THE POSITION OF ITALY
But intervention in the war was not one of those ordinary enterprises
on which Italy might reasonably embark, after having carefully counted
up the cost in men and money and allowed a reasonable margin for
unforeseen demands on both. In this venture the liabilities were
unlimited, whereas the resources of the nation were bounded, the
limits being much narrower than in the case of any other Great Power.
And this was a truly hampering circumstance. Serious though it was,
however, it would hardly avail to deter a nation from accepting the
risks and offering up the sacrifices requisite, if the motive were at
once adequate, peremptory and pressing.
But Italy, unlike the Allies, had had no strong provocation to draw
the sword. Grievances she undoubtedly possessed in plenty. She had
been badly dealt with by her allies, but forbearance was her rule of
living. For nearly a generation she had been a partner of the two
militarist States, yet she shrank from severing her connection with
them, even when they deliberately broke their part of the compact.
This breach of covenant not only dispensed her from taking arms on
their side, but would also, owing to the consequences it involved,
have sufficed to warrant her adhesion to the Entente Powers. But for
conclusive reasons--lack of preparedness among others--she condoned
all affronts and drew the line at neutrality.
The country was absolutely unequipped for the contest. The Lybian
campaign had disorganized Italy's national defences and depleted her
treasury. Arms, ammunition, uniforms, primary necessaries--in a word,
the means of equipping an army--were lacking. The expenditure of
L80,000,000 sterling during the conflict with Turkey rendered the
strictest economy imperative, and so intent was the Cabinet on
observing it that the first candidate for the post of War Minister
declined the honour, because of the disproportion between the sum
offered to him for reorganization and the pressing needs of the
national defences.
The outbreak of the present conflict, therefore, took Italy unawares
and found her in a condition of military unpreparedness which, if her
participation in the war had been a necessity, might have had
mischievous consequences for the nation. Availing herself of this
condition of affairs and of the pacific temper of the Italian people,
Germany reinforced those motives by the prospect of Corsica, Nice,
Savoy, Tunis and Morocco in return for active co-operation. But the
active co-operation of Italy with Austria and Germany was wholly
excluded. The people would have vetoed it as suicidal. The utmost that
could be attempted was the preservation of her neutrality, and that
this object would be attained seemed a foregone conclusion.
And it is fair to state that this belief was well grounded. When war
was declared and Italy was summoned to march with her allies against
France, Britain and Russia, she repudiated her obligation on the
ground that the clause in their treaty provided for common action in
defence only, not for co-operation in a war of aggression, such as was
then about to be waged. And that plea could not be rebutted. This
preliminary dissonance to which the Central empires resigned
themselves was followed by disputes which turned upon the
interpretation of the compensation clause of the Treaty, upon Italy's
territorial demands and Austria's demurrers. Thus from first to last
the issues raised were of a diplomatic order, and if German statesmen
had received carte blanche to settle them, it is not improbable that a
compromise would have been effected which would have left the Italian
Government no choice but to persevere in its neutrality.
And German statesmen strove hard to wrest the matter from their ally
and take it into their own hands, but were only partially successful.
Both they and the Austrians selected their most supple and wily
diplomatists to conduct the difficult negotiations. Prince Buelow was
appointed German Ambassador to King Victor's Government, Baron Macchio
supplanted Merey in Rome, but the most sensational change effected was
the substitution of Baron Burian for Count Berchtold in the Austrian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[90] This latter event was construed by
the European public as the foretoken of a new and far-resonant
departure in Austria's treatment of international relations. In
reality it was hardly more than the withdrawal from public business of
a tired statesman _malgre lui_ who had persistently sought to be
relieved of his charge ever since his first appointment. Count
Berchtold's name is inseparably associated with events of the first
magnitude for his country and for Europe, but on the creation or
moulding of which he had little appreciable part. It is hardly too
much to say that if, during the period while he held office, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been without a head, the mechanism
would have worked with no serious hitch, and with pretty much the same
results which we now behold. For he was but the intermediary between
the mechanism and the real minister, who invariably appeared as a
_deus ex machina_ in all the great crises of recent years, and who was
none other than the Emperor Francis Joseph himself.
