Thursday, June 9, 2016

King Vittorio Amadeo III of Piedmont-Sardinia

Prince Vittorio Amadeo Maria, Duke of Savoy, was born in Turin on June 26, 1726 the son and heir of King Carlo Emanuele III by his second wife Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. A son from the King’s previous marriage had died the year before so the birth of Vittorio Amadeo, a new heir to the throne, was widely celebrated in the Savoy lands of Piedmont-Sardinia. His childhood and upbringing were very typical for the house of Savoy and the same descriptions would be used for Italian royal sons right to the last king to ever reign. His private tutor was quite strict and his education stressed military subjects, Catholicism and history, particularly the history of the House of Savoy. The emphasis on the army was doubtless even more so given that, even in the ranks of a family with an extremely long martial history, King Carlo Emanuele III was most known as a “warrior-king”, earning laurels in the wars over the Polish and Austrian successions. Prince Vittorio Amadeo had an upbringing that greatly stressed the importance of the army and, like other Savoy royal heirs, he was kept away from politics until the day he actually came to the throne.

However, Prince Vittorio Amadeo did not waste his time with frivolity but, as a young man, surrounded himself with scholars, statesmen and various, highly esteemed ‘wise men’ whose company he could benefit from. Many of this men would go on to serve him when he became king. A man of very conservative politics and with religious views that were very traditionally Catholic, Vittorio Amadeo nonetheless fostered an atmosphere of openness around him and was gentleman enough to get along well with people who did not share his views. He was confident in his own positions that he had nothing to fear from hearing all sides of an issue. He was also, of course, expected to marry and secure the future of the royal succession. King Fernando VI of Spain reached out to him to arrange a marriage between the Savoy heir and his sister Infanta Maria Antoinetta, the youngest daughter of King Felipe V, the first Bourbon Spanish monarch. The couple were married in 1750 and they had a very happy marriage with the pair growing quite attached to each other. So attached in fact that they had twelve children, so the future of the Savoy dynasty was safe and sound.

In 1773, with the passing of his father, the Duke of Savoy became King Vittorio Amadeo III of Piedmont-Sardinia on February 20. From day one the administration of his country and the military were his top priorities but that does not mean that he neglected other areas. Because of his conservative and religious nature he has often been accused of being reactionary to the point of being averse to change of any kind, but this is not so. In fact, he was very keen on improving a number of things that needed it. Beneficial change was never a problem for him but change for the sake of change alone, naturally would not be tolerated. For all of the emphasis he placed on the army, he was also certainly not a warmonger and aimed at ensuring the security of his country by peaceful, diplomatic means first and foremost. His marriage to a member of the Spanish Royal Family was part of this, to secure a marriage alliance with Spain after the two powers had been enemies in the War of Austrian Succession (the Savoy having backed the Hapsburg side).

Similarly, he arranged a marriage for his own son and heir with the sister of King Louis XVI of France and several daughters were also married into the French Royal Family. His second son was married into the Hapsburg family (Austria-Este), another daughter to the Electoral Prince of Saxony and his youngest son married a daughter of the Naples branch of the Spanish Bourbons. As such, Piedmont-Sardinia had strong to ties to all its neighbors and several other lands farther a field and his offspring included three future Kings of Sardinia and one, at least nominal, Queen of France (another would have also been a Queen of France but she died before Charles X came to the throne). Because of this, the army that so many claim was his sole focus, had little to do until the very end of his reign. In other, peaceful pursuits, he improved the bureaucracy of his country, improved the infrastructure with new roads, new dams and upgrades to the port of Nice. He established botanical and agricultural institutions with the aim of making the country more self-sufficient and undertook a number of public works projects.

Overall, he carried on with the changes first set in motion by his grandfather which were aimed at making the aristocracy less corrupt and more socially-minded (a common problem of the time) and encouraging greater social mobility for the common people so that they could lift themselves out of poverty by their own talents. In terms of the army though, he did spend a great deal, carrying on the effort to renovate the Piedmontese military along the lines of that of the Kingdom of Prussia which was the example that all small, resource-poor states naturally wished to follow. Given the events of his reign, some have dismissed this as a failure but that requires taking a very narrow view. In fact, the military “culture” of the country was changed and even as late as World War II, a German general serving in Italy remarked on how similar Piedmont was to Prussia in the emphasis placed on the army and in the many years in between not a few foreign observers would refer to Piedmont as ‘the Prussia of Italy’. The King is also remembered as the founder of the Gold Medal of Military Valor, the highest Italian combat decoration which is still awarded to this day. He also followed this example himself at home by adopted a more Spartan lifestyle so that the British historian Gibbon, on traveling through the area, wrote about how the Savoy royals lived “with decent and splendid economy”.

King Vittorio Amadeo III would take daily walks, set time aside every Saturday to receive visitors from his humblest subjects and showed his piety when, on every Holy Thursday, he would wash the feet of twelve poor men and then see them off with a gift of money for a fine supper. All in all, life under his rule was good and steadily improving. However, all of it was thrown into the gravest peril by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Being a very traditional, conservative and religious man with several of his children married to French royals, he could not but be appalled by what was happening in neighboring France. Without hesitation he gave safe haven to his sons-in-law the Count of Artois and Count of Provence, fleeing the worsening chaos and repression in their homeland, though this immediately caused cries from the revolutionaries in Paris for retribution against the House of Savoy. Even though the odds against them would be impossibly long, he also did not hesitate to pledge his small, prized army to the royalist cause in 1793, working in cooperation with the Austrians as part of the First Coalition.

