The Fiume Question 1918-1920

ÖT KONTINENS, az Új- és Jelenkori Egyetemes Történeti Tanszék tudományos közleményei, N o 2011/1.
ELTE, BUDAPEST, 2012.
László Gulyás- Loránt Bali
The Fiume Question 1918-1920 ∗∗∗∗
Abstract
In October 1918 in the course of the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire a
serious and adventureous period started in the life of Fiume. The Italian and the
Croatian inhabitants started a heavy struggle for the city. The Hungarian governor
and the officials did not see their lives in secure and fled. In November with the
help of several warships and troops the Italians took control over the city. The
great powers were unwilling to give the city over to Italy. The Fiume question led
to heated discussions in the Versailles peace talks. While the changing Italian
governments and Versailles delegations made unsuccessful efforts to annex
Fiume, on August 24 Italian nationalists and fascists launched a military action in
order to prevent an agreement with the Southern Slav state to give the city over
to them. Gabriele D’Annunzio declaired the military control over the city. The
prime minister Nitti disapproved of Fiume’s occupation. The moderate Italian
inhabitants turned against D’Annuzio and his aspiration for a historical role. On
November 12, 1920 the new Gioletti government signed an agreement with
Yugoslavia in Rapallo. According to the agreement Fiume became a free state, but
it enjoyed its free status for a few years only. In 1924 Fiume became part of Italy.
Keywords: Dissolution of the Habsburg Empire, Italian-Croatian conflict, Fiume
question, Allied Forces, Southern Slav policy, Francesco Nitti, Gabriele D’Annunzio
The Fiume Question in the Fall of 1918
n October 1918 the dissolution of the Habsburg Empire was already in an
irreversible state and the national councils of several of its nations
proclaimed their intention of either seceding from the Empire, or joining a
newly forming state. 1 Fiume was part of this series of events. 2
On 16 th October, 1918, Emperor Charles IV announced that the Austro-
Hungarian Monarchy was to be transformed into a federal state. 3 I
It was also
stated that Fiume would either become part of Croatia, or, of the newly founded
Southern Slav Kingdom. Two days later Fiume’s representative in the Hungarian
∗
The Project is supported by the European Union and co-financed by the European Social Fund
(grant agreement no. TAMOP 4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0003).
1
The details see SIKLÓS András, A Habsburg-birodalom felbomlása 1918: A magyarországi
forradalom, Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest 1987, 126-143.
2
PAP Norbert, L'Ungheria ed il Mediterraneo. Il carattere geografico dei rapporti fra l'Ungheria e gli
stati dell' Europa meridionale, Imedias Editore, 2008, 159.
3
ZÖLLNER, Erik, Ausztria története, Osiris Kiadó, Budapest 2000, 369.
143

László Gulyás - Loránt Bali: The Fiume Question 1918-1920
parliament, Andrea Ossoinack, held a parliamentary speech, in which he
emphasized that Fiume had never been part of Croatia; it was Italian and it should
remain a part of Italy. 4
In October 1918 parallelly two national councils came into being in the city. On
the one hand it was the Italians who set up the Italian National Council of Fiume,
and, on the other, the Croatians brought about the Fiume Committee of the
Zagreb National Council. The birth of these two parallel bodies is indicative of the
fact that the Italian-Croatian struggle for Fiume started. The Croatian army
entered Fiume on October 23. The last week of October in Fiume can best be
described by marching soldiers. In several of the city’s streets Croatian soldiers
marched under their Croatian flag, while in other streets it was the Italians who
marched under their Italian flags. 5
This situation rightfully raises another question. Where were Fiume’s
Hungarian leaders and inhabitants during these events? The answer to this
question is simple. Zoltán Jékelfalussy, Fiume’s last Hungarian governor, having
realised that the Hungarians did not stand a chance to fight back the Italian or the
Croatian crowds of demonstrators, left for Budapest on October 28th. After the
governor left, the office holders of the Hungarian state, including public servants,
employees, soldiers, policemen, office workers, railwaymen, also fled. In the city of
Fiume these groups of Hungarian people did not see their lives and their future
secure. 6
Fiume’s Italian population, as well as the Croatians aimed at solving the
situation for their own good. In order to come to a decision, the Italian National
Council of Fiume, presided by Grossich Antonio, in the city’s main square on
October 30, 1918 proclaimed the city’s annexation to Italy. 7 The Italian-Croatian
rivalry is illustrated well by the fact, that the official Croatian delegation arrived
from Zagreb on the very same day to take charge of the city. Comissar Rajčevič,
head of the delegation, moved into the governor’s mansion. Antonio Grossich
immediately protested in the name of the Italian National Council and declared
that they would support the union with their mother country, i.e. Italy, and look
upon the Southern Slav occupation as a temporary situation. During the following
days the Croatian-Italian conflicts were becoming strained in Fiume. One of the
special features of this relationship was the changing of the flags. The Croatians
removed the Italian flags from the buildings, while the Italians did the same with
the Croatian flags. On public buildings this changing of the flag took place on
several occasions. In addition, there were a lot of violent crimes, looting, burglary
and theft.