[90] January 15, 1915.
Count Berchtold was a continuator. He endeavoured under adverse
circumstances to carry out the feasible schemes of his predecessor,
but the obstacles in his way proved insurmountable. He is a
straightforward, truthful man, and in the best sense of the word a
gentleman. The greatest achievement to which he can point during his
tenure of power is the disruption of the Balkan League. Having had an
opportunity of seeing the working of the scheme at close quarters, I
may say that it was ingenious. Pacific by temperament and conviction,
he co-operated successfully with the Emperor to ward off a European
conflict more than once. But from the day when Count Tisza won over
Franz Josef to the ideas of Kaiser Wilhelm, Count Berchtold's
occupation was gone.
His successor, Baron Burian, entered upon his office with an
established reputation and a political programme. But so immersed were
the Allies in the absurd illusions which ascribed disorganization to
Germany and discord to the two imperial Governments, that Burian's
appointment was read by many as an omen that Austria-Hungary was
already scheming for a separate peace. Events soon showed that the
disorganization was not in Germany nor the discord on the side of the
Central Empires.
Meanwhile the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Di San Giuliano,
had succumbed to a painful illness, which, however, did not prevent
him from writing and reading dispatches down to the very eve of his
death.[91] His successor was Sydney Sonnino, perhaps the most upright,
rigid and taciturn man who has ever had to receive foreign
diplomatists and discourse sweet nothings in their ears. Devoid of
eloquence, of personal magnetism and of most of the arts deemed
essential to the professional diplomatist, he is a man of culture,
eminent talents, fervid zeal for the public welfare, steady moral
courage, and rare personal integrity. Pitted against the supple and
versatile Buelow, his influence might be likened to that of the austere
philosopher gazing at the incarnate Lamia.
[91] Di San Giuliano died on October 18, 1914. He was working
for a short time on the 17th.
Between these two statesmen conversations began[92] under favourable
auspices. One of the conditions to which each of them subscribed was
the maintenance of rigorous secrecy until the end of their labours.
And it was observed religiously until Germany's "necessity" seemed to
call for the violation of the pledge, whereupon it was profitably
violated. Baron Sonnino told the German plenipotentiary that "the
majority of the population was in favour of perpetuating neutrality,
and gave its support to the Government for this purpose, provided
always that by means of neutrality certain national aspirations could
be realized."[93] Buelow at once scored an important point by taking
sides with Italy against Austria on the disputed question whether
Clause VII of the Triple Alliance entitled the former country to
demand compensation for the upsetting of the Balkan equilibrium caused
by Austria's war on Serbia. That view and its practical corollaries
set the machinery going. The Austrian Government abandoned its _non
possumus_, and discussed the nature and extent of the compensation
alleged to be due. But it never traversed the distances between words
and acts.
[92] On December 20, 1914.
[93] Italian Green Book, Despatch N. 8.
One of the many wily devices by which the German Ambassador sought to
inveigle the Consulta into forgoing its right to resort to war was
employed within three weeks of the beginning of negotiations. Buelow
confidentially informed Sonnino that Germany was sending Count von
Wedel to Vienna to persuade the Cabinet there to cede the Trentino to
Italy, and asked him whether, if Austria acquiesced, it would not be
possible to announce to the Chamber that the Italian Government had
already in hand enough to warrant it in assuming that the main
aspirations of the nation would be realized.[94] "Absolutely
impossible," was Sonnino's reply. But the Dictator Giolitti, whom
Prince Buelow took into partnership, was more confident and pliable.
This parliamentary leader, whose will was law in his own country and
whose life-work consisted in eliminating ethical principles from
politics, made known his belief--nay, his positive knowledge--that by
diplomatic negotiations the nation could obtain concessions which
would dispense it from embarking on the war. This pronouncement had a
widespread effect on public opinion, confirming the prevalent belief
that Austria would satisfy Italy's claims.
[94] Italian Green Book, January 14, 1915, Despatch N. 11.
There was no means of verifying those announcements, for the Rome
Government scrupulously observed its part of the compact, and allowed
no news of the progress of the conversations to leak out. In fact, it
went much farther and deprived the Italian people systematically of
all information on the subject of the crisis. Consequently the
poisoners of the wells of truth had a facile task.
