Читать книгу Mussolini as revealed in his political speeches (November 1914-August 1923) - Benito Mussolini - Страница 5

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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