Abstract
In 2018, as part of the centenary of the armistice in 1918, attention began to turn to the end of World War I and its aftermath. The veteran, a central figure of the post-war period, is in this case of interest both to historiography and to current affairs. Was (and is) it possible to demobilize soldiers and their minds? Or did (and does) witnessing, experiencing, and practising violence prohibit them from returning to civilian lives? Did (and does) life and work as a soldier make them any less likely to be a democratic citizen? In historical research, these discussions have centred on the ‘brutalization theory’, leaning on George Mosse’s book Fallen Soldiers (Oxford University Press, 1990). It argues that there is a link between the experience of violence on one hand and the crisis of democracy and the rise of fascism in the interwar period, on the other hand.
The argument has since been challenged, as current affairs have changed and research on the topic has broadened since Mosse’s book was first published. The Cold War ended, political balances shifted, new engagement in ‘hot wars’ led to new generations of veterans and thus to a new interest in their social construction and political behaviour.
By applying a more comparative and transnational approach in historical research, the brutalization argument has been put into perspective: once studies compared Germany or Italy with other countries, such as the pacifist activities of French veterans who had survived the same war and needed to be taken into consideration (Prost). Comparisons with the post-war period of World War II made it clear that not only war leads to brutalization, but rather how states and societies engaged with the reintegration of soldiers (Gerwarth). Analysing the impact of war culture (Horne, Newman, Eichenberg) or the importance of how a war ended and how it was perceived (Gerwarth, Cazanes, and others) helped to put things into perspective. Veterans are, after all, a socially constructed group, especially when engaging politically.
It is at this point that Alcalde goes back to the relation of war veterans and fascism. He maintains the argument that the link between war veterans of World War I and the rise of fascism has been close. In a change of perspective, however, he argues that it was mainly about the instrumentalization of the myth of the veteran by fascist groups rather than necessarily about the veterans’ own activities. Alcalde pursues this argument by looking at fascism and the myth of a fascist veteran through a transnational perspective. The image/myth of the fascist veteran originated, he argued, in Italy (with Benito Mussolini in Il Popolo d’Italia) and from there went on a winning tour through Europe. Alcalde states that competing left-wing, even communist, images of the war veteran existed, but were overwritten by the anti-bolshevik and ultimately fascist approach during the 1920s. This was a mutual process: with anti-bolshewism on the rise, fascists positioned themselves as the voice of war veterans, and anti-bolshevik veterans in particular. At the same time, many veterans who did not agree with this interpretation were less visible in public discussions – by retreating to private life, or by being actively silenced or outcast by the fascist narrative – and ultimately even physically by fascist violence. In public discourse, Alcalde argues, veterans and fascists thus became almost indistinguishable.
Alcalde makes a compelling argument, based on a broad basis of archival sources. In the end, however, his argument seems to mainly refer to the Italian case. Focusing on his area of expertise, he remains most convincing here. In contrast, expanding his argument to a European level seems less grounded. The specificities of internal politics in each country and even the existing marginalization of war veterans and victims (e.g. in Germany) are not sufficiently reflected. It seems that Alcalde might be overestimating the Italian fascist impact rather than seeing it as a kind of fascism franchise flourishing in various European countries for different reasons and with different means.
All in all, however, Alcalde takes a central research discussion as a point of departure for a refreshing study. Instead of following Mosse and Gentile directly, he is able to take several steps back and consider things from a redefined standpoint. In his view on the Italian case, he brings a lot to the table. As for the European level, his work will inspire new research and discussion.