It was no secret, however, that the cession of the Trentino would not
suffice to square accounts. Italy's land and sea frontiers were
strategically so exposed that it was sheer impossible to provide
adequately for their defence. And this essential defect rendered the
nation semi-dependent on its neighbour and adversary and powerless to
pursue a policy of its own. For half a century this dangerous flaw in
the national edifice and its pernicious effects on Italy's
international relations had been patiently borne with, but Baron
Sonnino considered that the time for repairing it and strengthening
the groundwork of peace had come. And as he had not the faintest doubt
that technically as well as essentially he had right on his side, he
pressed the matter vigorously. Austrian diplomacy, dense and dilatory
as ever, argued, protested, temporized. In these tactics it was
encouraged by the knowledge that Italy was unequipped for war, and by
the delusion that the remedial measures of reorganization then going
forward were only make-believe. The Italian Government, on the other
hand, convinced that nothing worth having could be secured by
diplomacy until diplomacy was backed by force, was labouring might and
main to raise the army and navy to a position as worthy as possible of
a Great Power and commensurate with the momentous issues at stake.
But the position of the Cabinet was seriously weakened by the domestic
and insidious enemy. Giolitti's pronouncement had provided the
Austrians with a trump card. For if the Dictator accounted the
proffered concession as a settlement in full, it was obvious that the
Cabinet, which was composed of his own nominees whom he could remove
at will, would not press successfully for more extensive compensation.
Giolitti was the champion and spokesman of the nation, and his
estimate of its aspirations alone carried weight. And now once more
the Dictator, acting through his parliamentary lieutenants, organized
another anti-governmental demonstration which humiliated the Cabinet
and impaired its authority as a negotiator. Of this favourable
diversion the Austrians availed themselves to the full. But gradually
it dawned upon them that behind the Italian Foreign Minister a
reorganized Italian army, well equipped and partially mobilized, was
being arrayed for the eventuality of a failure of the negotiations. By
way of recognizing this fact the Ballplatz increased its offer, but
only very slightly, while it grew more and more lavish of arguments.
But the "principal aspirations of the Italian people" had not yet been
taken into serious consideration by Baron Burian. Down to April 21
this statesman had not braced himself up to offer anything more than
the Trentino, which Prince Buelow had virtually promised in January,
and this despite the intimation given by the Italian Foreign
Secretary, that after the long spell of word-weaving and
hair-splitting he must insist on a serious and immediate effort being
put forth to meet Italy's demands.
Thus during five months of tedious negotiations Austria had contrived
to exchange views and notes with the Consulta without offering any
more solid basis for an agreement than the cession of a part of the
Trentino. It is fair to add that even this appeared a generous gift to
Franz Josef's ministers, who failed to see why the Habsburg Monarchy
should offer any compensation to an ally from whom help, not claims,
had been expected. To a possible abandonment of territory on the
Isonzo or elsewhere the Vienna Cabinet made no allusion. On April 8
Sonnino presented counter proposals, which he unfolded in nine
clauses. They comprehended the cession of the Trentino, including the
frontiers established for the kingdom of Italy by the Treaty of Paris
of 1810; a rectification of Italy's eastern boundaries, taking in the
cities of Gradisca and Gorizia; the transformation of Trieste and its
territory into an autonomous State, internationally independent; the
transfer to the kingdom of Italy of the Curzolari group of islands;
all these territories to be delivered up on the ratification of the
Treaty. Further, Italy's full sovereignty over Valona was to be
recognized by Austria, who should forswear all further designs on
Albania and concede a full pardon to all persons of those lands
undergoing punishment for political or military offences. On her side
Italy would consent to pay 200,000,000 francs as her share of the
public debt and of other financial obligations of the provinces in
question, to remain absolutely neutral during the present war, and to
renounce all further claims to compensation arising out of Clause VII
of the Treaty.[95]
[95] Italian Green Book, Dispatch N. 64.