The French republicans were quick to attack Piedmont, vowing to make northern Italy a satellite republic, but the Savoyard troops, along with a contingent of Austrians, fought fiercely and succeeded in repelling the initial invasion. The French met a similar fate on other fronts and when they tried to enlist the United States to come in on their side, the American government flatly refused and considered the alliance made with the late King Louis XVI to have died with him. Royalist counter-revolutionaries were also rising up and achieving successes. However, the French responded by ordering the conscription of every adult male in the country and soon they had turned the war situation around, swamping their enemies with what was often simply a huge, armed and radicalized mob.

After four years of fighting off superior forces, in 1796 the Savoyard troops of King Vittorio Amadeo III finally met a foe they could not defeat in the person of a young, up-and-coming French commander named Napoleon Bonaparte. In the Montenotte campaign the “Little Corporal” was able to outmaneuver his foes, separate the Austrian and Piedmontese armies and eventually defeat them both. The Austrians had positioned themselves at too great a distance from the Piedmontese, despite the urgings of the Italian general Michelangelo Alessandro Colli-Marchi and the result would lead to the domination of northern Italy by republican France. After the Battle of Mondovi on April 21, there was no choice left but capitulation and King Vittorio Amadeo III, in the most painful moment of his life, was forced to sign the Armistice of Cherasco on April 28, 1796, removing the Savoy domains from the First Coalition. The following month he signed the Treaty of Paris, handing over the key fortresses of the country to France, allowing French troops passage through the country to carry on the Italian campaign and ceding Nice and Savoy to France.

In the wake of this fiasco, King Vittorio Amadeo III was a broken man and his health and spirits only worsened from that point on. Within a year he had an apoplexy and finally died on October 16, 1796 at Moncalieri. A reign that had began with such promise and which had seen many beneficial reforms, had been reduced to ruin in the final years by the horror and bloodshed that were the fruits of the French Revolution. However, the House of Savoy was down but not out and the next three kings to succeed him would all be sons of Vittorio Amadeo III and they would ultimately see the French defeated, the Savoy flag raised again over Turin and the monarchy restored completely along with some additional lands. The French revolutionaries had won the first round but the sons of Vittorio Amadeo III would be the ones returning home in triumph while Allied armies marched down the boulevards of Paris. Whereas his enemies would be remembered for "the Terror" and wars of conquest, Vittorio Amadeo III would be remembered as a beloved figure, perhaps a little too trusting at times, but a kind man of good character who was generous to a fault.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Graziani and Rommel, Two Commanders in North Africa

German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time, and for good reason. He is most famous for his aggressive battles in North Africa against superior British forces which earned him the nickname, “the Desert Fox”. The usual, although not entirely accurate, portrayal is that Rommel arrived, just in time, to save the Italian forces in Libya from disaster following the failed invasion of Egypt by a more infamous World War II military leader, Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani. The two generals have, from time to time, been compared and such comparisons have never been favorable to Graziani. That is something that is not going to change. Rommel has achieved near-mythic status among military historians whereas Graziani is usually written-off as an example of incompetent Italian military leadership. However, accepting that, looking at the facts, does Graziani really compare so unfavorably to his more famous German successor? If one sticks to the truth and disregards stereotypes, one might see that the two were not as different as one might think. Looking at their careers in total, Graziani doesn’t compare all that badly.

Rommel and Graziani in World War I
First of all, in terms of actual military experience, Graziani was very much in advance of Rommel. The young German officer from Wurttemberg had never seen combat until the outbreak of World War I, whereas the young Rodolfo Graziani was, by that time, a veteran of the Italo-Turkish War with an extensive record of colonial service in East Africa where he had learned to speak Arabic and the language of the local Tigreans. During the First World War, both men had exceptional records though Rommel would probably have taken more headlines. Rommel served in the elite Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion and had his greatest triumph when his audacity led to the capture of an Italian mountain position and the taking of 9,000 prisoners. For this stunning achievement, Rommel was awarded the “Blue Max”, Imperial Germany’s highest combat decoration. Graziani, on the other hand, had no such singular victory as that, however, he did advance farther and faster in the war than Rommel did. His own record was very impressive, he earned rapid promotion and before the war was over held the rank of colonel, the youngest in the Royal Italian Army. Coincidentally, after his capture of Tobruk, Rommel would become the youngest field marshal in the German army in World War II.

Graziani, the "Pacifyer of Libia"
After the end of World War I, the military careers of Rommel and Graziani were vastly different. Rommel remained in the army but was of course limited to desk jobs, giving him time to write a book on armored warfare that would be read by many, including his future enemies. Graziani, on the other hand, left the military and tried his hand at civilian life but found little success as a businessman. He was recalled to service after attacks by Islamic terrorists in Libya against Italians became a major cause for concern. With his record of colonial service in Africa before and during World War I, Graziani was a natural choice for such an assignment. It also helped that he understood the local culture and could speak to the Arabs in their own language. In 1930 he was appointed Governor of Cyrenaica by Mussolini and charged with putting an end to the terrorist attacks there. In this campaign, Graziani proved very successful. He isolated the rebel groups from their sources of support, forced them out of their favored area of operations and finally wiped them out. Libya was pacified, terrorist attacks stopped and the rebel leader, Omar Mukhtar, was captured, tried and executed.

