I have endeavoured to give to contemporary problems something of their historical setting.

I have had the privilege of being at and near the front with the Italian armies at different periods diu-ing this war. I was present on the field of battle during the stirring days when the Austrians launched their great invasion of Italy last May. I was there able to learn something of the intrepid valour of those brave sons of United Italy who marched to their death in the highlands with flowers garlanded about their dust-covered helmets, a smile on their lips, a song in their hearts. The precise efficiency, the calm demeanour, the stern restraint of officers and men alike, in the face of so grave a danger, gave me an insight into the new Italy; the Italy of dynamic, resourceful energy, of deep courage, of buoyant, optimistic vitality. It is to this Italy that I would direct your attention.

January, 1917

Contents

CHAPTEB PAGE

I. The Achievement of Unity ... 1

Napoleon III and Cavour. The Rise of Piedmont. Struggles for Independence.

Chapter I The Achievement Of Unity

Napoleon III and Cavoub. The Rise of Piedmont. Struggles for Independence

It was in July, 1858, that Cavour, at the personal invitation of Napoleon III, came to Plombieres, where the Emperor was at that time taking the baths. Here, between other diversions, feehng himself strong and vigorous as a result of his stay in the bracing air of the Vosges, Napoleon readily entered upon a secret understanding with the Itahan Minister to assist the Piedmontese in driving out the Austrians from northern Italy, and agreed to the hegemony of the House of Savoy, of this new and much enlarged ItaHan Kingdom.

The meetings between Napoleon and Cavour lasted two days. Finally, after a long interview, Napoleon took Cavour for a drive into the country, he himself driving the light, high-wheeled gig. No one was present at this excursion, which lasted over three hours. It was while Napoleon was busied driving his horses along the mountain roads that Cavour poured forth his most astute and incisive arguments. This hour was to prove momentous in the history of modern Italy, for with foreign aid, of both men and money, the plan of Cavour ''for the self-government of all Italy by Italians" seemed assured.

It is impossible to conceive that Napoleon III had any idea of bringing about Italian unity in a broad sense, or that he took a very lively interest in Italian affairs. But circumstances had rendered him the arbiter of Europe, and he believed the moment opportune to freshen the lustre of the miUtary laurels of France. Events proved that he was more interested in filling up the empty niches of the Invalides with new trophies than he was with Italian national aspirations.

However, Cavour returned well content to Italy and reported to his sovereign, Victor Emmanuel II, at Turin the results of his interview.

The terms of the agreement were vague. France was to furnish 200,000 men; Piedmont was to raise 100,000. The joint forces were to drive the Austrians from Lombardy and Venetia, which, together with the Legations and the Marches of Ancona, were to be annexed to the States already under the sovereignty of Victor Emmanuel 11. France was to receive the Duchy of Savoy in return for the cession of Lombardy, while Nice was to be given to France in case Venetia was acquired. Thus Cavour set to work to pave the way for the liberation and unification of Italy.

In those days the attitude of Austria towards Piedmont was, in many respects, identical with the attitude of the Dual Monarchy towards Serbia during the past decade. In 1859 Austria held the greater part of northern Italy in bondage, just as in our own times the Hapsburg Empire after annexing Bosnia, in 1908, held the great majority of the Jugo-Slavs within its power. As Serbia, seeking to realise the national ambitions of the Southern Slavs, turned to Russia for help against the encroachments of Vienna, so Piedmont turned to France. For Cavour's arrangement for the co-operation of Napoleon was based solely on the contingency of an overt aggression on the part of Austria. The analogy is still more striking when it is recalled that as in 1914 England made every effort to avoid war, so in 1859 she tendered her good offices as mediator when the situation became acute in April, and Austria had despatched an ultimatum to Piedmont.

The attitude of France was obscure. Napoleon had made a personal agreement with Cavour, without informing his Ministers, who now flatly declared that there was no need of going to war for the aggrandisement of the House of Savoy. The future of Italy for a moment hung by a precarious thread. Cavour had made plans, so it is said, to leave for America in case Napoleon repudiated his word.

England called upon Austria and Piedmont to meet in conference. Cavour bowed to the inevitable, and agreed to the proposal. This was April 17. Two days later Austria sent an arrogant reply, stating that she could not agree to any mediation. This coup de tete on the part of Austria rallied France to the support of Italy, while the British Cabinet, incensed at the tone of the Austrian reply, was also openly favourable to Italy. Ten days later Austria declared war, and the Franco-Italian forces entered Lombardy.