Those terms were rejected by the Austrian Foreign Minister on grounds
which have no longer any practical interest. Noteworthy is his remark
that even in peace time the immediate consignment of such territory as
Austria might be willing to abandon would be impossible, and during
the prosecution of a tremendous war it was inconceivable.[96] From
this position he had never once swerved during the five months'
conversations, and he was backed by Germany, who on March 19 had
offered to guarantee the fulfilment of the promise after the war. But
a fortnight later he suddenly changed his ground without really
yielding the point, by suggesting the creation of a mixed commission
which should make recommendations about the ways and means of
transferring the strips of territory in question. But as the labours
of this commission were not to be restricted in time, and as the
amount to be ceded fell far short of what was demanded, Baron Sonnino
negatived the suggestion.
[96] Italian Green Book, Dispatch N. 71, April 16, 1915.
Then and only then did the Italian Government withdraw their
proposals, denounce the Triple Alliance, and proclaim Italy's liberty
of action.[97]
[97] May 3, 1915. Cf. Italian Green Book, Dispatch N. 76.
Of this sensational turn of affairs the European public had no
inkling. For the Italian Government was bound to reticence by its
plighted word and the Germans and Austrians by their interest, which
was to foster the belief that the conversations were proceeding
successfully and that Austria's proposals were welcomed by the
Consulta. But Italy, thus absolved from the ties that had so long
linked her with Germany and Austria, entered into a conditional
compact with the Powers of the Entente. In Paris the secret quickly
leaked out and was at once communicated to Berlin, whose organized
espionage continued to flourish in the French capital. Thereupon Herr
Jagow urged Buelow to bestir himself without delay. But the Prince was
hard set. On the Italian Cabinet he had lost his hold. It had already
crossed the Rubicon and passed over to the Entente. True, the Cabinet
was not Italy, was not even the Government of Italy. It was hardly
more than a group of mere place-warmers for Giolitti and his
partisans. At any moment it could be upset and the damage inflicted by
Austria's stupidity made good. And to effect this was the task to
which the German Ambassador now addressed himself.
He was admirably qualified to discharge it. All Italy, with the
exception of a small band of nationalists and republicans, was his
ally. The Pope was _ex officio_ an apostle of peace. A large body of
the clergy submissively followed the Pope. The Vatican and its
hangers-on were sitting _en permanence_ directing a movement which had
for its object the prevention of war. The parliamentary majority was
aggressively neutralist. The economic interests of the nation were
ranged on the same side. Almost the entire aristocracy was enlisted
under the flag of the German Ambassador, at whose hospitable board the
scions of the men whose names had been honourably associated with the
Risorgimento met and deliberated. As yet, therefore, nothing was lost
to the Central Empires; only a difficulty had been created which would
serve as a welcome foil to impart sharper relief to Prince Buelow's
certain victory. The man whose co-operation would win this victory was
the Dictator Giolitti, and him the Ambassador summoned to Rome.
Now Giolitti was acquainted with everything that had been done by the
Cabinet, including his country's covenant with the Allies, and he
disapproved of it. He was also initiated by Buelow into the scheme by
which that covenant was to be set aside and Italy made to break her
faith, and he signified his approbation of it. Nay, this patriot went
further; he undertook to aid and abet Buelow in his well-thought-out
plot. It had been resolved by the German Ambassador, as soon as he
learned that Italy had taken an irrevocable decision and denounced the
Treaty of Alliance, that he would amend the proposals which he
himself, in Austria's name, had put forward as the utmost limit to
which she was prepared to go; and he was anxious, before offering them
officially, to ascertain whether Italy's Dictator would accept them
and guarantee their acceptance by his parliamentary majority.
That was the object for which Giolliti's presence was needed in Rome.
The amended proposals were typewritten and distributed by Erzberger,
the leader of the German Catholic parliamentary party, who was an
over-zealous agent of the Wilhelmstrasse and a _persona grata_ at the
Vatican. He, a German, had gone to Rome to bestir the neutralists and
lead the movement against the Italian Government. His leaflets
containing the belated concessions were given to Giolitti and his
lieutenants. I received a copy myself, and sent it to the _Daily
Telegraph_. The concessions were actually published in that journal
and communicated to the British public before King Victor's
Government, to whom Prince Buelow was accredited, had any cognizance of
their existence. That this procedure involved a gross breach of the
covenant between the Ambassador and Sonnino stipulating the
maintenance of absolute secrecy was deemed an irrelevant
consideration.