Rommel as a young officer
However, whereas Rommel has a reputation for being a generally humane and chivalrous commander, the Pacification of Libya saw General Graziani nicknamed the “Butcher of Fezzan” for his harsh treatment of the Islamic radicals and those suspected of supporting them. Retribution killings were not unknown and large numbers of Arabs were put into vast concentration camps to prevent them giving aid to the terrorist groups. Graziani believed in fighting fire with fire and that such methods were necessary in the context of the local culture where strength and brutality were respected while generosity and tolerance were taken as signs of contemptuous weakness. Nonetheless, it would not be the last incident that would give Graziani demerits in the eyes of many for his character when compared to Rommel, a man widely respected by his foes as well as his friends. As far as military achievement goes though, undoubtedly Graziani surged ahead of Rommel in the period between the two world wars. While Graziani was being hailed in Rome as the “Pacifier of Libya”, Rommel was still a relatively low ranking officer working in obscurity behind a desk.

Graziani in the Ethiopian capital
That situation only continued as General Graziani was given a command in Somalia at the outbreak of war between Italy and Ethiopia in 1935. He was charged with leading the attack from the south, out of Somalia, while the main attack came from the north out of Eritrea. Once again, Graziani won hard fought victories. His Ethiopian foes, while ill-equipped compared to the Italians, were not the ignorant primitives that they are usually portrayed as. They had many trained military commanders, foreign military advisers, modern weapons, a huge advantage in numbers and incredible fighting spirit. While Rommel was in the Versailles-restricted German army, Graziani was winning further laurels on the battlefield. He wiped out an entire Ethiopian army at the Battle of Genale Doria and later won the Battle of the Ogaden, vanquishing the defensive line developed by the veteran Turkish general Wehib Pasha, a highly experienced foreigner employed by Ethiopia who was happy for any chance to fight Europeans. Graziani was so successful that after the war was won and Ethiopia conquered, he was appointed Viceroy of Italian East Africa. Still, attacks on his character returned when a group of Ethiopian rebels tried to assassinate him. He was badly wounded but survived and in the aftermath ordered ruthless reprisals that caused the newspapers to rename him the “Butcher of Ethiopia”.

Rommel in the invasion of France
Even in Italy this bad press caused Graziani trouble and he was replaced by the gallant and chivalrous Prince Amadeo, Duke of Aosta and was somewhat sidelined in the aftermath. He played no more major part in Italian military affairs until after the country joined in the Second World War. It was during this period that the career of Rommel comes from behind to start overtaking Graziani. After years as a military instructor, being a colonel in 1938 (a rank Graziani achieved decades earlier), Rommel’s career began to take off after Hitler assumed power, being a fan of the military theories Rommel had written about in his book. Hitler put Rommel in command of his own military escort during the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. Hitler liked Rommel’s ideas about fast, mechanized warfare and liked the fact that unlike many of the German officers, Rommel was not an aristocrat. In 1940 Hitler told Rommel he could have whatever command he wanted and Rommel asked for a tank division. Hitler promptly promoted Rommel to major general and gave his command of the Seventh Panzer Division.

Graziani poster art
In the invasion of France and the Low Countries, Rommel and his tanks raced from victory to victory. His unit earned the nickname, the “Ghost Division” because it seemed to appear out of nowhere. His star was clearly on the rise. Graziani, meanwhile, was facing what would be the one major failure of his military career. When Air Marshal Italo Balbo was killed in a “friendly fire” accident, Marshal Graziani was rushed in to take command of Italian forces in Libya with orders from Mussolini to invade and conquer British-held Egypt as quickly as possible. The ultimate result of this was a disaster. Graziani was against the plan from the start and participated very grudgingly, moving only when Mussolini sent him the ultimatum to invade Egypt or be relieved of command. At this stage, he had the British outnumbered (though he was not confident of that) but he knew from his experience in Ethiopia that having superior numbers does not guarantee success. In that war he had defeated an enemy that had him heavily outnumbered due to his own ingenuity and his superior weapons and equipment. In Egypt, he had the numbers but it was the British who had the better weapons and equipment.

Rommel postcard
The Italian invasion of Egypt started off well but after advancing a relatively short distance, Graziani halted and began building a line of fortified camps to guard against a British counter-attack while he waited for more supplies, more guns and more tanks from Italy. Many since have accused Graziani of simply losing his nerve and that will be an important point to remember. When the British counter-attack came, it was swift and devastating. In “Operation Compass” the British reduced the Italian fortified camps one by one, drove them out of Egypt and advanced deep into Libya, taking large numbers of Italian prisoners. Undoubtedly raddled by the disaster, Graziani was relieved of command at his own request. Within a short time, Mussolini accepted Hitler’s offer of assistance and Rommel was given command of the German ‘Afrika Korps’ that very quickly turned things around in Libya. Rommel rose to international fame as commander of the Italo-German forces in North Africa (he was nominally subordinate to the local Italian commander but, having the support of Hitler, Rommel basically did as he pleased and called the shots). The war in North Africa essentially stalemated, Rommel rushing ahead, the British forcing him back and then Rommel pushing ahead again and so on.

