ISTITUTO PER LA STORIA DEL RISORGIMENTO ITALIANO BIBLIOTECA SCIENTIFICA PERSPECTIVES Vol. VI THE GREAT WAR THE GREAT THE GREAT WAR A European Commitment of Research and Reflection EDITED BY ANDREA CIAMPANI AND ROMANO UGOLINI istituto per la storia del risorgimento italiano biblioteca scientifica perspectives Vol. VI THE GREAT WAR A European Commitment of Research and Reflection Edited by Andrea Ciampani and Romano Ugolini Questo volume viene pubblicato grazie al contributo della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Struttura di missione per gli anniversari di interesse nazionale © 2019 - Istituto per la storia del Risorgimento italiano Roma - Complesso del Vittoriano 00186 isbn 978-88-85183-66-7 © 2019 - Rubbettino Editore 88049 Soveria Mannelli - Viale Rosario Rubbettino, 10 - tel (0968) 6664201 www.rubbettino.it isbn 978-88-498-5652-1 Romano Ugolini Foreword The last few years have seen many anniversaries, and much work has been done to refresh and renew study and research on various periods or various figures in our history, starting from the fruitful 150th anniversary of the constitution of the Kingdom of Italy. In this framework, the Great War has been considered as a new chapter of the great book of celebrations of national and international interest, a season that, like those preceding it, would trigger widespread interest and an ample harvest of studies. Actually, it had to be admitted that studies about the Great War had been neglected for years in the public debate; it was not, therefore, a question of focusing on, or further investigating, a historiographical situ- ation that was consolidated; to a certain extent it was more like breaking new ground, with criteria and interpretative canons to be laid down and constructed from scratch. There were certainly wide-reaching, numerous studies on the genesis of the conflict, as well as more far-reaching studies, especially internationally, on the consequences of that dreadful war; yet the 1914-1918 War in itself had not aroused any specific new attention. The usual thinking was that it had merely been a tragically long sequence of military actions, although it must be said that the military historians themselves have not dedicated much attention to the subject over the last thirty years. It is also unquestionably true that the war is virtually not touched upon in Italian high schools, partly because it was considered nothing more than a military event, and partly due to the fact that the rising wave of pacifism pervading our historical mindset after the second war meant that the Great War was considered more to be deplored and stigmatised than studied and investigated. It must also be stressed that the “cult” of the Great War was considered a legacy from the fascist period: among the veterans and the families of the fallen that “cult” had taken root and given rise to an impressive number of 5 monuments and commemorative memorials found throughout the land; today they are for the most part forgotten or neglected, but present prac- tically everywhere in Italy. After the Second World War, the repudiation of fascism was therefore linked to a rejection of the memory of the Great War which has come to signify the main factor leading to fascism and not what it really was, the instrument Mussolini used to increase and consolidate consensus for his Government. Having celebrated the bi-centenary of the births of Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour, and the already-mentioned 150th anniversary of the Reign of Italy and – a fact not to be overlooked – the setting of the birth of our national State at March 17 1861, it was no longer possible to pass in silence over the centenary of an event that had cost our country so much in terms of human lives with millions of dead and wounded, as well as in terms of enormous economic resources. It was not an anniversary like the others: a new approach had to be found, taking into account such bereavements and loss as well as the success- ful achievement of our north-eastern borders (with the long-awaited cities of Trento and Trieste), but also the deep divisions between interventionists and neutralists before Italy’s entry into war, divisions that were forgotten during the conflict but which resurfaced after the war to live long in the memory of Italian society, testifying to an open, festering wound. Soon enough the official celebrations were faced with the problem of the term to use in indicating the war period of 1915-1918: were we celebrating a victory or remembering and denouncing the terrible bloodshed? The terms most frequently used quickly became the more unemotional “memory” or “recollection”, in view of the fact that, besides the factors mentioned above, a great part was played in such a choice by the rivalry non-existent anymore between the states of a century ago and the end of the legacy of the 1917 Revolution. The commemorations having been down-toned underlining above all their historical features, a relevant historiographic topic came to the fore: did the long years of war form a sharp division between a ‘before’ that had vanished and an ‘after’ that had been generated during those years? Should we therefore speak of a clean break between pre-war and post- war society, with an eye on elements such as customs and traditions (for example, the huge progress of the world of women) or technological in- novation, or else of a substantial continuity, considering above all that in history “everything flows on” and that, more particularly, the issues of in- 6 ternational balance that were consigned to the conflict for a solution, not only did not find a solution, but were indeed aggravated and complicated to such a degree that a second, yet more horrific war became necessary to provide an answer? Between break and continuity, a new historiographic strand has recently emerged; a sort of half-way house between these two terms, a third comes forward, showing how all the pre-war social, eco- nomic and political phenomena are to be found in the post-war period as well, having undergone nothing but an acceleration in evolution during the conflict. Personally, I am of the opinion that the three options are all to be found in analysing the Great War without being mutually exclusive; however it is still fruitful to follow the discussion contained in this book for a full understanding of the various historiographic strands from which the three options I mentioned originate and ramify. A further debate developing, or rather becoming more highly articu- lated, is that connected to the very term indicating the event under exam- ination a century on: Great War, or First World War? Or else, on closer inspection, should we speak of a European civil war or of an inexorable cupio dissolvi of our continent? The term Great War certainly seems the most accurate: such a long conflict unbroken by seasonal interruptions was unprecedented; the quantity and magnitude of the contending sides and the numbers of men and vehicles used fully justify the term Great linked to War. However, taking part in that war with no marginal roles were the United States and Japan, hence the term Great War does not express suf- ficiently the truly novel reality featured by the conflict, that of being the very first world war. The term had already been coined while the hostilities were under way, not as is often thought after the 1939-1945 events, although of course the second world conflict unquestionably imposed the use of ordinals – First, Second – thus also underlining the close connection between the two Great Wars. It should be noticed that linking the specific term “world” only to the presence among the warring factions of the United States and Japan is somewhat misleading: it is important to assess with care the massive pres- ence of servicemen reaching Europe from other continents, and I am not referring only to the significant number of Australians and New Zealand- ers. This book offers an interesting assessment of the phenomenon, which however deserves future study of the non-European presence on European 7 battlefields and on the repercussions undergone in their countries of origin through acquaintances and direct links made possible by the war, in terms that were both dramatic but intense and sincere to an equal degree. We now come to a further element to be considered in reading this work, especially with regard to European historiographic situation. The conflict was based on the nineteenth-century, post-Napoleonic model as an “area” rivalry opposing single countries (France-Germany; Germany-Great Britain; Austria Hungary-Serbia; Italy-Austria Hungary; Greece-Ottoman Empire; Romania-Bulgaria etc.) without there being any immediate escala- tion. Italy, for example, declared war on Austria-Hungary, yet waited over a year before extending warfare to Germany, and then did so with regret, almost unwillingly; in turn Germany, while supporting its Austro-Hun- garian ally in words and writing, undertook as little as possible for its ally on the battlefield especially on the Italian front, as if aware of an almost non-existent hostility. There are further examples of partial “disinterest”, that the reader will find in the various essays in the book: we will just mention one highly emblematic case not dealt with herein, and that is the fact that the United Stated declared war on Germany only in April 1917, and only in the following December, almost eight months later, did they look to Vienna as an enemy, after vainly making every diplomatic effort to limit the range of their intervention. Therefore we have to see the conflict as a set of numerous fuses set alight on the traditional model, which thereafter amalgamated to break out into a novel Great War due to the alliance agreements already in place.