Seldom in modern times have such underhand methods been resorted to by
the Government of a Great Power. Neither would it be easy to find an
example of a responsible statesman behaving as Giolitti behaved and
working in collusion with the Government of a State which at the time
was virtually his country's enemy. This statesman, however, duly
played the part assigned to him in this intrigue against his
Government and country, and the success of his scheme would have left
the Italian nation covered with infamy and bereft of friends. For if
he had been able to conclude the compact with Austria as he had
undertaken to do, his country would have been left to the mercy of his
Austro-German masters, who despise Italy, and probably, if victorious,
would have refused to redeem their promises, while the Entente States
would have boycotted her as faithless and false-hearted. As a dilemma
for Italy the position in which she was placed must have delighted
the wily Buelow. How it can have satisfied an Italian statesman is a
psychological riddle.
Meanwhile the German Ambassador presented officially Austria's final
proposals, as though the conversations on this subject had not been
broken off. Baron Sonnino refused to discuss them. But the Dictator
intended that his word should be heard and his will should be done. To
the King and the Premier, Giolitti announced that, despite all that
had been accomplished by the Government, he still clung to the belief
that Austria's new concessions offered a basis for further
negotiations, which, if cleverly conducted, would lead to the
acquisition of some other strips of territory, and would certainly
culminate in a satisfactory settlement.
But, not satisfied with this confidential expression of opinion,
Giolitti let it be known to the whole nation that he, the chief and
spokesman of the parliamentary majority, was convinced of the
feasibility of an accord with Austria on the basis of her last offer,
which he deemed acceptable in principle; that he saw no motives for
plunging Italy into a hideous war, which would involve the nation in
disaster; and that he would adjust his acts to these convictions.
This deliberate pronouncement, coming from the most prominent man in
the country, had a powerful effect upon his followers and also upon
the public at large. No nation desires war for war's sake, and the
interpretation put upon Giolitti's words by the extreme neutralists
and, in particular, by the insincere organs of the Vatican, was that
he had seen enough to convince him that the Cabinet had decided to
wage war against Germany and Austria at all costs and irrespective of
the nation's interests. Giolitti's parliamentary friends
demonstratively called upon him at his private residence, leaving
their cards, and announcing the conformity of their views to those of
their leader; and as their number, which was carefully communicated to
the Press, formed the majority of the Chamber, the Cabinet felt
impelled to take the hint and act upon it. This was the only course
open to it. For, as the ministers were obliged to meet Parliament on
May 20--the day fixed for its reopening--they were sure to be
out-voted on a division, whereupon a crisis, not merely ministerial
but national and international, would be precipitated. The
consequences of such a conflict might be disastrous. Rather than wait
for this eventuality the Cabinet tendered its resignation. Thus Buelow
had seemingly triumphed. The Government was turned out by Giolitti,
who had accepted in advance the Austro-German terms of a settlement,
and Italy was seemingly won over to the Teutons.
So far as one could judge, the fate of the nation was now decided. Its
course was marked out for it, and was henceforward unalterable. For,
so far as one could see, by no section of the constitutional machinery
was the strategy of Buelow and Giolitti to be thwarted. In a
parliamentary land the legislatures are paramount, and here both
Chamber and Senate were arrayed against the Cabinet for Giolitti and
Germany.
The ferment consequent upon this turn of affairs was tremendous. All
Europe was astir with excitement. The Press of Berlin and Vienna was
jubilant. Panegyrics of Giolitti and of Buelow filled the columns of
their daily Press.
But a _deus ex machina_ suddenly descended upon the scene in the
unwonted form of an indignant nation. The Italian people, which had at
first been either indifferent or actively in favour of cultivating
neighbourly relations with Germany, had of late been following the
course of the struggle with the liveliest interest. Germany's dealings
with Belgium had impressed them deeply. Her methods of warfare had
estranged their sympathies. Her doctrine of the supremacy of force and
falsehood had given an adverse poise to their ideas and leanings. Deep
into their hearts had sunk the tidings of the destruction of the
_Lusitania_, awakening feelings of loathing and abomination for its
authors, to which free expression was now being given everywhere. The
spirit that actuated this revolting enormity was brand-marked as that
of demoniacal fury loosed from moral control and from the ties that
bind nations and individuals to all humanity.
