Italy, the Marshall Plan and the "Third Force"
CARLO SFORZA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy since February 1947; once before occupant of that post, in 1920-21; Ambassador to France, 1922; member of the Badoglio and Bonomi cabinets, 1944; President of the Consultative Assembly, 1945-46; author of several volumes
WHEN the war ended, the first question that a great many Europeans asked themselves, standing face to face with the ruins heaped upon their countries by another world war, was "How can the inhabitants of this impoverished, disorganized and tightly compartmented Continent work for peace and a stable system among the nations of the world?" The answer was not obscure. The first step toward the resurrection of Europe was economic collaboration among the European nations. Since this so plainly was the path toward peace and stability, I shall note at the outset some of the reasons why for two years no progress was made in that direction.
In the first place, the Allies did not make the best use of the available political forces within each European state after the liberation of the Continent, nor did they perceive how ready was public opinion to support European collaboration. Only a few leaders were prepared to proclaim in 1944 what all recognize as necessary in 1948 -- and some who did proclaim it were branded Utopians. In the second place, at least in Italy, the seemingly unavoidable need of including Conservatives, Christian Democrats, Socialists and Communists in the same government made any organic program impossible. So long as cabinets were composed of such un assimilable elements, the situation was bound to remain static, as the author of this article, who belonged to three such cabinets, had opportunity to observe. In addition, Italy, one of the great states of Europe, was stupidly humiliated and dangerously mutilated by the Treaty of Peace, while the division between the Great Powers created a bottomless abyss in the heart of Europe -- Germany. The burden of mediation, which grew heavier every day as the tension between the United States and Russia grew more acute, fell on the shoulders of France; and France herself felt insecure and could not find any real guarantee against new aggressions in the postwar international system...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
WE need not be astonished at the length of the crisis precipitated by the generation of 1914. The war of 1914-1918 and the uneasy armistice which lasted until 1939 were stages of a revolution, and revolutions go on for a long while. The nature of the revolution is now plain. We are witnessing, and enduring, the breakup of nationalism.
NOW that the armies of the United Nations are distributed along the southern shore of the Mediterranean it does not seem farfetched to assume that sooner or later Sicily will come within the scope of their operations. Some of the programs of action which one hears discussed might postpone the day; but in view of Sicily's dominating position in the center of the Mediterranean, I hardly think it will be excluded permanently and entirely from the reckoning of American and British military leaders.
AT the peak of Nazi power in 1941, when the Axis governments were still entertaining well-founded hopes of victory, five leading Italian economists published, in Italy, a postwar economic program for that country. It is a prophetic document. Its conclusions, stating clearly some of the fundamental issues confronting the nation, may well serve to introduce a discussion of the problems of Italy's economic reconstruction.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.