Many new nations were created after World War I due to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires. These new nations were faced with many problems. The economic situation in many of these countries were not good due to them not being used to having their own economies, formally being a part of a larger empire. Many of these countries would constantly be changing governments due to revolutions and counter-revolutions. The existence of many of these new nations, particularly ones in Central and Eastern Europe, came under threat as new, powerful, tyrannical governments got their start in the 1920s.

World War I had not treated the “victors” well either. These countries found themselves in bad economic standing due to the war and were faced with political upheaval. Italy was a country that was faring particularly badly, and this meant that people were willing to take action in an attempt to fix what was wrong with the country. This is what Mussolini and the fascist party did when they took over Italy in 1922. If the victors were faring badly, then the losers of World War I were doing even worse. Germany was in shambles following the war. Every issue that the other countries had, Germany had as well, only worse. Once again, this inspired radical groups to take action. Hitler and the Nazis attempted to take over in 1923. While this failed, it showed the fragility of Germany at time, and the situation in Germany would not improve.

World War I changed the world forever. Just because the war ended did not mean that people felt that it was over. Many radical political groups of the 1920s were made up of World War I veterans, who felt that their government had betrayed them. Communism and Fascism started to creep into the governments of many countries, with many countries panicking to prevent these ideologies from taking over. Other countries would easily fall to these ideologies, and they would often stay in power for the next few decades. Rivalries and tensions between countries still existed, and some got worse during the 1920s. Often, the only thing preventing countries from going to war was the very recent and painful memory of World War I, but sometimes even that was not enough.

While large scale political maneuvers and conflicts became more common in the 1930s, it got its start in the 1920s. Nearly every major event in the 1930s can trace its roots back to the 1920s. The 1920s might not be as grand as some other decades in the 20th century, it is nevertheless extremely important. The 1920s demonstrate the legacy of World War I, one of failure. World War I failed to achieve or end anything. All it did was set the stage for a new conflict 20 years later, one that would prove to be far more destructive and deadly.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Otherwise known as Annex VIII, part of the Treaty of Lausanne which ended the Greco-Turkish War, the Declaration of Amnesty addresses the atrocities committed by both sides during the war. The Armenian genocide was still ongoing during the war, and the Greeks enacted a scorched-earth policy on Turkish settlements at the end of the war. The more conservative estimates of the number of dead are in the hundreds of thousands, but it is more commonly believed that millions were killed. However, it would be more accurate to say that the annex lacks any addressment of the atrocities such as the Armenian genocide. Instead, the annex states that no one will be criminally charged for any acts that occurred during this time, on both the Greek and Turkish sides. This is a rather eye-opening document and shows off a trend that will continue of countries covering up their more despicable acts. This document is still relevant today, as Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide to this day and President Biden just recently formally recognized the Armenian genocide.

Document Text

The Powers signatory of the Treaty of Peace signed this day being equally desirous to cause the events which have troubled the peace in the East to be forgotten¹,

The Under-signed, acting in virtue of their full powers, have agreed to make the following Declaration:

I

No person who inhabits or who has inhabited Turkey, and reciprocally no person who inhabits or who has inhabited Greece², shall be disturbed or molested and reciprocally in Greece, under any pretext whatsoever, on account of any military or political action taken by him, or any assistance of any kind given by him to a foreign Power signatory of the Treaty of Peace³ signed this day or to the nationals of such Power, between the 1st August, 1914, and the 20th November, 1922.

II

Similarly no inhabitant of the territories detached from Turkey under the said Treaty of Peace shall be disturbed or molested either on account of his political or military attitude against or in favour of Turkey during the period from the 1st August, 1914⁴to the 20th November, 1922, or of the determination of his nationality under the said Treaty.

III

Full and complete amnesty shall be respectively granted by the Turkish Government and by the Greek Government for all crimes or offences committed during the same period which were evidently connected with the political events which have taken place during that period.