Success accompanied the expedition. Magenta and Solferino were facile and brilliant, if not decisive, victories for the allied arms. The liberation of Lombardy soon followed, and the hopes of all Italy ran high that at last the detested Austrian would be driven beyond the Brenner and the Quanero. Yet only nine weeks after the beginning of the campaign, when Venetia was still firmly held by Austria, Napoleon, fearing fiu-- ther complications at home, as reports had reached him that the Prussians were mobilising along the Rhine, agreed to an armistice, and on July 11, in a personal interview with the Emperor Francis Joseph at Villafranca, concluded the preliminaries of peace, which was later signed at Ziirich on November 10, 1859. By its terms Lombardy was ceded to Napoleon, who in turn handed it over to Piedmont. This was the only tangible result of a campaign so auspiciously begun. Italy remained in as chaotic a state as before, and Italian unity seemed as remote as ever.

The Italians, deceived and disappointed by the action of Napoleon at Villafranca, were further infuriated against the French, when, in the next year, the Emperor demanded his "pound of flesh," and compelled Piedmont to cede Nice and Savoy to France, and at the same time called a halt to Italian ambitions by continuing to occupy Rome with French troops. Napoleon's short-sighted and slighting attitude towards Italy was to prove of grave consequence to France, not merely because of the neutral attitude adopted by Italy during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but during the next half century the spectre of the wrongs inflicted at this time on Italy rose time and again to prevent a friendly understanding between the two countries.

Nevertheless, the first seeds of Italian unity had been sown in fertile soil. The princes of the House of

Savoy felt themselves the chosen leaders of Italian unity. Piedmont became the kernel of the new Italy. The flame of nationalism had spread throughout the peninsula. The national aspirations of a great race cannot be quenched by temporary reverses. In March, 1860, EmiUa and Tuscany, by a plebiscite voted themselves a part of the new Kingdom, while Garibaldi, with his famous Thousand, set sail from Quarto, near Genoa, for the south. One by one, in rapid succession, Umbria, the Marches, Naples, and Sicily all voted their adherence to the growing Italian Kingdom. In November, 1866, the greater part of Venetia was wrested from Austria, while in 1870 the chief event of the nationaUsation of the Italian peninsula was achieved when the ItaUan forces captured Rome, and the city became the capital of the country. Thus, briefly, are set forth the outlines of the struggle which brought into being modern Italy.

It is more than a mere coincidence that the year 1870 should have been marked by the appearance of two new states in the firmament of nations. The history of the rise of Prussia and of Piedmont is emphatically similar. The objects of both were the same: to group and weld into one united whole the motley members which formed each body poHtic. This was the aim of both Prussia and Piedmont. As in Prussia, so in Piedmont a landed aristocracy and an old mihtary caste held the reins of government. As in Prussia, so in Piedmont a man was found equal to the task of driving out the cumbersome Austrian and of setting the seal of national independence on the united nations under the hegemony of their respective sovereigns. Cavour and Bismarck are the two nation-builders of modern times. Under their guidance both Prussia and Piedmont assumed the leadership of their race, and consoUdated their peoples into an organic whole. The constructive work of unification received its greatest immediate impetus when the two States, Prussia and Piedmont, became allies to drive out the Austrians. The victorious campaign of 1866, which ended in Sadowa, was conducted single-handed by the Prussians, for the ItaUans met with reverses during the first days of the struggle. But Bismarck, who was looking beyond the immediate present, foresaw the advantages to be gained by an unwonted leniency towards the humbled Austrian. A truce, followed by peace, was speedily arranged for, and Italy received Venetia as her share of the spoils; a brave step in advance in the programme of national unity.

But the crowning year of the rise of the two States was reached in 1870. Once again Prussia took up the cudgels for the cause of German expansion, and Italy, profiting by the embarrassment of France, entered Rome, which was forthwith proclaimed the capital of the new Kingdom of Italy, under the sovereignty of Victor Enunanuel 11. When, three months later, Bismarck placed the Imperial crown upon the head of William I at Versailles, he was merely following the Italian example. The task was complete. The first cycle of the epic of nationalism had ended.

