Skip to main content

What was Italy's role in WW1?

Before World War I broke out in 1914, Italy had been allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, so, at first, it seemed likely that Italy would join the Triple Alliance. Mussolini, then the editor of a socialist newspaper, was eager to keep Italy out of the war, as he saw the war as an effort by capitalist bosses to use the proletariat as cannon fodder. By 1915, though, Mussolini's views had changed, as he saw the war as what he called "a great drama." At first, many socialists in Italy sided with Mussolini in staying out of the war, but, like him, they began to gravitate towards intervention (even as he was kicked out of the Socialist Party in Italy).


The Italian government began to see the war as a way to gain more territory. In the Treaty of London of 1915, Britain agreed to grant Italy territory in the Adriatic if they became involved in the war, so Italy joined in April of 1915, entering the war on the side of the Triple Entente—Britain, France, and Russia. Britain and its allies wanted Italy to help start a southern end of the Western Front to further weaken the Triple Alliance. 


From 1915 to 1917, Italy made very little progress into Austrian territory, and Italian troops were defeated soundly at the battle of Caporetto in October of 1917, resulting in the deaths of 300,000 soldiers. Over 600,000 Italian soldiers died in the war, and the government was in debt as a result of the fighting. In addition, the Italians got very little of what they had wanted at the treaty negotiations in Versailles in 1919, giving rise to a sense of wounded pride and a current of nationalism in Italy after the war.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more