IV

Turkish nationals, and reciprocally nationals of the other Powers signatory of the Treaty of Peace signed this day who may have been arrested, prosecuted or sentenced by the authorities of the said Powers or by the Turkish authorities respectively, for reasons of a political or military nature previous to the 20th November, 1922, on territory which remains Turkish in accordance with the said Treaty of Peace, shall benefit from the amnesty, and, if they are detained, shall be handed over to the authorities of the States of which they are the nationals. This stipulation is similarly applicable to Turkish nationals arrested, prosecuted or sentenced by the authorities of the Powers who have occupied a portion of the above mentioned territory even for a transgression of the ordinary law committed before that date⁵, and even if they have been removed from Turkey, excepting those who have committed, against a person belonging to the armies of occupation, an assault which has entailed death or a grievous wound⁶.

V

All sentences pronounced for the above reasons shall be annulled, and any proceedings already instituted shall be stayed.

VI

The Turkish Government, sharing the desire for general pacification with which all the Powers are animated, declare their intent in not to contest the measures carried out under the auspices of the Allied Powers during the period between the 20th October, 1918, and the 20th November, 1922⁷, with the object of re-establishing families scattered owing to the war and or replacing legitimate proprietors in possession of their goods.

However, this intention does not exclude the possibility of any revision of the above-mentioned measures in the event of a request to that effect being made by the interested parties. Claims respecting persons and goods shall be examined by a Commission composed of a delegate of the Red Crescent and a delegate of the Red Cross. In the event of a dispute, these delegates will choose an umpire, if they are unable to agree as to such choice the umpire will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

VII

The British, French, and Italian Governments, acknowledging the importance of the measure of pacification which forms the subject of Article 5 of the Agreement concluded on the 30th January, 1923⁸between the Greek Government and the Turkish Government relating to the return of interned civilians and to the exchange of prisoners of war, declare that they are prepared to adopt, subject to reciprocity on the part of the Turkish Government, the same measures for the benefit of such Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians as may still be in their hands, with the exception of those who may have committed crimes and offences against the ordinary law since the 20th November, 1922⁹.

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923.

Horace Rumbold

Pellé

Garroni

G.C.Montagna

K.Otchiai

E.K.Veniselos

D.Caclamanos

Const.Diamandy

Const.Contzesco

………………..

M.Ismet

Dr.Ryza Nour

Hassan

Protocol

It is understood that, in spite of the terms of paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Declaration, the Turkish Government reserves to itself the right to prohibit sojourn in and access to Turkey to 150 persons included in the category of persons referred to in the said paragraph. Consequently, the Turkish Government will be entitled to expel from its territory such of the persons in question as may be there at the present time and to prohibit such as are abroad from returning. The names of these persons shall be annexed to the Amnesty Proclamation which, on the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace signed this day, shall be promulgated by the said Government in order to give effect, in so far as that Government is concerned, to the above-mentioned declaration. It is further understood that, in the event of the Turkish Government deciding, as it has expressed the intention, that the said persons must liquidate their property and other goods in Turkey, they shall be granted a period of nine months as from the date of the above-mentioned proclamation to effect this liquidation of their own accord, and in the event of liquidation by the Turkish Government after the expiry of this period the whole of the proceeds shall be paid to the said persons.

It is similarly understood that paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Declaration in no way affects the right of the Greek Government to prosecute non-Moslem Greek subjects belonging or having belonged to its army for acts which constituted failure in respect of their military duties during the hostilities between Greece and Turkey¹⁰.

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923.

Horaca Rumbold

Pellé

Garroni

………..

K.Otchaiai

E.K.Veniselos

D.Caclamanos

Const.Diamandy

Const.Contzesco

……………

M.Ismet

Dr.Ryza Nour

Hassan

Source

“VIII. Declaration of Amnesty”. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/viii_-declaration-of-amnesty.en.mfa.

More Resources

Full Treaty of Lausanne, World War I Document Archive.

Armenian Genocide, Armenian National Institute.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

This website does not just cover the 1920s, but rather covers the entire 20th century. The website is divided by decade, which is further divided by year. For each decade, there is a brief overview of each year and significant events, along with showcases or toys, cars, homes, fashion, and homes of the decade, with visuals to go with them. For each year, there are descriptions of notable events that occurred, along with new technology, fashion, and popular culture. The descriptions of the events are not incredibly detailed and serve more as a summary. There are around 10 events per year, with them covering the whole world and not being limited to a single area or country.

