The Wanganui Chronicle. MONDAY, APRIL, 24, 1944. ITALY AND ITS MONARCHY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 96, 24 April 1944, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. MONDAY, APRIL, 24, 1944. ITALY AND ITS MONARCHY

yHE present chaotic state of Italy cannot be understood fully by British minds because the latter have been able to look back upon a condition of national unity which has come down from the reign of Henry the Eighth. Italians achieved national unity only in 1860. Since the break-up of the Roman Empire national disunity lias reigned in Italy and disturbed the minds of the country’s thinkers. Machiavelli in his history of Florence, written in the fifteenth century, stressed the need for national unity and the necessity for freeing the country front foreign interference. It is not to be expected that the Italian people should be able to re-establish quickly their national life after the events of the immediate past. Parliamentary Government never had a fair chance in Italy, mainly because of the disruption between Church and State and partly because of the prevailing ignorance of a large section of the population. Government under any form would have been difficult because ihe people were poor and the economy of the country gave little opportunity for improving their lot. Even the food supply was inadequate to sustain the population, and the problem was solved by the younger people migrating to the United States and 1o South America and sending home their savings to assist in the support of their families. Despite a high standard of genius in engineering and in the arts, and notwithstanding the industry of the population, the outlook for the country was by no means bright. Italy was regarded as the Garden of Europe, but die Italians disliked having their country looked on as a museum of the glories of the Renaissance. They believed that their country was a vital living thing with a soul, and destined to fill a better dace in the world than that which it occupied. National discontent •vas not canalised, and under the parliamentary system a multitude of parties expressed the various hopes and ambitions of the people. ( nder the Premiership of Crispi the rule of the Government was ■trong in an Italian way, but Crispi’s methods were the forerunner of Mussolini’s in some respects. When 11 Duce staged his march on Rome the mass of the people did not appreciate what was being enacted. They had not learned the value of a parliamentary constitution.

There was one man, however, who was the leader of Italian national life, King Victor Emmanuel. His function and his duty to which he had bound himself by his coronation oath was to uphold the constitution of which his kingship was an integral part. He took the easy way, accepted a position that was not in keeping with his Royal dignity, allowed the Constitution to be torn to shreds and trampled under foot, and ran along behind the heels of the usurper of the power within the State. Now the Fascist regime, of which he was a quiescent member, has fallen.to dust, crushing under the debris all that was built up in Italian national life in the past 80 years. Emmanuel realises that the people, having nothing for which to thank him. can hardly now do him honour. His retirement is inevitable, but he still hopes to obtain something out of the wreck. Can he save the dynasty? Shall the House of Savoy still reign over Italy? Emmanuel is now planning to ensure that it shall do so.

Prince Umberto, who is the legal successor to Emmanuel and who will automatically become King if Emmanuel retires—provided the nation agrees—has also entered the lists with the object of saving the dynasty. He realises that if his father cannot be reestablished in the goodwill of the people his own chances of ascending the throne of United Italy will suffer a severe discount. He has asserted that his father could not have prevented Italy entering the war on the side of Germany when France fell, and that the entry into the war seemed to be popular with the nation at tiic time. This statement is in part correct and in part false. Il is true that Emmanuel could not at the time the declaration of war was made have diverted Mussolini from the course on which he alone had decided. But the charge against Emmanuel is not that he did fail to make a dramatic gesture then, but that he allowed the power that was his by reason of Ihe Constitution, to pass from his own hands into that of Mussolini without attemptiA- to do anything Io fulfil his Coronation oath and defend the ConsNtution. In 1940 it was too late for Hie King to do anything. For Umberto to assert that, the Italian people wanted war or that t.li’e decision to enter the war on Germany’s side.was popular with the masses is simply ami demonstrably untrue. The only war that popular with the Italians was the Abysinnian War, and that, not because it fulfilled dreams of a new Roman Empire but betause it promised to a poverty-stricken people cheap cotton and coffee. The troops that were sent to Spain were shanghaied there, and that sordid adventure in international brigandage was never popular. As for .standing alongside the Germans, the Italians never relished it, ami it was always unpopular. Even Mussolini hoped to have an opportune moment presented to him which would enable him to switch to the other side. Mussolini’s building was not on a sure foundation and he sought a diversion from Hie weaknesses of Hie regime which he had established. He was lured to his destruction and the destruction of his country by the hope "of obtaining sufficient loot to enable the hollowness of his Slate structure to be filled up. The Italian people were never deceived by Mussolini after Hie Abysinnian campaign closed. They did not know how to get rid of him and his accomplices, and in this the King of Italy was of no help to them. To-day they have no reason to be thankful to the House of Savov.