During the ensuing years Prussia and Piedmont, within their respective spheres, were busy endeavouring to make the smaller and weaker States of the union forget their particularist past, and to imbue the newly united peoples with a sense of national patriotism. But here the similarity ends. Prussia brought into

Longitude

THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY being the German Empire by ''blood and iron." From the very outset the principles of nationality were violated; fii'st, in 1864, by the annexation of the Danish Duchies; then, in 1870, by the incorporation of Alsace-Lorraine. Piedmont, on the contrary, rose to leadership in response to the desire of a people of one tongue, tradition, and culture, who were ready for the great experiment in national unity.

The German Empire still remained a patchwork of unassimilated principaUties, under the leadership of Prussia, whereas Piedmont, fused into the new Italy, soon lost her hegemony and much of her identity.

The further shaping of the destiny of the two new States was influenced by many internal factors. The confederation of German States, under Prussian leadership, as created by Bismarck, was an elastic organisation, capable of indefinite expansion. The ItaUan Kingdom, on the other hand, soon set itself in a mould of a certain rigidity. From a constructive point of view the early death of Cavour in 1861, before the work of unification was completed, left Italy without a strong and skilful leader, while Bismarck Hved on for another thirty years, and was able to shape the destinies of the Empire he had created. Yet Prussia and Piedmont have always had a certain comradeship of spirit, which subsists to this day. This is only natural when viewed in the light of the many important crises which the two States endured in common, and of the remarkable similarity of the episodes in their national development.

No sooner had national unity in Italy been firmly achieved, no sooner did Italy feel her new national strength, than she looked about her and discovered, for the first time, the weakness of her geographical position. Jutting out into the Mediterranean, the long, boot-shaped peninsula is unprotected by anynatural coast defenses. Across the narrow Adriatic and along her northeastern boundary, holding the keys to all the valleys leading into the Venetian plain, Austria loomed menacingly. In the west, not thirty miles from the ItaUan coast, Corsica, in the hands of France, was a thorn in the side of the new Italy. The Mediterranean was rapidly becoming an EngUsh lake, as by the acquisition of the control of the Suez Canal by purchase in 1875, the British had succeeded in botthng up the States bordering on its shores. Though Italy had no reason to fear England, who had always taken a most friendly attitude on all matters concerning the new Kingdom, the Italians chafed at the patronising tone of British statesmen, who were in the habit of treating Italy in a romantic rather than in a reaUst spirit. Furthermore, the Itahans thought that their national will would be continually thwarted by England in any sphere of colonial expansion.

To any one looking out on the world through Italian eyes, during the years immediately following the unification of Italy, Europe presented a sorry spectacle. The Itahans, with their hearts still full of their great epic adventure in nation-building, beheld England busy rounding out her colonial domain, earmarking the few remaining ''uncivihsed" districts for her own uses, maintaining an attitude of "splendid isolation" which chilled the sensibilities of the Italian patriots. France, after the throes of the Commune, set about courageously to repair the wastage of recent disasters, inaugurating the Tliird RepubHc under inauspicious circumstances. She was so busy setting her own house in order that she found no time for, what seemed to her, the childish enthusiasms of Italy. Furthermore, Italy openly mistrusted France, and feared that at any time France might take it into her head to set the Pope back on his temporal throne, or undertake some other quixotic expedition.

In 1876 the control of the Government at Rome passed from the Right; pragmatists in politics, followers of the Pied^nontese tradition, they had patterned their parhamentary conduct on the English model and pursued a policy of exclusiveness and self-interest in foreign affairs, initiated and so successfully carried out by Cavour, Piedmont now lost its ascendency in national affairs, and the reins of power passed to the South, where the Left dominated.

With the accession of the Depretis Ministry to office in March, 1876, Italian foreign relations follow a haphazard course. A spirit of visionary altruism, based on high-sounding phrases, seized hold of the Government. At a period when cold, hard-headed reahsm in the conduct of affairs was needed, Italian statesmen, or rather the politicians in power, were more concerned with retaining their parliamentary majority than with the real interests of their country. During the first years of Italian national existence the new State showed no singular aptitude to take advantage of its position as a force in European affairs. Timidity, combined with lassitude and a desire for peace, seemed to express the will of the people. Italy continued to maintain an attitude of aloofness as regards international affairs of peculiar interest to her, which betrayed the fact that the strong current which had brought about national unity had not as yet been sufficiently channelled so as to permit a sane conception of Italy's international obligations and interests. Public men and public opinion were both nervous lest a foreign state should interfere in Italian home affairs.