Creator

The creator of the site is Stephen Pearson. He says that this website is a passion project of his, and he now runs the website with his daughter. He fully admits that neither of them are historians or any sort of professionals in this field, however he feels that the years of work and dedication to this site should demonstrate the reliability of the site.

Search Methods

This website is incredibly easy to navigate. The entire site can be navigated through clicking on its headers, which change and get more specific the further into the website is gone. Throughout the text of the website, there are hyperlinks to other sections of the site, which make going to other places in the site even easier. There is also a search function in the website, which functions exactly as it would be expected to. All of this makes it basically impossible to get lost on this site, and makes it fairly straightforward to find specific information.

Trustworthiness

Unfortunately, this is were the site really falls flat. That is, the website does not give any specific citations for its information. Instead, they simply state what kinds of resources they used, such as history textbooks, catalogs and magazines from the time, university websites, government websites, and primary source lists. They also state that they use 2 to 3 sources for everything to confirm their information. This all sounds very nice, but they never state anywhere on the site what all of these sources are. This is a big problem. Without having specific citations, there will always exist this doubt that the information presented here is not accurate. All they needed to do was provide examples of the textbooks and sites that they used, and all of a sudden their credibility would shoot right up.

Usefulness

The lack of proper citations does definitely hold this website back from being incredibly useful. Since does do not exist, information on the site cannot be taken for granted. However, the other aspects of the site are still very strong. While the information does not go too in depth, and there really is not any form of analysis taking place, this website can still be used as a starting point to get a general sense of what was happening during a time. The website being very user-friendly and easy to navigate helps with this end. It is easy to find things on this site, however this site should not be the end of anyone’s search, but rather more of a starting point.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

This book demonstrates a change in how historians were viewing post World War I Europe. Many historians had a view that at the end of World War I, a light switch was flicked and now all the countries were different due to the Treaty of Versailles and no real significant change occurred until Hitler took power. Maier challenges this view, arguing that not only was change in the 1920s more gradual, but it was a continuation of trends occurring before and during World War I. The impact that the 1920s had on the coming decades was not considered much by historians. Maier once again challenges this view, not only arguing for the impact the 1920s had on the build up to World War II, but also beyond, with his claims that corporatism was the foundation for modern capitalism. Over time, Maier’s view of the 1920s would become more accepted, with historians beginning to understand the true importance of the decade.

Recasting Bourgeois Europe provides to the reader the context of the post World War I era. While the subject matter Maier is discussing in this book is not as flashy as say the fascist takeover of Italy, it is nevertheless just as important. It is important because it is giving the context for that event. By understanding the changing economies and government policies of these nations during this time, it becomes easier to understand why right-wing radicals were dissatisfied with the current situation and felt the need to take action. Context is always important in history. There’s no point in memorizing names and dates if one does not understand the greater context of those names and dates, why they are significant, and how they became significant. That is what Maier achieved with this book.

Bibliography

Jacobson, Jon. “Is There a New International History of the 1920s?” The American Historical Review 88, no. 3 (June 1983): 617-645.

Maier, Charles S.. Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade After World War I. Germany: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Background

Adolf Hitler was a German soldier during World War I. After the war, he remained in the army. In he 1919 was ordered to infiltrate a radical right-wing group known as the German Worker’s Party (DAP). However, Hitler liked what he was hearing from these people so much that he left the army and joined them. By 1921, Hitler would become the leader of the party, which was now known as the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP), which was soon simplified to the Nazis¹. The Weimar Republic, the German government during this time, was very unstable. Many radical groups were vying for power, including the NSDAP, various other nationalist groups, and communists. The nationalists were often made up of young men who felt that the older generation had betrayed Germany during the war. They wanted some chance to take action to “save” Germany from the weak Weimar government². Hitler would soon give these men that very chance.

One of the most important factors motivating the Putsch was the state of the German economy at the time. Massive unemployment, reduced trade with foreign countries, and war debts were primary causes of the downfall of the German economy³. Massive inflation ensued. By the fall of 1923, the mark, the German currency, was almost worthless. An American dollar was worth over 2 million marks. These circumstances caused many Germans to lose faith in the government, and they felt that it was up to them to change things.