Graziani and Rommel in Africa at happier times
This is the time period that most point to as proving the point that Rommel was the clear winner in any comparison with Graziani. True enough, Rommel won victories that Graziani never did. Yet, a variety of factors can account for this. For one, it was the defeat of Graziani that made Rome and Berlin take the North African front seriously and Rommel went into battle with a far better supplied and better equipped force than Graziani had had at his disposal. Rommel had raised the morale of his men whereas Graziani had an Italian army that had already felt rather gloomy since the death of Marshal Balbo and who were worn out from fighting a succession of campaigns before World War II even began. Rommel was fighting an enemy he knew, just as Graziani had been in Ethiopia and Libya. The Italian marshal, on the other hand, had no experience fighting the British and seemed to be fighting a more colonial-warfare style campaign. The command style of the two men was also totally different. Rommel was a gambler, known for his audacity, aggressiveness and taking chances. Graziani also had a reputation for aggressiveness but also for being a more methodical commander who would devise a plan and enact it step by step.

Marshal Graziani
If Graziani had commanded a force as well supplied and equipped, with an additional corps of German troops at his disposal, he might have done much better but, for him, that was never an option. His campaign had been an all-Italian affair and much of the supplies that could have been sent to him were siphoned off for Mussolini’s invasion of Greece. However, it is also worth noting that Rommel, just like Graziani, came to ruin through a failed invasion of Egypt. Unlike Graziani though, Rommel was the one pushing for an invasion of Egypt while other commanders, such as his nominal Italian superior Marshal Ettore Bastico, thought it doomed to failure. German Air Marshal Albert Kesselring, overall commander of the southern front, also thought invading Egypt a mistake, preferring to first capture the British island-fortress of Malta to ensure the safety of their logistical support. Hitler, however, backed Rommel and the invasion of Egypt went ahead, ending in defeat at the Battle of El Alamein, after which the war in North Africa turned irrevocably against the Axis powers.

Rommel decorated by Bastico with the Colonial Star
Another interesting point, often ignored, is that Rommel’s invasion of Egypt, though certainly pushed more energetically than that of Graziani, also ended in failure and also was followed by a sequence of events that has caused some historians to likewise accuse Rommel of losing his nerve. The Germans retreated from El Alamein and almost never stopped until the Italo-German forces were trapped and forced to surrender in Tunisia. At every step of the way the Italians, on whose ground they were fighting, urged Rommel to stand and fight. He refused, saying it was impossible. Likewise, Hitler was constantly urging Rommel to stand his ground, to retreat no further and launch counter-attacks as he had done previously with so much success. Again, after one failed attempt that saw massive numbers of Axis troops taken prisoner (sound familiar?), Rommel persisted in his belief that it was hopeless, constantly asked for more supplies (as Graziani had done in Egypt) until he was finally removed from command so as not to preside over the inevitable collapse of Axis power in Africa.

Graziani having some pasta in Libia
Rommel, of course, gave perfectly legitimate reasons for retreating from Egypt, all the way across Libya to Tunisia and even Mussolini praised the operation as “brilliant” in its conduct, though it meant surrendering Italy’s “fourth shore” to the British. Yet, it is interesting to note how the Germans are praised for the retreat from Egypt while Italian forces are often ridiculed for losing battle after battle in which they fought against hopeless odds (with antiquated artillery and totally outmatched tanks), losing, yes, but at least putting up a fight. As the (controversial) author David Irving wrote in his biography of Rommel, many in the German High Command thought Rommel had lost his nerve, had fallen prey to defeatism and many Italian officers grumbled that he was willingly sacrificing their country and had no intention of even trying to hold on to north Africa. However, just like Graziani before him, Rommel was not simply making excuses but informing them of very real supply problems (though the fact that these problems existed rather proves the point that Kesselring argued about the importance of taking Malta and were exactly why Marshal Bastico had no faith in a victory in Egypt).

Rommel & General Ramcke
Moreover, Rommel also had one major problem that Graziani had not had to deal with which was that the Allies, by this time, had broken the Enigma code and were reading all of Rommel’s messages. Every time he asked about the whereabouts of supply convoys, and was told where they were and when they were expected to arrive, Allied forces could move to intercept these convoys and prevent them reaching Africa. Just as Mussolini had done with Graziani, Hitler promised Rommel ample supplies, new guns and new tanks but, even those that were actually sent, often ended up on the bottom of the Mediterranean thanks to British planes and submarines. When Rommel finally advised total evacuation and abandoning Africa, he finally lost the confidence of Hitler who worried that the Fascist regime in Italy might be brought down by such a disaster and Germany would lose her primary ally. From that time on, Hitler never had quite the same degree of trust in Rommel that he had always shown previously.

Rommel in France
Another interesting difference, again often overlooked, is that Rommel never presided over another significant victory again. His assignments included a brief, uneventful stint in Greece and disarming Italian forces in northern Italy after the King dismissed Mussolini and the Badoglio government sought an armistice with the Allies. He was then posted to defend the coast of France from the expected Allied invasion but, as fate would have it, like the Battle of El Alamein, Rommel was away when the day of battle came and the Allied armies landed in France and advanced steadily, long after Rommel was wounded in an air attack and put out of action permanently. In contrast, Graziani, who had seemed to be disgraced for his failed invasion of Egypt, ultimately came back to win further laurels. As the senior military officer in Mussolini’s German-backed republic in northern Italy, Graziani commanded Italian and German forces in a final victory for his career at the Battle of Garfagnana in December of 1944.