In order to sound the Powers regarding their attitude towards Italy, Crispi, who later was to prove so ardent an exponent of the Triple Alliance, set out in August, 1877, on a tour of the various capitals to find out the temper of European statesmen. In Paris he was well, if coolly, received. He soon became convinced that France would not make any attempt to restore the temporal power of the Papacy; one of the chief fears which still lingered in Italian minds. Yet Crispi fancied that he discovered that France looked with no favourable eye on any further expansion of Italy, and he left Paris firmly beheving that France and Italy could not be friends. Crispi then sought out Bismarck at Gastein. The Iron Chancellor told Crispi very frankly that though he would not be averse to assisting Italy in case of an aggressive attitude on the part of France he would in nowise intercede in Austria in behalf of a rectification of the Italo-Austrian boundary-fine, which, drawn hastily in 1866, had left Italy very vulnerable from a strategic view-point, while many hundred thousand Italians in the Trentino and the Adriatic littoral still remained under Austrian rule. London, . not wishing to meddle in Continental politics of no immediate concern to herself, took little notice of the Italian envoy. Count

Andrdssy, in Vienna, very pointedly remarked that the question of the eventuahty of a Hapsburg protectorate over Bosnia, which was at that time rumoured, was of no concern to Italy, and that compensations elsewhere, as suggested by Crispi, in regard to a rearrangement of the frontier would not be pacifically entertained. Crispi returned to Italy feeling, though without much foundation, that Bismarck, notwithstanding his gruff and uncompromising manner, was the only friend whom Italy could count on in Europe.

It was a year later that the Congress of Berhn (1878) met to undo the handiwork of the Treaty of San Stefano in an attempt to settle more equitably the Near Eastern Question, which at that time had come to the fore of international affairs as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. Italy's envoy, Count Corti, having no mandate, or programme of policy, maintained throughout the conference an attitude of lofty unconcern, allowing Austria to acquire the Bosnian protectorate, while England annexed Cyprus. Emptyhanded the ItaHan delegate returned to Rome from an international gathering, where, by skilful negotiations and representations, Italy might readily have gained some substantial territorial compensation, as both Austria and England had succeeded in doing.

The repercussion in Italy of this diplomatic debacle was wide-spread. The Italians keenly felt their weakness as a nation and the incompetence of their leaders to deal with international problems. The humihation of the Italians at this juncture increased their national sensitiveness and made them reahse their isolation in Europe. Their amour-propre had received a decided rebuff, and they fancied that they appeared before the world in a ridiculous light. Thrown back on themselves, they turned towards the south and cast their eyes across the Mediterranean.

The Italians, owing to the central position of their country in the Mediterranean, believe that they will be naturally called upon to control its destiny. The heritage of ancient Rome, with its vast dominions, cannot be forgotten by a people who live on the seven hills of the Eternal City and to whom the pageantry of the past is a living reminder. But turning to more practical considerations, only one hundred and twenty miles of open sea separates Sicily from northern Africa. For centuries the Italians have gone forth and settled along the African shores of the Mediterranean, taking with them their culture and customs, and retaining in a large degree their Italian characteristics.

As France by the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, excluded from the direction of European affairs, focussed her attention on northern Africa and in 1830 achieved the conquest of Algeria, so Italy, rebuffed by the Powers in 1878, fixed her ambitions on the acquisition of Tunis. The Italian settlement at Tunis was the richest and most prosperous of any of the foreign settlements established there. The trade relations between Tunis and Italy were close and friendly. Italy, though hampered by her lack of resources, set to work eagerly to acquire this African domain, which was to offset her recent humiliation. Tunis, governed by a weak Bey, had already fallen into the hands of foreign exploitation. But if Italy was anxious to acquire this, her first colony, by the annexation of Tunis, she found in France a strong and determined rival. For France felt that she also had pre-eminent interests in Tunis, though her settlement there was barely one-third as large as the ItaUan. Yet, owing to the fact that Tunis adjoins Algeria, France believed that she had special rights, and determined not to tolerate that another European Power should gain possession of this country.