The Putsch

In October 1923, Hitler and his officials, inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome in the previous year, planned out a similar event. They planned to march on the Bürgerbräukeller, a beer hall in the city of Munich, the capitol of the region of Bavaria. Prominent members of the Bavarian government planned to be at the beer hall on November 8 holding an event. The Nazis would march into the hall, take those leaders hostage and force them to support a Nazi government. There was a particular interest in persuading Gustav von Kahr, the State Commissioner of Bavaria, as well as Otto von Lossow and Hans Ritter von Seisser, who collectively were known as the “triumvirate” to join them. Then they would use Munich and Bavaria as a base to take over the rest of Germany.

On the evening of November 8, Hitler and a couple hundred of his SA “brown shirts”, the equivalent of Mussolini’s black shirts, which included a few individuals would later become prominent members of the Nazi government, such as Rudolf Hess and Hermann Göring, surrounded the beer hall. Hitler entered the auditorium of the hall and fired and shot from a pistol into the ceiling, proclaiming his new government⁴. He then held Kahr, Lossow and Seisser at gunpoint and demanded that they support his new government. They initially refused to give in to any of Hitler’s demands. Despite being fairly radical far-right politicians, they had their own plans for the future of Germany, ones that did not involve Hitler. However the triumvirate would soon give in. After this, the Nazis allowed them to leave the beer hall, a strange decision that would prove to be a mistake⁵.

While the events in the beer hall were taking place, SA troops were active throughout the city. They attempted to take police, army and government installations, but would mostly fail. Often the SA troops were unwilling to commit to violence, and would give up trying to take a location if it was clear the occupants would resist. As an example, when army cadets who supported the putsch attempted to take the General State Commissariat building, the police met them. Both sides were armed with loaded and bayonetted rifles. The cadets did not initiate any violence and withdrew⁶. Despite these setbacks, the Nazis still felt optimistic about the whole ordeal, and perhaps relaxed their guard a bit too much.

During the night of November 8, Bavarian officials, police and the army scrambled to respond to what had transpired. They did not have enough manpower to repel the putsch. The triumvirate arrived at the General State Commissariat and began to help the police and army. While they had told Hitler that they would support him, they did not actually mean it⁷. The Vice Prime Minister of Bavaria, Franz Matt, took control of the situation and under his leadership the police and army began to organize themselves for a counterattack.

By the morning of November 9, the Nazis had not achieved much. The had seized control of neither Munich nor the Bavarian government. They also learned that the triumvirate were not actually going to support them. The Nazis then marched out of the beer hall some 2,000 strong ,although at this point they lacked any sort of true objective or purpose⁸. They were confronted by police and army in the city square, who were ready for them. The two sides clashed, resulting in the Nazis being defeated. Although the fighting only lasted for a few minutes, four police officers and sixteen Nazis were killed⁹. It is unkown who fired the first shot due to conflicting reports and testimonies. After this defeat, Hitler realized that the putsch had failed so he and the other Nazi leaders fled the city. The police caught up with Hitler two days later and arrested him.

Aftermath

Hitler was arrested and put on trail for treason. Hitler used his trail as a way to spread his name and message across Germany and was able to garner up some sympathy for what he had done. Still, Hitler was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. However, Hitler would only serve eight months and would get out on good behavior. During those eight months, Hitler wrote his infamous book Mein Kampf. Hitler would leave prison a far more popular figure than when he entered.

Timeline link: https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1ZcVFtMUSAVj9xDuc8zPIJhLEeTiN7w-zCo8IuEh3S-4&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650 (embedding is not working)

Significance

The Failure

Why did the Beer Hall Putsch fail where the March on Rome succeeded? There are certainly a number of reasons. Mussolini was a far more popular figure in Italy at the time of the march than Hitler was in Germany during the time of the putsch. Mussolini had thousands of more men at his disposal. The March on Rome was the victory lap of a much larger event in Italy that saw the fascists take over practically every major Italian city. The Beer Hall Putsch was intended to be the starting point of a much larger movement. Another important factor was the willingness of the particpants to undertake in violence. In Italy, the black shirts were fully expecting and willing to fight, and did not hesitate to do so when they met resistance. In Germany, the SA and other supporters were often unwilling to fight. They gave up on taking places where the police and army refused to surrender to them. The fighting that did take place in the city square ended very quickly with the Nazis fleeing after a few minutes of gunfire. While Hitler was inspired by the March on Rome, he did not seem to understand what had made that event such a success for the fascists.