The effect upon public sentiment and opinion in Italy, where emotions
are tensely strung, and sympathy with suffering is more flexible and
diffusive than it is even among the other Latin races, was
instantaneous. One statesman, who was a partisan of neutrality,
remarked to me that German "Kultur," as revealed during the present
war, is dissociated from every sense of duty, obligation, chivalry,
honour, and is become a potent poison which the remainder of humanity
must endeavour by all efficacious methods to banish from the
international system.
"This," he went on, "is no longer war; it is organized slaughter,
perpetrated by a race suffering from dog-madness. I tremble at the
thought that our own civilized and chivalrous people may at any moment
be confronted with this lava flood of savagery and destructiveness.
Now, if ever, the opportune moment has come for all civilized nations
to join in protest, stiffened with a unanimous threat, against the
continuance of such crimes against the human race. Europe ought surely
to have the line drawn at the poisoning of wells, the persecution of
prisoners, and the massacre of women and children. If a proposal to
this effect were made, I myself would second it with ardour."[98]
[98] Cf. _Daily Telegraph_, May 10, 1915.
These pent-up feelings now found vent in a series of meetings and
demonstrations against Germany as well as Austria and their Italian
allies. Italy's spiritual heritage from the old Romans asserted itself
in impressive forms and unwonted ways, and the conscience of the
nation loudly affirmed its claim to be the main directing force in a
crisis where the honour and the future of the country were at stake.
And within four days of this purgative process a marked change was
noticeable. Giolitti's partisans--hissed, jostled, mauled, frightened
out of their lives--lay low. Many of them publicly recanted and
proclaimed their conversion to intervention. The chief of the German
Catholic party and friend of the Vatican, Erzberger, was driven from
his hotel to the German Embassy as a foreign mischief-maker,
contrabandist and spy. Some of the Press organs, subsidized or created
by the Teutons, were obliged to disappear. The honest neutralist
journals, yielding to the nation, veered round to the fallen Cabinet.
In a word, the political atmosphere, theretofore foul and mephitic,
became suddenly charged with purer, healthier elements--Buelow's plot
was thwarted and Giolitti's role played out. The Salandra-Sonnino
Cabinet was borne back to office on the crest of this national wave,
and Italy declared war against Austria. But only against Austria. For
the Cabinet, restored to power, became a cautious steward, and took to
imitating him of the Gospel who hid his talents instead of augmenting
them.
This restriction of military operations to the Habsburg Monarchy
struck many observers as singular. In truth the motives that inspired
the Government have never been authoritatively divulged. That every
Italian Cabinet since Crispi's days had made a marked distinction
between Germany and Austria was notorious. That Di San Giuliano felt
as strongly attracted towards Berlin as he was repelled by Vienna may
be gathered from the official but still unpublished dispatches that
exist on the subject. But that in a war not of two individual nations,
but of groups of States, one--and only one--of these should be singled
out as the object of aggression aroused something more than mere
curiosity. And this feeling was intensified when it became known that
on the eve of the diplomatic rupture Buelow, ever on the alert for the
interests of his country, had induced the Italian Government to
conclude a convention with Germany for the protection of private
property in case of active hostilities. For Germany possesses in Italy
property valued at several milliards of francs, whereas Italy claims
as her own almost nothing in the German empire. Who can read the
riddle?
The adhesion of Italy to the Allies may be noted as perhaps the most
important political event of the year, while the circumstances in
which it was decided on dispel all doubt that the Italian people were
actuated by lofty motives and rose to the highest ideas involved in
the European conflict, and that the Cabinet's ideals were nowise
identical with those of the nation. It is alleged by certain personal
friends of Baron Sonnino, who had exceptionally good opportunities for
knowing what took place--and I have grounds for acquiescing in their
view--that this statesman was for declaring war against Germany as
well as Austria, but that Professor Salandra negatived this logical
and straightforward move.