Mussolini and Graziani
It would be tempting to also draw another contrast between the character of these two men regarding their relationships with their respective dictators. Rommel, as most know, was implicated in the failed plot to assassinate Hitler and was forced to commit suicide. As such, he is regarded as one of the few military figures of the Nazi period in Germany that it is acceptable to like in polite society. Graziani, on the other hand, remained loyal to Mussolini to the bitter end. In fact, he was the only Marshal of Italy to side with Mussolini rather than the King (possibly because of long-standing dislike of Marshal Badoglio). He served some time in prison but spent the rest of his life writing books defending his own actions and the Fascist regime in Italy. As such, he remains a very controversial figure and, unlike Rommel, someone it is not okay to like or defend in polite society. On the other hand, the two might not have been so dissimilar as they seem in this regard either. Mussolini had threatened to dismiss Graziani and after the Egypt fiasco said that he despised him, so the two were not always on good terms and Rommel, if one looks beyond his end, never actually took any action against Hitler or helped the rebels in any way. He was only implicated when one of the captured plotters called out his name while under torture. He had commanded Hitler’s personal guard and had been known to defend the German dictator, assuring frustrated officers that it was only the incompetent advisors around Hitler who were to blame for all mistakes.

Graziani and Rommel at the front
Obviously, the two men who commanded the Axis forces in the fight against the British in North Africa, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Marshal of Italy Rodolfo Graziani, had very different careers and have extremely different popular perceptions. Rommel is remembered as “the Desert Fox”, a brilliant, daring and gallant commander who ultimately fell to a superior foe. Graziani is remembered as “the Butcher of Fezzan” or “the Butcher of Ethiopia” if you prefer, a ruthless commander who was out of his depth, lost his nerve and was defeated by an enemy that his own forces outnumbered. However, looking at the careers of these two men together, while nothing will change their current reputations, I think it is safe to say that these perceptions are rather inaccurate. Rommel certainly did better in north Africa than Graziani had done, though he had a much better force at his command to do it with. However, Graziani had a more extensive military career than Rommel and his failed invasion of Egypt was the only military operation that he ever commanded that was not successful. Clearly, the contrast between the two is not so simplistic as most people think.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Italian Fascism in the United States

Paolo Ignazio Thaon di Revel
In 1924 Count Ignazio Thaon di Revel traveled from Italy to the United States to reorganize Italian-American supporters of Fascism into the Fascist League of North America or FLNA. The first incarnation of the FLNA had been founded earlier by Dino Bigongiari, Professor of Italian at Columbia University. So it can be seen that the drive toward Fascism was instigated by Italian-Americans in the United States and not by the directive of the Fascist government in Rome, though no doubt Mussolini approved. Count di Revel, however, in late 1924 took central control as President of the Fascist Council for the FLNA which stood for the opposition to radicalism, chiefly instigated by the Bolsheviks and their supporters in America (many of which were deeply imbedded in the labor unions). One member said they stood for opposition to “atheism, internationalism, free-love, communism and class hatred” which is as good a summary as any. The official oath of the Fascist League of North America stated:

I swear to my honor
To serve with fidelity and discipline the Fascist idea of society - based on religion, the Fatherland, and the family, and to respect the authority of the League and of the hierarchy and tradition of our race.
To love, serve, obey and exalt the United States of America and to render obedience and respect to its constitution and its laws.
To keep alive the cult with Italy as the Fatherland and eternal light of civilization and greatness.
To combat with all my might theories and ideas tending to subvert, corrupt, and disgrace religion, the Fatherland, or the family.
To do my best to improve my culture, my physique and my morals, to render me fit for the part I am to play in serving the nation in its hour of greatness.
To submit to the discipline of the hierarchy of the Fascist League of North America.

The FLNA attracted a great deal of criticism in the United States and other Italian-American groups, such as the Sons of Italy, condemned the organization. This threatened to damage relations between the U.S. and Italy, particularly when powerful politicians began calling for a Congressional investigation of the group. In 1929, to put a stop to such difficulties, Count Revel announced that the FLNA was disbanding, having, at that time, a membership of 12,500 in 80 branches across the country. Nonetheless, throughout the 1930’s many pro-Fascist Italian language newspapers and radio broadcasts were available to the Italian-American population, some of which had quite large audiences. One of the most prolific was the Italian Library of Information in New York City under the direction of Ugo V. D’Annunzio, son of the famous poet and nationalist. These included information on Fascist economics, the corporatist system, Italian history and the Italian contribution to the exploration, settlement and progress of America.

When the Second Italo-Abyssinian War broke out in 1935, most American sympathy was with Ethiopia, like most of the rest of the liberal-democratic world. However, Italian-American opinion was more divided and particularly as many African-Americans adopted the cause of Ethiopia, many Italian-Americans naturally took the side of Italy. Some volunteered to go and fight for Italy in Abyssinia, joining the 221st ‘Italiani all’Estero Legion of the MVSN Fascist militia (the “Black shirts”) which was made up of Italian expatriates from around the world. In the United States itself, violence sometimes erupted between African and Italian-Americans with shops being vandalized and so on. Yet, not everyone took the side expected. The noted African-American entertainer Josephine Baker (later a friend of Princess Grace of Monaco) was shocked that so many of her countrymen would sympathize with a regime that still enslaved their fellow Africans to the point that she expressed her wish that she could organize a volunteer corps of African-Americans to fight for Italy against Ethiopia.