However could it really be said that the putsch failed? Hitler was relatively unknown throughout Germany before this, the putsch made Hitler known throughout all of Germany. He was able to get his message out, to let people know why he was doing this, and it would turn out that many would agree with him. On the tenth anniversary of the putsch, shortly after Hitler had become chancellor of Germany, he would say on the putsch:

“Well, we lost, but what mattered was that millions of Germans had been aroused to action and were given a new idea and a new flag around which to rally.”

Wireless to The New York Times. “Hitler Celebrates His Putsch Of 1923: Stresses To Nazi ‘Old Guard’ That Germany Is Now Prepared To Defend Honor. Explains Munich Uprising Chancellor Asserts He Had To Use Force To Win Support Of Courageous, Determined Men.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Nov 09, 1936. http://library.ramapo.edu:2048/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/historical-newspapers/hitler-celebrates-his-putsch-1923/docview/101670395/se-2?accountid=13420.

This is in all fairness a pretty accurate assessment of what happened. The Nazis would never have had become as popular as they did if the putsch did not happen. Their short-term failure breed long-term success.

Fitting into the 1920s

The Beer Hall Putsch demonstrates how events are not isolated to a single nation, especially in Europe. This event happened because the March on Rome happened. Much like the March on Rome, this happened due to the instability following World War I, and people wanting to act to change their governments. The Nazis are generally considered a World War II phenomena, and while they would not take power for another 10 years, here they are a mere five years after World War I in 1923 making substantial moves. The 1920s would continue to be shaped by unrest and violence, paving the way for the decades to come.

Citations

Bibliography

• Gordon, Harold J.. Hitler and the Beer Hall Putsch. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972.
• Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (1980): 261-88. Accessed March 23, 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1429723.
• Wireless to The New York Times. “Hitler Celebrates His Putsch Of 1923: Stresses To Nazi ‘Old Guard’ That Germany Is Now Prepared To Defend Honor. Explains Munich Uprising Chancellor Asserts He Had To Use Force To Win Support Of Courageous, Determined Men.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Nov 09, 1936. http://library.ramapo.edu:2048/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/historical-newspapers/hitler-celebrates-his-putsch-1923/docview/101670395/se-2?accountid=13420.
• Featured Image: Hitler-Putsch, München, Marienplatz. November 9, 1923. Accessed February 16, 2021. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-1486,_Hitler-Putsch,_M%C3%BCnchen,_Marienplatz.jpg

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Post-WWI Italy and the Creation of Fascism

In the 1920s, Italy was still a new country, especially going by European standards. The various regions in the country all having different cultures, economies, dialects, and politics. Some of the biggest differences were between northern and southern Italy. The industrial north was home to many wealthy, educated people, while the agricultural south was home to many uneducated peasants, with about 80% of the southern population being illiterate¹. These differences caused the country to be very disunited. Italy suffered from economic problems after the war since hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers were now unemployed. People were becoming fed up with the ineffective Italian government. Some felt a similar revolution to the one in Russia needed to happen in Italy. More than ever, the country needed a strong, unifying figurehead. One returning soldier would soon believe that he was the man for the job.

Benito Mussolini was an editor for the Socialist Party newspaper before the war. The Socialist Party expelled Mussolini for him supporting Italian entrance into World War One². Mussolini was then drafted into the army. During the war, Mussolini became more nationalistic and moved away from socialism. After the war, on March 23, 1919, Mussolini founded the fascist movement, with most of its original members comprising of war veterans. The movement was nationalistic, anti-liberal, and anti-communist. As to what the movement actually wanted, that would change often. He at first called for a republic with universal suffrage, then he endorsed the monarchy and the church and did not want elections, before finally settling on dictatorship³. In the end, he did not seem to care what the movement was, as long he could get more people to follow him. And get more people to follow him he did, with Mussolini gaining 10s of thousands of supporters by 1922.