It has been repeatedly stated that Bismarck, after the Berlin Conference, told both the French and Italian envoys separately that they might each aspire to the possession of Tunis, — Bismarck being desirous of further embittering Franco-Italian relations. This account, which is of French origin, has never been confirmed, though it is true that England, in return for France's acquiescence in the acquisition of Cyprus, expressed her willingness to countenance a French protectorate over Tunis. These negotiations were unknown to the Italians at large, who welcomed the prospect of a vast colonial domain as a symbol of power. All Italy was united in the project, which was widely discussed in the press, before any actual steps had been taken. Matters were brought to a head when in January, 1881, King Humbert visited Sicily. The occasion was used to have a deputation of Italians from Tunis wait upon the King. This deputation presented an address in which the ancient ties between Tunis and Rome were referred to in no veiled terms. France thereupon decided that her interests were in jeopardy. Profiting by a disturbance along the Tunisian border of Algeria, the French sent an expedition into Tunis, marched the troops to the capital, and on May 12 forced the Bey to sign a treaty placing Tunis under the protectorate of France. Italy was stunned by the news. She felt herself helpless to vindicate what she believed to be her rights. The Italian people now realised that there was something radically wrong with the conduct of their international affairs. Italy must have friends, allies. Thwarted by Austria in 1878, now tricked by what they believed to be the deceit of France, the Italians turned first to England, who had always been a friend of the young Kingdom. However, England did not welcome the idea of being burdened with Italian affairs, so she gave an evasive reply. Russia lay too far out of the sphere of ItaUan relations. There remained only Germany.

It depends on the angle at which the arrangement which resulted in the Triple Alliance is looked upon to determine its value. The majority of foreign observers who have hitherto discussed the subject will tell you that Italy was blindly forced into an agreement totally devoid of advantages to herself, while conferring great benefits on the other two members of the alliance; that Italy was just another available army at the disposal of Prussia for the defense of Alsace-Lorraine, and, as an ally of the Hapsburgs, freed Austria from any worries regarding her southwestern boundary and gave her a free hand to play an active part in Balkan affairs. It is usually assigned to the credit of Bismarck, as one of his most masterly diplomatic strokes, that he forced Italy to pay for Germany's aid, while he in reality was most eager to seciu-e thie co-operation of the Italians. Bismarck's sudden volte face in his attitude towards the Papacy — which hitherto he had treated with much harshness — alarmed the Italians. Europe rang with reports, emanating from Germany, of the alleged difficulties of the Pope's position at Rome, and Bismarck even went so far as to propose that the Papacy should move to Germany, where temporal asylum would be guaranteed. But Bismarck played his most astute role when he intimated to the Italian Government that the road to Berlin's friendship lay through Vienna. Only five months after the Tunisian catastrophe the King and Queen of Italy paid a visit of state to Vienna, where they were received with much ceremony. Though no political discussions were broached, it became evident that the way for an understanding was being paved. During the ensuing weeks no occasion was missed to impress upon Italy the precariousness of her existence as an independent State. This, we are told, was Bismarck's method of making Italy realise that she was a "negligible quantity," and that Prussia was to be the senior partner in any agreement entered into. But was this really necessary? The weakness of Italy, both from a military and financial standpoint, was patent to all. The country had great possibilities of development in the future, but at the time Italy was in no position to dictate terms. She would even have accepted far more onerous conditions than those of the agreement she entered into. Several projects were discussed, until a seemingly suitable agreement was drawn up which was signed at Vienna on May 20, 1882.

Though the full text of the treaty of the Triple Alliance has never been published,^ whatever its exact terms may be, its main object was to create a defen-

^ In 1915 Articles I, III, IV, VII of the treaty were for the first time revealed. Article I was disclosed in a Note transmitted by Baron SonniQo, the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to ItaUan diplomatic sive military alliance between the contracting parties against foreign aggression for a period of five years. It is known that Italy agreed to relinquish her claims to the Italian districts still under Austrian rule, while both Germany and Austria refrained from any comment in regard to the Mediterranean, and left Italy a free hand to pursue whatever policy she deemed opportune. This was the weakest Hnk of the treaty, when looked at from the Italian standpoint, as neither of Italy's new allies offered any guarantees in the event of an aggression directed against Italy in the Mediterranean. Though the material advantages gained by the Alliance were, for Italy, negligible, the signature of this treaty marks the beginning of a new epoch in

representatives abroad on May 24 for communication to the Powers. The remainder were published by the Austro-Hungarian Government during the same month in their Diplomatische Aktenstucke (Red Book). The clauses read as follows:

Article I. — The High Contracting Parties mutually promise to remain on terms of peace and friendship, and that they will not enter into any alliance or engagement directed against one of their States.

They pledge themselves to undertake an exchange of views regarding all general and political questions which may present themselves, and promise fm-thermore their mutual assistance, commensurate with their individual interests.