To what extent had the liberal government created a united Italy by 1900? The liberal government of Italy, founded in 1871 after the unification that made the nation, adopted the task of creating a ‘united’ Italy. The government made certain prosperous changes such as the vast improvements in education and steel production; however there were several matters they had to overcome along the way, including the strong influence from the Pope and the strong North South divide, as well as the fact that the new liberal government was corrupt, these all contributed to Italy being by no means united by 1900. The new Government were condemned from their beginning as The Roman Catholic church had ordered Italians not to vote for the government as it had lost a lot of land during unification; also the Pope refused to recognise the legitimacy of the kingdom of Italy and instructed Italian Catholics to boycott Italian politics. This proved a problem for the newly formed government as Italy was a predominantly Catholic country and many Italians were devoted to the Pope.
At the beginning of 1922, Italy was in a state of permanent political instability. Fascist violence was increasing in intensity. Parliamentary government could only function through patched-up coalition government by political parties who were incapable of united action. The First World War was mostly fought in the North East against Austria. Italy was defeated at Caporetto in 1917 but rallied to win the battle of Vittorio Veneto in 1918.
The king at the time of Mussolini’s coming to power was King Victor Emmanuel III. He was an unremarkable ruler who achieved very little. He was the one who gave into the terms and conditions of the people of Italy, due to factors, which got to him, such as fear of a civil war, socialism and his sense of insecurity. Only the king had the power to appoint the Prime Minister, so it was in Mussolini’s favor to force it upon him. By the autumn of 1922, Mussolini was in contact with most major politicians of the formation of a new government that would include the fascists.
The Matteoti crisis put Mussolini in a very powerful position with a great excuse to keep the opposition out of parliament. Other factors such as the acerbo laws, legge fascitisme, control of the squadristi/ras and the role of the king. The actions of the elites and the Catholic Church contributed greatly to giving Mussolini the opportunity to gain dictatorial powers. The elites are a group in Italian society who had a lot of money and therefore power. For years under the liberal government the elites had benefited from the system of trasformismo.
The support from the catholic church and the traditional elites was a very important reason that Mussolini was able to consolidate his power in 1922-1924 because both of these groups of people had a very large influence on the people of Italy at the time. However, I think that the actions of the current king; Victor Emmanuel III, was a far greater reason for Mussolini’s success because he was the only one who could’ve thrown Mussolini out of power but he didn’t. Unless he did something, Mussolini’s opponent’s options were very limited. The Catholic Church and the Elites were very important for Mussolini to establish a dictatorship. To gain power, Mussolini had to gain support from as many people as he could, he realised that people listened, and followed the church.
Although he wanted a democratic unified government, many of his ideas were very radical and idealistic. Mazzini’s ideas were clearly portrayed in the motto of the Roman Republic,”Dio et il popolo” (God and the People) and that Italy should be unified ‘from below’. He wanted the people of Italy to rise up from their high-powered oppressors and stressed that they should be unified by their ‘own efforts’ for fear that one domination would be replaced by another outside influence, Mazzini’s key idea of Nationalism would mean a ‘violent insurrection’ was needed. Some Liberals opposed this idea of violence and instead wanted to work with rulers to gain Constitutions instead. Therefore he had limited appeal and lacked progress and so is a reason for the slow progress of the unification of Italy.
These factors led to a fragile liberal government, with the main threat in my opinion being posed not by the nationalists but the socialists. The PSI was founded in 1895 and soon became a strong threat to the liberal government. They were fiercely opposed to the liberal regime, saying it was a cover for the capitalist exploitation of Italian working classes, and used evidence that wages were still low and hours were still long in comparison to the rest of Western Europe. Also welfare benefits compared unfavourably. This led to strong support of the socialists from working classes, so much so that a relatively new party was winning over 20% of the vote by 1913.
It is agreed by most, that Napoleon III, Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew, was a key factor in the unification but the real debate lies within the question; was he a hindrance or a assistance? It was certain that Napoleon left his mark on Italy, involving himself immensely, but there is debate over how many states he affected in a positive way. On one hand, and very importantly, when talking about Lombardy’s annexation from Piedmont, there is no doubt that Napoleon played a large factor. Napoleon and Italian nationalist Cavour met at Plombieres were an agreement was formed. A war was planned between Austria and a mixture of French and Piedmontese troops, with a hope for victory in favour of Piedmont.
How far do you agree that the revolutions within the Italian states failed because they were too localised? I acknowledge that to some extent localism played a role in the failure in the 1820’s and 30’s revolutions within the Italian states. However I also recognise that there were other factors that played major if not bigger roles, such as the minimal amount of public support or the lack of involvement from the French. However I do believe it was the involvement of Austria that played the greatest role in the failure of the revolutions. In the context of the question, localism played an irrefutably large role in the failure of the revolutions.
The success of the French troops can be based on many factors: Napoleon’s “new” - but very successful- way of making war, the superb commanders (Masséna and Augurea) Napoleon had underneath him and, the poor organisation and communication between his opponents. For example: the British and Austria had no treaties but were supposedly allies. In 1796 Napoleon newly appointed as the head of the Army in Italy quickly set his soldiers into action as a way to boost their morale and so Napoleon could show his capabilities to silence those who doubted him both alongside him and back in Paris. The army had been poorly looked after and had not won a battle in years. So he quickly secured a loan from his friends his the Directory (Barras) and spent it all on equipment and supplies.