4
FRIED Ilona, Fiume, Enciklopédia Kiadó, Budapest 2004, 22.
5
HORVÁTH József, A magyar Fiume végnapjai 1914-1924, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények, 2003/1.
szám 172-175.
6
HAJDÚ Zoltán, Fiume (Rijeka) kérdéséről. IN: PAP Norbert (szerk.), A Balatontól az Adriáig, Lomart
Kiadó, Pécs 2006, 104-109.
7
FRIED 2004, 22.
144

ÖT KONTINENS, az Új- és Jelenkori Egyetemes Történeti Tanszék tudományos közleményei, N o 2011/1.
ELTE, BUDAPEST, 2012.
On 4 th November two destroyers, the Stocco and the Sirtary got into the
harbor. The commander of the fleet was Admiral Rainer, who, in front of the
Italian City fathers of Fiume, who had come to greet him, announced that he had
come in the name of the king of Italy and also that he would do everything in his
power to defend Fiume’s Italian population. 8 During the following days several
other warships arrived and on 17 th November Italian land forces – troops of
general San Marzano - also appeared. In order to avoid conflict with the Italian
armed forces, the Croatian troops left the city on the very same day.
In addition to the Italian soldiers in November 1918 Allied Forces troops, including
the Americans, the British and the French, also arrived in Fiume. They came, because
the great powers that made up the Allied Forces, were unwilling to give the city over to
Italy. The presence of the Allied troops did not prevent the Italians from considering
Fiume as a city of their own. On November 28, 1918 Cagni, an Italian general, while
paying a visit to Fiume, was greeted with outstanding ovation by the local Italians. In
his speech the general announced: ’This is our land. And it will remain ours.’ 9
This utterance was taken seriously by the Italian inhabitants of Fiume, who
started to follow an ’Italian way of life’ in the city by undertaking the following
steps: in January 1919 all postal stamps, 10 then the banknotes were stamped over
and the schools were taken over. In August 1919 the background of Fiume’s public
servants was investigated and only those could continue in their jobs, who were
approved and taken over by the Italian National Council. The others were forced to
leave the city. 11
The Fiume Question in the Peace Conference
The Fiume question led to heated discussions in the course of the Versailles
peace talks, starting in January 1919. Within this context the Fiume question was
part of a larger problem. This so-called ’Italian’ problem was rooted in the fact
that in 1915 it had been absolutely essential for the Allied Forces to engage Italy
on their side. On April 16, 1915 a secret treaty was signed in London and the
Allied Forces promised Italy the possibility of a territorial expansion of
considerable scale, including the area of South Tirol, other areas in the
Mediterranean region, such as Trieste and its neighbourhood, the islands of the
Kvarner Gulf, the northern part of Dalmatia (including the port of Zara), some
islands in southern Dalmatia and part of Albania (Valona). 12
The problem was also rooted in another fact, namely, that the Allied Forces
had promised Serbia certain areas of the Adriatic region, namely the Croatian
8
HORVÁTH 2003, 176.
9
HORVÁTH 2003, 178.
10
FRIED Ilona, Emlékek városa Fiume, Ponte Alapítvány, Budapest 2001, 186.
11
HORVÁTH 2003, 181.
12
ROMSICS Ignác, Nemzet, nemzetiség és állam Kelet-Közép- és Délkelet-Európában a 19. és 20.
században, Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest 1998, 160.
145

László Gulyás - Loránt Bali: The Fiume Question 1918-1920
areas including Fiume, and the larger part of Dalmatia, meaning that the same
areas had been promised both to Italy and Serbia. 13 Wilson, U.S. president thought
that the way out of the awkward situation was to theoretically denounce and
nullify all secret treaties. Wilson could come up with this proposal because he had
not been among the signatories of the London treaty.
