Olivia
How far could the historian make use of sources 1 and 2 together to
investigate the reasons for Italy’s poor performance in the First World War?
The reasons behind Italy's poor performance in the First World War have been
a topic of interest for historians which can be investigated using source 1, an
extract from G M Trevelyan’s ‘Scenes from Italy’s War’ and source 2, an
extract from Mussolini’s autobiography. By examining these sources and
assessing their strengths and limitations, we can gain a better understanding
of the reasons for Italy's poor performance in the First World War and the
limitations of the available historical sources, however it would seem that the
historian can only make use of these sources to investigate this topic to a
limited extent.
One way sources 1 and 2 can aid in the historians’ investigation of Italy’s poor
performance in World War One can be seen in how they both indicate that the
incapabilities of the Italian authorities played a role in Italy’s weakness. In
source 1, we can infer this from lines 3 to 5. Trevelyan’s point that it was not ‘a
very clever idea’ to send large numbers of the participants in the Turin revolt to
fight at Caporetto reveal the inadequacies of the government's handling of the
First World War. Knowing that the Turin Revolt was a result of the growing
frustration among workers and the general population with the government's
handling of the First World War and domestic policies and was sparked by a
general strike called by the Socialist Party, who had always been against the
war, Trevlyan’s comment can be considered valid. Meanwhile, in source 2,
Mussolini also highlights that the ‘work and actions of the men in power’ were
an issue for Italy during the First World War. However, in source 2 Mussolini
presents the beliefs of the non-interventionists who abandoned their posts in
Caporetto as more to blame for Italy’s poor performance, denouncing them
‘poisonous’ and as having undermined the fighting efforts. In source 1,
Trevelyan seems to attribute more of the blame for Italy’s poor performance to
the authorities actions than to those who abandoned their posts, as he
highlights that the authorities ‘might have prevented it [the desertions]’.
Moreover, Trevelyan goes on to mention another point useful to the historians
investigation by highlighting the failings of the Chief of Staff of the Italian Army
at the time, Cadorna, in lines 6-10 of source 1. Highlighting that a large
number of men had been relatively successful in battle ‘until Cadorna ordered
the retreat’, Trevelyan reveals to the historian another important factor which
contributed to Italy’s poor performance in World War One: the poor handling of
How far could the historian make use of sources 1 and 2 together to
investigate the reasons for Italy’s poor performance in the First World War?
The reasons behind Italy's poor performance in the First World War have been
a topic of interest for historians which can be investigated using source 1, an
extract from G M Trevelyan’s ‘Scenes from Italy’s War’ and source 2, an
extract from Mussolini’s autobiography. By examining these sources and
assessing their strengths and limitations, we can gain a better understanding
of the reasons for Italy's poor performance in the First World War and the
limitations of the available historical sources, however it would seem that the
historian can only make use of these sources to investigate this topic to a
limited extent.
One way sources 1 and 2 can aid in the historians’ investigation of Italy’s poor
performance in World War One can be seen in how they both indicate that the
incapabilities of the Italian authorities played a role in Italy’s weakness. In
source 1, we can infer this from lines 3 to 5. Trevelyan’s point that it was not ‘a
very clever idea’ to send large numbers of the participants in the Turin revolt to
fight at Caporetto reveal the inadequacies of the government's handling of the
First World War. Knowing that the Turin Revolt was a result of the growing
frustration among workers and the general population with the government's
handling of the First World War and domestic policies and was sparked by a
general strike called by the Socialist Party, who had always been against the
war, Trevlyan’s comment can be considered valid. Meanwhile, in source 2,
Mussolini also highlights that the ‘work and actions of the men in power’ were
an issue for Italy during the First World War. However, in source 2 Mussolini
presents the beliefs of the non-interventionists who abandoned their posts in
Caporetto as more to blame for Italy’s poor performance, denouncing them
‘poisonous’ and as having undermined the fighting efforts. In source 1,
Trevelyan seems to attribute more of the blame for Italy’s poor performance to
the authorities actions than to those who abandoned their posts, as he
highlights that the authorities ‘might have prevented it [the desertions]’.
Moreover, Trevelyan goes on to mention another point useful to the historians
investigation by highlighting the failings of the Chief of Staff of the Italian Army
at the time, Cadorna, in lines 6-10 of source 1. Highlighting that a large
number of men had been relatively successful in battle ‘until Cadorna ordered
the retreat’, Trevelyan reveals to the historian another important factor which
contributed to Italy’s poor performance in World War One: the poor handling of