Dr. Salvatore Caridi of the Italian War Veterans
On the world stage of course, the biggest result of the Ethiopian war was the open defiance of the League of Nations and the eventual alliance of Italy and Germany in the “Pact of Steel”. This change was mirrored in America as well as Italian-American Black shirts made common cause with the German-American Brown shirts in the United States. The Lictor Federation, led by Joseph Santi was one such group (founded by Domenico Trombetta). Dr. Salvatore Caridi was the leader of another, the pro-Fascist Italian War Veterans and in 1937 he and about 500 Black shirt Italian-American war veterans appeared at a gathering in New Jersey of the German-American Bund led by Fritz Kuhn. Caridi was one of the speakers and he encouraged his listeners concerning their political enemies that, “…if they insult Mussolini or Hitler we can punch them in the nose!” On one occasion they also joined forces with the strange American group known as the Silver shirts of William Dudley Pelley for a joint-meeting in support of the Nationalists in Spain, denouncing the Spanish republican government and communism in general.

Italian-American Black shirts
Exactly how strong these Italian-American Black shirt groups were cannot be known. Their sympathizers tended to inflate their numbers whereas their opponents tended to try to minimize them by downplaying the size of their membership. Studies have shown that about 90% of the Italian-language press in America was generally favorable toward Mussolini and his Fascist regime. And, needless to say, there were always plenty of anti-Fascist Italian-Americans, though as with similar groups elsewhere these tended to be on the far-left and often included communists and anarchists. These would ultimately have a longer life as the international situation developed. When World War II broke out in Europe, pro-Fascist Italian-Americans generally favored, like others, the policy of American neutrality. Most realized that the United States would never take the side of the Axis powers and so were content to push for the best reasonable position in their view which was for America to simply stay out of the fight.

Salvatore Caridi and Fritz Kuhn
All of that, of course, came to an end with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. When, a few days later, Italy declared war on the United States, it became “open season” on all those Italians and Italian-Americans in the country who had voiced support for the Fascist cause. Many Italian-language media outlets were closed down by the government and known Italian-American Fascists were arrested. Those on the west coast were forced to move inland and many had their homes and businesses seized. Although not as well-known as the Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans and German-Americans were also arrested and put into internment camps for varying periods of time after the U.S. entered the war. However, the vast majority of those who were interned were Italian nationals rather than Italian-Americans who were citizens or who had been living in the United States for many years.

Italian-American Black shirt girls
Certainly those who had been prominent supporters of the Fascist regime could count on close scrutiny by the authorities, including such figures as Joseph Ferri in California, the aforementioned Joseph Santi and Salvatore Caridi in New Jersey, John J. Olivo, Paul Lucenti, Joseph Bono, Ralph Ninfo and Floyd Carridi in New York, Luigi Scala in Rhode Island, Father Arthur W. Terminiello of Mobile, Alabama and so on. The vast majority, of course, of Italian-Americans embraced the cause of the United States wholeheartedly and served with distinction in huge numbers during World War II. However, as with the Germans, the Japanese and even the Soviets, Fascist Italy was not without its supporters in America. They are not much remembered today but there was a time when they caused considerable alarm even into the halls of power in Washington DC.
Italians (in the Black shirts and white trousers) at a Bundist camp

Italian-American Fascists at Camp Siegfried (FBI photo)

Friday, May 27, 2016

Italy and the War in Iraq in 1941

One of the most neglected areas involved in World War II was the Middle East. Everyone knows about the fighting in north Africa, across Europe, southern Russia and the Far East but relatively few are aware of how involved countries in the Middle East were. Italian forces were involved in this area as well and one area included in this was the then Kingdom of Iraq. Just to understand the basic background of the region, the Kingdom of Iraq had been created with the support of the Allies after the breakup of the Turkish Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Kingdom of Iraq was made a mandate of the British Empire but by the time of the outbreak of World War II, all British troops had been withdrawn for several years with only a few RAF bases being maintained there. Iraq was governed by Iraqis and defended by Iraqis though they remained a part of the British Empire. Some were happy with this state of affairs but others were not and one of those who was not was Rashid Ali, an Arab nationalist who became prime minister of Iraq in 1940. He seemed a likely collaborator with the Axis powers.

Rashid Ali al-Gaylani
When World War II broke out, the Iraqi government under Rashid Ali did, rather unenthusiastically, break off diplomatic relations with the Nazi Germany due to the state of war between Britain and Germany. However, when the Kingdom of Italy declared war on Britain and France, the Iraqis did not break off diplomatic relations with Italy and, that being so, the Italian embassy in Bagdad became the center of operations for the Axis sympathizers in the area. At the same time, Italian air power was bringing the war to the Middle East when daring, long-range bombing missions by the Regia Aeronautica, hit British oil facilities in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in October of 1940, (mentioned previously here) forcing the British to redirect military resources and causing a fuel shortage that allowed Italian forces to reinforce the armies in Libya without serious opposition from the British. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Rashid Ali worked to eliminate British influence in the country and began working with the German minister in Turkey and the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to forge closer ties with the Axis powers. The British, naturally, learned of this and responded with sanctions against Iraq.

11 October 1942, the Grand Mufti gives Arab volunteers
for Italy their unit flag
In 1941 Rashid Ali was forced to resign as prime minister but he soon returned and launched a successful coup on April 1, taking over the country and installing a new regent for the child monarch, King Faisal II. He expelled pro-British officials from the country and asked the Germans for military assistance in the event of war. The British response was rather limited at first, consisting of the transfer of British and imperial forces from India and strengthening the Royal Navy presence in the Persian Gulf. As Iraqi forces moved in around RAF bases in the country, the British responded by launching air strikes, destroying most of the Iraqi air force and enabling them to send support to British forces at Habbaniya which had been besieged by the Iraqis. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem declared a jihad against the British and the Iraqis cut off the oil supplies of the country from going to the Allies. Air power was critical in these operations and the early destruction of much of the Iraqi air force gave Britain a clear advantage.