It is also important to note that in general Wilson led a pro-Serbia policy (or,
rather a Southern Slav policy) and he believed that southern Slav interests should
seriously be taken into consideration in order to achieve stability in the Balkans.
These considerations made the American president disregard Italy’s claims during
the peace talks. 14 In addition, neither the French, nor the British delegation stood
by Italy.
As a result, the Italian delegation faced a very serious dilemma and they had
two alternatives. One of these options was to insist on the resolutions of the
secret treaty of London. In this case they would have to give up Fiume, since its
possession had not been mentioned in the London treaty. Or, as a second
alternative, they would give up the London Treaty, or, some parts of it, and they
could claim certain territories on ethnic basis, including Fiume.
At the same time a third plan was emerging. It was Orlando Vittorio Emanuele,
Italy’s prime minister of that time, and Sidney Sonnino (foreign minister in
Orlando’s government), who elaborated a third scenario, by which they would
claim areas based on the Treaty of London, as well as the annexation of Fiume.
This third version was absolutely unacceptable for the Allied Forces. Thus the
Italian territorial claims were in danger. When it became clear for the Italians in
the course of the peace negotiations, Orlando left for Italy in March 1919. But
since the process of drawing the borders continued in his absence as well, several
weeks later he decided to return and resume the talks.
The question of Fiume was discussed after Orlando’s return. On April 3, 1919
Orlando had a significant speech in a meeting of the Council of Four, explaining his
view of the Fiume question. 15 In his explanation the question of Fiume had not yet
been mentioned in the treaty of London, because at that time the total dissolution
of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy had not yet been seen. But, he argued, now
Fiume was to be handed over to Italy both for economic and ethnic reasons. One
of his arguments was that the Croatians and the Slovenians, both nations having
been parts of the Habsburg Empire, were hostile towards each other, so, meeting
Italy’s territorial claims was both acceptable and reasonable in this situation.
Neither Wilson nor Clemenceau accepted the Italian arguments. But since the
peace conference concentrated on the elaboration of the German peace treaty,
they temporarily put off the solution of the Fiume question.
13
PÁNDI Lajos, Köztes-Európa 1763-1993. Térképgyűjtemény, Osiris-Századvég, Budapest
1995, 266.
14
ORMOS Mária-MAJOROS István, Európa a nemzetközi küzdőtéren, Osiris Kiadó, Budapest,
1998. 255.
15
KIS Aladár, Olaszország története 1748-1968, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1975, 140.
146

ÖT KONTINENS, az Új- és Jelenkori Egyetemes Történeti Tanszék tudományos közleményei, N o 2011/1.
ELTE, BUDAPEST, 2012.
On April 19, 1919 the Council of Four once again put the issue on their agenda.
Orlando was once again given the opportunity to enumerate his economic, political,
national, strategic and historical arguments. Wilson was still unyielding and he ruled
out the possibility of Fiume’s
annexation by Italy. At the same time
he supported the recommendation, by
which all Dalmatia be annexed to the
new southern Slav state while Fiume
be made a Free State, controlled by
the League of Nations. 16 It should also
be noted that even in some circles of
Fiume’s Italian citizens the trend of
supporting their city’s free status was
well known.
On April 23, 1919 Wilson issued a
proclamation to the Italian people, in
which he repeated his recommendation.
Orlando responded with a counterproclamation,
then, as a protest, on
April 24 he once again left the
conference venue. On May 6, 1919 he
returned, but he had to leave again –
this time for good due to internal
political reasons. On June 19, 1919 the
Italian parliament withdrew their
confidence from Orlando’s government
147
Italian-Yugoslav territorial dispute 1915-1924
Source: GOLDSTEIN, Ivo: Croatia. A History.
Hurst Company. London. 114
(262 yes and 78 no votes), thus on June 2 Orlando had to resign from his position
as prime minister. 17
It is also to be noted, that the unwillingness of the peace conference to meet
all the territorial claims of Italy resulted in the emergence of the notion of ’vittoria
mutilata’ (mutilated victory) in the public opinion. Its logic is as follows: 18 the
Italians’ bloodshed and sacrifice in the war were all in vain; the unfaithful allies
(the U.S, England and France) betrayed and dispossessed them and deprived them
of the fruits of victory. Consequently, the Italian victory is infact a defeat. The
nation’s task is clear in this situation and it is to strive for real victory.