The March on Rome (and Other Cities)

Mussolini and his supporters soon schemed a way to seize power. On the night of October 27-28, 1922, thousands of Mussolini’s “black shirts”, the fascist militia, would descend upon many Italian cities. The plan was to seize post offices, telegraph offices, railway stations, police stations, and government buildings. This would cripple the weak Italian government and ensure they could not mobilize and effective response to the main event: Rome itself. In Rome, the black shirts would confront the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III. They would demand that he make Mussolini the prime minister of Italy. The current prime minister, Luigi Facta, knew that the fascists were planning a coup. Despite this did not believe that it was a serious threat ⁴.

The black shirts were ready for a fight, with some of them armed with rifles and hand grenades⁵. They however did not find much of a fight, with the black shirts being able to seize cities such as Pisa, Florence, Venice, Rovigo, and Bologna, and many more, without a fight. Only in the city of Cremona did law enforcement put up any sort of resistance. This fighting resulted in the deaths of four black shirts and seven police officers before the fascists were able to seize the city⁶. In a few hours, Mussolini supporter’s had taken over most of the infrastructure and communication in Italy. Now they had their eyes set on Rome, with the first black shirts moving on the city in the early hours of October 28.

Once the Italian government had learned of what had transpired, Facta and the loyal generals had to scramble to come up with a way to protect Rome and the King. They wanted to declare a state of siege (the equivalent of martial law in the United States), and succeeded in doing so. However, the King would refuse to sign it, and would have it revoked⁷. It is not completely known why the King made this decision. The only explanations from him that exist are statements that he made in 1945 after the death of Mussolini and the end of World War Two. These are unreliable as he made them in retrospective to serve a propaganda purpose⁸. There is evidence to suggest that the ineffectiveness of the Italian parliament upset the King, but even then that would not be enough for him to give the country to Mussolini with no resistance. The most likely theory is that the King had heard the reports of violence that had occurred in other cities, and was fearful that if he allowed the state of siege it would cause a civil war. It is also likely that the King doubted the loyalty of the army. Many fascists were ex-soldiers and there were plenty of fascists sympathies in the army⁹. Mussolini would then become the youngest Prime Minister in Italy’s history.

Italy itself received the March on Rome rather well . Many were glad that their was some form of strong and stable leadership in Italy, after years of weak government. Even in the government itself, many were not too bothered by Mussolini. Many government officials underestimated him and believed they could influence him with ease¹⁰. The entire world felt Mussolini’s coup, and was likewise received rather well. Countries like Britain and the United States would rather have seen fascist coups happen over communist revolutions. The success of the March on Rome would then inspire other people to try similar coups in other countries, including Hitler in Germany.

Significance

This event, like many things in the 1920s, was a product of the First World War. Specifically, how countries were unable to recover from the war which led to people resenting their governments. In Italy’s case, even though it was a supposed “victor” of the war, the economic and political problems the country had before the war only became worse after the war. The core of the black shirts were made up of disgruntled World War I veterans who felt that their government had done them a disservice. This was a sentiment felt in many countries, especially in Europe. The March on Rome would end up inspiring many across the continent. Mussolini went from a figure known only in Italy to becoming known worldwide in only three days.

The build up to World War Two happened the second that World War One ended, and the March on Rome demonstrates this. Not even four years after the end of the war, the government of a major European power was toppled, with a new ideology taking over. Fascism would soon spread and take root in other European countries. The success of the March on Rome would directly inspire Hitler to undertake the Beer Hall Putsch. These fascist leaders would all have their own ambitions and the result would be Europe once again plunged into conflict.