That the Salandra Cabinet damaged the cause of Italy by thus
endeavouring to blow hot and cold, is a fact which its warmest
supporters no longer call in question. They now merely plead for
extenuating circumstances on the ground that the damage was done
unwittingly. "It would be unjust," the Nationalist Federzoni said in a
speech delivered before the Chamber on March 16,[99] "to accuse the
Italian Government of disloyalty or insincerity, but none the less the
treaty it concluded with Germany has proved superlatively baleful to
the country." Like the other allied peoples, the Italian nation has
been served by a Cabinet which defeated many of the objects it was
striving after.
[99] March 16, 1916.
Studying Italian politics since the war broke out is like threading
the Cretan Labyrinth in a dense fog. The fog, curiously enough, which
now seldom lifts, would seem to form an integral part of the politics.
For one of the maxims of the present chief of the Consulta, Baron
Sonnino, is that secrecy is the soul of efficacy. And as thoroughness
marks his action whenever it is quite free, the mystery that enwraps
the schemes and designs of King Victor's Government is become
impenetrable. One may form a faint notion of the stringency with which
this un-Italian occultism is observed by the eminent Jewish statesman,
from the circumstance that during the crisis that preceded the war,
only one of his colleagues was kept informed of the progress of the
conversations with Austria, and that was his own chief, Professor
Salandra. As for the nation at large, it was so out of touch with the
Government, and so led astray concerning the trend of events, that for
months it confidently anticipated an accord with the Central Empires.
Again, down to the day on which Baron Sonnino read out his last
declaration in the Chamber (Dec. 1), officials of the Ministry had
rigorous instructions not to give any one even a hint as to whether
Italy would or would not sign the London Convention, renouncing the
right to conclude a separate peace.
For a long time previously Italy's aloofness had preoccupied the
Entente, and to the accord between the two there continued to be
something lacking. The Italian Government, dissatisfied with the
degree of help received from Great Britain, was not slow to indicate
it in official conversations with our Ambassador. Happily, the silence
of our Foreign Office and the secrecy of Baron Sonnino concealed the
rifts of the lute until most of them were said to be repaired. In the
meantime Italy persisted in concentrating on the Isonzo and the Carso
all her efforts to help the Allies against the Turks and the Bulgars.
The expeditions to the Dardanelles, Salonika and Serbia evoked her
moral sympathy, but could not secure her military co-operation. The
generosity of the Entente, and of Britain in particular, towards
Greece was an additional stumbling-block, and the offer of Cyprus to
King Constantine an abomination in her eyes.
That Italy's impolitic aloofness could not last, without impairing the
worth of her sacrifices, was obvious. And the extent to which
co-operation could be stipulated and the compensations to which that
would entitle her, formed the subjects of long and delicate
conversations between the interested Governments. For, naturally
enough, Baron Sonnino, whose domestic critics are many and ruthless,
was desirous of getting all he could in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Asia Minor, while measuring out with patriotic closeness the military
and naval help to be given in return--Italy's position, economic,
financial and strategic, differing considerably from that of the other
Great Powers. It was not until the end of November 1915 that these
negotiations were worked out to an issue; and on the 30th King
Victor's Government signed the Convention of London, undertaking not
to conclude a separate peace.
The gist of this supplementary accord, in so far as it imposes fresh
obligations upon Italy, was communicated to the Chamber by Baron
Sonnino. It provided for the organization of relief for the Serbian
troops in Albania, and for other auxiliary expeditions to places on
the Adriatic coast. But it leaves intact the essential and standing
limitations to Italy's military and naval co-operation which had to
be reckoned with theretofore. And these may be summarized as follows:
King Victor's Government, while examining every proposal coming from
the Allies on its political merits, must be guided by the military and
naval experts of the nation whenever it is a question of despatching
troops or warships to take part in a common enterprise. Italy's first
care is to hinder an invasion of her territory. The next object of her
solicitude is to husband her naval and other resources and cultivate
caution. Lastly, the extent of her contribution to an expedition must
be adjusted to her resources, which are much more slender than those
of any other Great Power, and are best known to her own rulers. And
her financial means are to be reinforced by contributions from Great
Britain.
Those, in brief, are some of the lines on which the latest agreement
has been concluded.