After Orlando’s fall Francesco Savario Nitti became the next prime minister, whose
government was in power from June 1919 through June 1920. 19 Nitti and the new
Versailles delegation, Tommaso Tittoni and Victor Scialoja, were of more moderate
16
HERCZEGH Géza, A szarajevói merénylettől a potsdami békekonferenciáig, Magyar Szemle
Könyvek, Budapest 1999, 105.
17
KIS 1975, 141.
18
KIS 1975, 140.
19
HEARDER, Harry, Olaszország története, Maecenas Könyvek, Budapest 1992, 190.

László Gulyás - Loránt Bali: The Fiume Question 1918-1920
views in foreign affairs. They cut back on Italy’s territorial claims. Eventually their
claims were approved by the Versailles conference and Italy could annex South
Tirol and the port of Trieste. It is interesting to note that Trieste, as well as the
French-occupied Strasbourg were the two most populous cities, acquired by the
Allied Forces in the aftermath of the war. 20 Nitti’s foreign policy in relation to the
Fiume question concretely meant that Italy was trying to come to an agreement
with the southern Slav state and they gave the city over to them.
D’Annunzio’s Adventure
Nitti’s more moderate foreign policy provoked Italian nationalists and fascists,
who called the prime minister the greatest traitor of the nation. In order to
prevent the agreement with the southern Slav state, they launched military action.
On August 24 the Sardic grenadiers, who were garrisoned in Fiume, left the city
under the pretences of going to the small town of Ronchi, their new station in the
vicinity of Monfalcone. They did so indeed, but having arrived at Ronchi, their
nationalistic officers immediately contacted Gabriele D’ Annunzio, who, at that
time, was in Venice. Upon the officers’ request D’Annunzio went to Ronchi and
organised a troop of legionaries.
In the meantime the Italian government signed the Saint Germain Treaty on
September 10, 1919, determining Austria’s borders. This treaty was a success for
Italy, since they got South-Tirol. 21 In spite of this two days later D’Annunzio’s
legionaries marched into Fiume. 22 D’Annunzio delivered a speech on the balcony
of the governor’s mansion, in which he announced that he would annex Fiume ’in
the name of Italy’. His speech was met with the inhabitants’ enthusiasm. The
following day D’Annunzio declared that he was taking over the military control
over the city and demanded that the military representatives of the Allied Forces
to leave. The British, American and French troops did as he said and left Fiume
without resisting. General Pittaluga, Italian commander of Fiume, hesitatingly, and
with some bad conscience, but hugged the ’nation’s poet’ and gave the power
over to him. 23
Nitti’s government disapproved of Fiume’s occupation, but it was not strong
enough to take resort to arms and fight D’Annunzio’s troops. Thus it was only
D’Annunzio’s legionaries who represented armed forces in Fiume. In the
meantime D’Annunzio was devising new plans. He was thinking of two possible
scenarios. One of them was that in case of the resignation of Nitti’s government he
would form a new Italian government which would undertake the issue of
20
HEARDER, 187.
21
GULYÁS László, A Dél-Tiroli-kérdés rövid története, ARACS. 2006/3. szám, 84-93.
22
DUGGAN Chistofer, A Concise History of Italy, Cambridge University Press Cambridge and New
York 1994, 196.
23
KIS Aladár, A Duce, Zrínyi Kiadó, Budapest 1989, 111.
23
ORMOS Mária, Mussolini, Kossuth Könyvkiadó, Budapest 1987.
148

ÖT KONTINENS, az Új- és Jelenkori Egyetemes Történeti Tanszék tudományos közleményei, N o 2011/1.
ELTE, BUDAPEST, 2012.
finalising Fiume’s annexation. His other plan was to occupy Rome with his
legionaries using Fiume as his base.
Mussolini, who had an increasing significance in Italian internal politics of that
time, 24 first seemed to support D’Annunzio’s second scenario. On September 25,
1919 he wrote a letter to D’Annunzio, suggesting the occupation of Trieste,
proclaim the overthrow of the monarchy, and appoint a governing directorate
with the purpose of dispatching troops to the major cities of northern Italy. 25
Mussolini’s attitude changed within two weeks. On October 7, 1919 he flew to
Fiume, where he had a 2-hour long discussion with D’Annunzio. Unfortunately, no
written records of this discussion survived. It is likely that referring to the elections
of November 16, 1919, he asked D’Annunzio to be patient. It means that Mussolini
most probably asked the ’Commander’ to postpone the implementation of his
second plan. 26 Mussolini changed his attitude because he had expected his own
political views to gain momentum in the elections of November 16, consequently
the Fiume question became of secondary significance for him.