Citations

Bibliography

• Albanese, Giulia. The March on Rome: Violence and the Rise of Italian Fascism. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2019.
• Lyttelton, Adrian. The Seizure of Power: Fascism in Italy, 1919-1929. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.
• Delzell, Charles F. “Remembering Mussolini.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 12, no. 2 (1988): 118-35. accessed March 2, 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40257305
• Sprigge, C.J.S. “WHEN MUSSOLINI LED THE MARCH ON ROME: The Dramatic Scene of Fifteen Years Ago is Described by an Eye-Witness of the Event.” New York Times (1923-Current File), Oct 31, 1937. http://library.ramapo.edu:2048/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.library2.ramapo.edu:2443/historical-newspapers/when-mussolini-led-march-on-rome/docview/102144926/se-2?accountid=13420.
• Featured Image: Quadriumviri e Mussolini a napoli. Illustrazione Itlaiana, October 24, 1922. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quadriumviri_e_mussolini_a_napoli.JPG.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

Background

Following their defeat in World War One, the Ottoman Empire had been reduced to a shell of its former self. The only territory they held on to now in 1919 was Turkey itself, and even that was under threat, particularly from Britain, France, Italy, and Greece. The Greeks had ambitions to take lands in western Turkey, which housed a sizable Greek Christian population¹. The Greeks wished to “liberate” these populations from the Turks. The British and French supported such an invasion, while the Italians did not as they had their own ambitions for those lands.

Greek Invasion

On May 15, 1919, the Greek army landed in the city of Smyrna. The Greeks met little resistance from the Turks, as the Turks were already occupied with holding off the French on their southern border, and dealing with an Armenian and Kurdish uprising². This would soon change by May 1920 when Turkish forces under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk would push back the French, crush the Kurds, and cripple the Armenians. Now the Turks were being funded and armed by the Italians, who were doing so to spite the Greeks. The Turks would now be able to start to organize a defense against the Greeks, but it would prove to be too late. On July 21, the Greeks, supported by the British, would launch a massive offensive into Turkey, forcing the Turks into full retreat. Constantinople was now occupied by the British. By the end of August, all of western Turkey was under Greek or British control, and the offensive was halted to prepare for a new offensive in the autumn. However, the Turks were now receiving support from Soviet Russia, and they managed to finish off the Armenians. The Greeks began a new offensive in October, however this offensive was halted due to political pressure from the French and Italians³. The French promptly withdrew their support of the Greeks, now leaving Britain as their sole supporter. The Turks used this time to reorganize their army, and by 1921, it was now a force that could match the Greeks.

The Turks Turn the Tide

On January 6, 1921 the Greeks would launch another offensive. The Turks managed to halt the Greek attack at İnönü, signaling the first Turkish victory of the war. The Greeks tried to attack again in March, but were once again beaten back at İnönü. Now, the French expressed their formal support of the Turks, and the British had withdrawn their support of the Greeks, leaving them alone, while the Turks now had the support of the Italians, Soviets, and French⁴. This however, did not dissuade the Greeks, and they launched another offensive in July 10. This attack would prove to be a success and the Turks were forced to retreat. Now the Turkish capital of Ankara was in danger. The Greeks launched an attack in August with the intent of finishing the Turks once and for all, with the Greeks outnumbering the Turks 3 to 1⁵. After nearly a month of vicious fighting, the likes of which had not been seen since World War One, the Turks emerged victorious and had held off the Greeks. This defeat proved to be disastrous for the Greeks, who now struggled to financially support the war without the backing of the major European powers. However, the Greeks refused to give in.

The End of the War

The war was in a stalemate for nearly a year. Then on August 26 1922, the Turks finally launched an offensive of their own. The Greeks were devastated by this attacked and were quickly forced into retreat. A mere 15 days after the start of the offensive the Turks had managed to retake nearly all of the territory that they had lost from the Greeks⁶. On September 9, Turkish troops entered Smyrna. The war was effectively over at this point, but the armistice would not be signed until October 11.

Atrocities

This war was plagued by ethnic cleansing and violence on both sides. The Turks massacred Armenian and Greek civilians. Estimates for the number of dead go into the hundreds of thousands. When Smyrna was taken back by the Turks, attacks on the Christian populace were common. After a few days, fire broke out and destroyed half of the city. It is unknown whether the fire was started on purpose or not⁷. The Greeks started committing atrocities against the Turkish citizens as soon as the invasion began, however the numbers involved were much lower than what the Turks were doing. When the Greeks were retreating westward at the end of the war, they enacted a scorch-earth policy, and razed many towns and villages to the ground. These acts would fuel violence from the Turks. The level of violence displayed was part of the motivation for the Lausanne Peace Treaty, where a significant part of it was a population exchange between Greece and Turkey, where Christians living in Turkey would be moved to Greece and Muslims living in Greece would be moved to Turkey⁸.