SS.79 Sparviero
When the Iraqis tried to attack Habbaniya from the air with one of their few surviving planes, it was an Italian SM.79 Sparviero. RAF interceptors shot down the plane and subsequent British attacks pushed the Iraqis off of their commanding position on the plateau outside Habbaniya. British ground and air attacks also took a heavy toll on Iraqi reinforcements sent to the area, which had collided with retreating Iraqi forces causing much confusion on the ground. The Germans, with the situation worsening, moved to support the anti-British Iraq regime and obtained support from the Vichy French government, which held power in Syria, to support their efforts to bolster the pro-Axis forces in Iraq. Using Syrian bases, a number of German Luftwaffe personnel and aircraft were sent from May 10-15 to reinforce the Iraqis and develop a joint plan of action against the British. Unfortunately, the Allies were aware of this as messages were still traveling via the Italian diplomatic channel which was being intercepted by London.

CR.42 Falco
On May 27, 1941 (75 years ago today) support for the Iraqis also arrived from the Kingdom of Italy with the transfer to the Iraqi city of Mosul of 12 Fiat CR.42 biplane fighters from the 155a Squadriglia of the Regia Aeronautica to create the ‘Squadriglia speciale Irak’. It was these Italian aircraft which fought the last air engagement of the campaign when, on May 29, the Italian planes intercepted a force of Hawker Hart light bombers escorted by Gloster Gladiators. In the aerial combat that ensued, the Italians shot down two Gladiators for the loss of one CR.42 biplane. Axis forces were soon on their way out again as the Iraqi forces had almost nothing at all to support the Axis air forces and Turkey, a neutral country, refused to allow Axis military units to move through their country to supply and reinforce their units in Iraq. It was not long before the German and Italian forces in Iraq began to pull out. Some German units did see action as the British launched a major offensive to take back control of Iraq but they did minimal damage and had no effect on the outcome.

As the British moved advanced on Bagdad with a column of troops from the Indian Imperial Army, on May 29 Rashid Ali and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem fled to Persia and from there to Germany. The British secured Bagdad and a pro-British government was put back into power. That was the end of the effort to put Iraq into the camp of the Axis powers. However, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem continued to call on Muslims to unite behind Nazi Germany and he helped organize Muslim volunteers for the Nazi Waffen-SS, though they ultimately proved unsatisfactory. The Italian army also formed a special unit for Arab volunteers who wished to fight alongside them the following year on May 1, 1942. These recruits came from various Arab or Islamic countries and some did come from Iraq. However, the course of the war with its numerous setbacks discouraged enlistment and no more a few hundred Arabs ever joined the ranks. They were never fully organized and equipped before the end came with the 1943 armistice.

Friday, May 20, 2016

The Triple Alliance

It was today in 1882 that the German Empire, the Kingdom of Italy and Austria-Hungary joined in the "Triple Alliance". Ever since, the Kingdom of Italy has been frequently criticized for failing to follow her allies into the First World War, however, very few understand the details of the agreement made by the representatives of Kaiser Wilhelm I, King Umberto I and Kaiser Franz Joseph I. It was, from the start, intended to be a defensive alliance of monarchs. Germany feared French or Russian actions against them, the Austrians feared Balkan unrest, Russian support for them and did not want to have to worry about a war with Italy at the same time as such a threat. Italy had also recently been outraged by the French annexation of Tunisia. Italians had thought that by refraining from the rush to grab colonies, Italy would gain the moral high ground and the respect of the world. Instead, Italy gained nothing and had Tunisia snatched out from under them by the French Republic. So, it was hoped that the Triple Alliance would deter foreign aggression against Italy and give Italy support, at least from Germany, in the competition for colonial expansion.

Today, all too often, Italy is portrayed in a negative light as never being genuinely committed to the Triple Alliance but this is extremely unfair as it implies that Germany and Austria were. In fact, the Germans never supported Italy in any subsequent colonial venture and the Austrians continued to plan for an attack on their "ally" Italy right up to the outbreak of World War I. In other words, every country continued to look out for their own interests and not those of their allies, which is nothing unique or unusual. In such a situation, it is extremely hypocritical to criticize Italy for doing the same. One should also keep in mind that the details of the agreement was, in fact, violated prior to the First World War and the Kingdom of Italy was NOT the guilty party.

One of the most significant points of the agreement, widely ignored today, was the stipulation that if there was to be any change to the status quo in the Balkans, Austria would consult with Italy before taking action and that if Austria gained any territory in the Balkans, Italy was to be compensated with Austrian territory that was historically and demographically Italian. Austria never honored these promises, never consulting Italy at all about efforts made in the Balkans and refusing to discuss any territorial concessions to Italy after the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Add to this the fact that, in 1914, the Chief of Staff of the Austrian army was a man who had advocated launching an unprovoked invasion of Italy, their ally, and the slain heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, had never made much of an effort to hide his strident bigotry toward all Italians. To a lesser degree, German Kaiser Wilhelm II had not impressed many people with his insulting antics towards the King of Italy during a state visit to Rome (he purposely brought his tallest soldiers so as to make the short Italian monarch seem tiny in comparison -a petty and juvenile antic).