Significance

This war shows off the short-term effects of World War One better than anything else. Particularly, how “The War To End All Wars” ended nothing. The Ottoman Empire was gone after World War One, but that apparently was not enough for these other countries, who had the desire to see Turkey wiped off the map. The result was another incredibly bloody war starting before the Treaty of Versailles was signed. However, the Greco-Turkish War did differ from World War One for one important reason: this war was racially charged. This war started for racial reasons. The Greeks wanted the ethnically Greek populations in Turkey to be under their rule. There was true hatred between the two sides, which was demonstrated through the shear amount of atrocities committed by both sides. This was a sign of things to come. Wars would become more and more racially and ethnically charged with atrocities against civilians becoming more and more common, with World War Two being a prime example. The Greco-Turkish War was a warning as the how out-of-hand modern wars could get if they are waged along racial lines, and this warning was ignored.

Citations

Bibliography

• Jensen, Peter Kincaid. “The Greco-Turkish War, 1920-1922.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 4 (1979): 553-65. Accessed April 20, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/162217.
• Jowett, Philip S. Armies of the Greek-Turkish War (1919-1922). Great Britain: Osprey Publishing, 2015.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Lausanne Peace Treaty VI. Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations Signed at Lausanne, January 30, 1923”. 2011. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/lausanne-peace-treaty-vi_-convention-concerning-the-exchange-of-greek-and-turkish-populations-signed-at-lausanne_.en.mfa

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.

A lot of people tend to view the 1930s as where the build up to World War II happens. There is definitely many reasons to believe that. Things like Hitler taking power in Germany, the Japanese invasion of China, and the Great Depression all happen in the 1930s. However, these things just do not come out of nowhere. Most of them are set up by things that happen in the 1920s. The 1920s are the post-World War I era that is often ignored. World War I does cast a long shadow, as World War II would not have happened without it, but many do not consider the short term effects of World War I. “The War to End All Wars” ended nothing and it itself did not end in a way that was satisfying for anyone. No one really gained anything from this war, but a lot was lost, especially for the losers of war, more specifically Germany. Many in Germany, especially in the military, felt that they did not really lose the war and that they were betrayed by their government. This included a certain young corporal in the German army whose ideas and actions would be having an impact sooner that what might be thought.

These two fairly standard images of the 1920s might seem like they disprove my point that the 1920s are not what they are chalked up to be, but I believe that they do. The first image is a typical city in the 1920s, London specifically is depicted in this photo. The photo shows the typical buildings of the time, many people of bicycles, and most importantly, a lot of cars. Now cars were nothing new in the 1920s, they had been around for a good number of years, and also cities had looked like this since the turn of the century. So why is this important for the 1920s? Not only are there way more cars than there would have been 20 years prior, but people are used to it by now. Cars are part of the new norm of society. It can be equated to the internet with its impact and how people adjusted to it. Cities are getting bigger and bigger. Industry is becoming more and more automated. The industrial power of the 1920s is often overlooked. It is not a coincidence that the automobile industry actually does fairly well in the Great Depression.

The second image shows pretty much what anyone thinks of when the 1920s are mentioned. Parties, flappers, jazz, etc. But my question is: how important is this really? I’m talking big picture. Does anything in this image go post this decade? Not really. So why is everyone obsessed with it? I blame popular culture. The same stuff that has given people a false impression of the American West has also, in my opinion, given people a false impression of the 1920s. I am much more interested in the things that are happen in the 1920s that have a lasting impact going forward, things that really do not get enough credit.

If anything I would consider the 1920s to be not necessarily misunderstood, but rather misinterpreted. The common images of the 1920s are all well and good, as they are things that definitely did happen at the time, but there is more going on with this decade, especially if the focus is taken away from the United States.

Nicholas Buonocore

Nicholas Buonocore is a student at Ramapo College who toke the Discovering Digital History course in the Spring 2021 semester. He was a junior at Ramapo studying history while taking this course.