It should, therefore, be no great surprise that when war came, Italians were not rushing to arms to fight alongside Germany and Austria. It is also worth repeating that the Triple Alliance was always a defensive alliance and, while there were certainly circumstances involved, when the fighting actually began it was with the Germans and Austrians being the ones on offensive rather than the defensive. The Triple Alliance, it is true, was not a successful pact as it did not prevent war and did not endure beyond the Austro-German ethnic core (the Hungarians were not in favor of war in 1914 either). However, to portray Italy as the false partner, to portray Italy as the one who treacherously betrayed "faithful" allies, is preposterous and totally untrue.

Monday, May 9, 2016

The Abdication - Today in Italian History

It was on this day in 1946 that His Majesty Vittorio Emanuele III abdicated as King of Italy, passing the crown to his son, Umberto II, who was already acting on his behalf as 'lieutenant of the realm'. The general assumption has usually been that the King abdicated, three weeks before the referendum on the future of the Italian monarchy, to improve the chances of his son in the upcoming vote. As with most things involving King Vittorio Emanuele III, arguments continue on this subject and it has been the focus of criticism from elements on the left as well as the right. Some republicans opposed the abdication because they feared it would improve the position of King Umberto II in public opinion. Other republicans supported it as a 'too little, too late' gesture that would be seen as an act of manipulation. On the right, there were monarchists who opposed it because of the already too-leftist direction the country was taking while others supported it as the necessary result of a lost war. There were also those, and not a few, who thought it should have happened much sooner in order to save the monarchy by making a fresh start as soon as possible with a new monarch who had not been on the throne during the Fascist era and the painful invasion of Italian soil. Many have puzzled over what the King must have been thinking in abdicating when he did after waiting for as long as he did in spite of the clear pressure from anti-Fascist politicians as well as the Allied nations for him to do so. I could be wrong of course, but to me, the King's position seems clear.

For one thing, the King rightly felt that his own abdication was unjustified in so far as it implied his being responsible for the entire Fascist era, which was how the issue was usually framed. It was only after the Liberals failed to come together to put forward an alternative and only after numerous offers to other political figures had been rejected that the King had invited Mussolini to form a government; a government which was originally a coalition government in which the Fascists were a minority. The public, unpopular as it later became to say so, had been supportive of Mussolini for most of his tenure and it had, after all, been the King who had taken action to finally have the Duce removed from power and took the first steps to getting Italy out of the war. The King was also very much alarmed at how many dangerous elements, including communists fresh from Russia, were already being taken in to the Badoglio administration. He did not hold out much hope for his son being given a fair chance in light of all of this and that the ultimate result would be the end of the monarchy and a republic that would be ruinous for everyone but the communists. It is worth pointing out that events would ultimately prove the King entirely correct in all of these predictions.

In the end, my own thoughts on this subject are rather complicated though undoubtedly sympathetic to the King. In my view, he should not have had to abdicate at all and yet such a thing was probably unavoidable and being unavoidable it would have been better to have come sooner rather than later. It was only the latest in what had become a series of 'no-win' situations for the King of Italy. His departure from Rome, for example, was a disaster but staying behind would have probably sealed his fate and led to disaster as well. Abdication was not unprecedented in such circumstances and he had already surrendered his thrones as Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Albania but the issue had been framed in the context of the Fascist dictatorship and as such it was unavoidable that abdication would be seen by many as an implicit acceptance of responsibility for that, which was completely wrong. Abdicating earlier would probably have made things better for King Umberto II but, would it really have changed the outcome of the referendum? Given that it was the enemies of the monarchy who were carrying out the referendum and counting the votes, it is hard to see how this could be. It was a rigged contest which is plainly evident to all but the willfully ignorant. As such, the abdication of the King was a sad event, a complicated event and probably represented a situation for which there simply were no "good options" left available.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Today in Italian History

The fifth of May is a significant day in the history of the Kingdom of Italy with two significant events that stand out, one in the creation of the Kingdom of Italy and the other in considerably expanding its power overseas. The first, and probably more famous, event came on this day in 1860 when Garibaldi and his intrepid band of one thousand volunteers set sail from Genoa bound for the island of Sicily. This marked the beginning of one of the most stunning and successful military campaigns in Italian history, a real upset that saw a ragged band of mostly inexperienced romantics, take on a large and professional standing army and win. It was the start of the campaign that ultimately ended in the reunification of northern and southern Italy for the first time practically since the fall of the Roman Empire. With the sailing of those ships carrying Garibaldi and "the Thousand" the course of Italian history was set to change forever in a major way.

On, perhaps, a more controversial note, it was the fifth of May in 1936 that Italian troops occupied the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, the culmination of Mussolini's "Marcia della ferrea volonta" or 'March of the Iron Will' to end the Second Italo-Abyssinian War with a dramatic and awe-inspiring show of force. After exhorting his people to fight to the last, Emperor Haile Selassie had fled the city several days earlier for French Somaliland and immediately after his departure the city erupted in a frenzy of looting and vandalism, the Imperial Palace itself being thoroughly gutted before Italian troops arrived and restored order with Marshal Pietro Badoglio proclaiming a victorious end to the war in Ethiopia. When word of the success reached Rome, the event became probably the most celebrated victory of the Fascist era.