In addition to elaborating his plans, D’Annunzio, as commander of Fiume, took
concrete steps to take all power into his hands. On October 26, 1919 he held a
referendum to decide Fiume’s national status. Based on census figures 10,330
people had the right to vote, but 30% of them refrained from voting. A total of
7,155 votes were collected, from which 6,999 voted for the ’Commander’, as
D’Annunzio preferred to be addressed, and his national party list. 27
Although the commander won in the elections of October, later serious
conflicts arose between D’Annunzio and the members of Fiume’s Italian National
Council. The legionaries demonstrated in front of the commander’s mansion
almost on a daily basis in order to prove their loyalty. D’Annunzio used these
opportunities to incite his followers to fight. Most often he spoke about poor and
exploited proletarian nations, which can only free themselves by launching a new,
holy war against the robber nations, who had accumulated all the wealth. Fiume,
in his view, would become the centre of the new Crusade. These speeches were
very effective: his supporters celebrated their Commander in extasy. 28
It is also interesting to note that D’Annunzio - who had already been a
celebrated poet and writer before the First World War - was the forerunner of
modern political communication. His personality, way of communication and
public speeches were admired by huge masses. 29
The Fiume National Council was unwilling to accept the historical role,
envisaged by D’Annunzio. They only wanted to join Italy. 30 Most importantly, they
24 DUGGAN 1994, 198.
25 ORMOS Mária, Mussolini, Kossuth Könyvkiadó, Budapest 1987, 125.
26 ORMOS, 126.
27 KIS 1975, 143-144.
28 KISS 1989, 111-112.
29 FRIED 2001, 180.
30 FRIED 2001, 188.
149

László Gulyás - Loránt Bali: The Fiume Question 1918-1920
had enough of D’Annunzio’s conflicts with the Italian government. 31 This is why
the city’s Italian intellectuals started to distance themselves from D’Annunzio. The
Commander, in order to stabilise his power, on September 8, 1920 proclaimed the
Italian Regency of Carnaro in the City of Fiume. He elaborated the Carnaro Charter,
the constitution of the new state as well. By this time the political stituation
became hopeless; the majority of the city’s citizens looked upon the legionaries as
parasites, depleting the city’s food reserves. The situation was not getting any
better, although, D’Annunzio occasionally engaged in piracy in order to fill up the
supply depots. 32
The end of the Fiume Adventure
In June 1920 the Nitti government fell and on June 15 the celebrity of Italian
politics, the 78-year old Giovanni Gioletti formed a new government. The first step
of Gioletti’s foreign policy was to come to an agreement with the Yugoslav
government. On November 12, 1920 Italy and the Yugoslav state signed an
agreement in Rapallo, 33 by which Italy renounced Dalmatia, and, in return, the
Yugoslav state gave up the Istrian Peninsula, including the city of Trieste. 34 The
ports of Abhasia (Opatija) and Zara (Zadar) were placed under Italian authority,
while Fiume became a free state. 35
D’Annunzio did not recognise the Treaty of Rapallo and threatened with
military action. Gioletti sent a parliamentary delegation to Fiume but they were
unable to compromise with D’Annunzio. Gioletti decided to blocade Fiume and
D’Annunzio responded by declaring war between Fiume and Italy. The Italian
troops on the holy night of December 1920, at the expense of heavy street fights
were able to enter Fiume. Andrea Dorina a battleship shot at the main strategic
points of the city from the port. Following a 5-day war, D’Annunzio’s troops left
Fiume, leaving 53 casualties and 207 wounded legionaries behind. 36
D’Annunzio locked himself up in his residence, located on the shore of Lake
Garda. It was the end of his Fiume adventure. The city became a free city,
protected by the League of Nations, but it was able to enjoy its free status only for
a few years. In 1924 Fiume became part of the Italian state. 37
31
FRIED 2001, 181-187.
32
FRIED 2001, 188.
33
GOLDSTEIN, Ivo, Croatia. A History, Hurst Company, London, 114-115.
34
This step of Yugoslav government was sharply criticized by Croatian politicians, see SOKCSEVITS
Dénes, Horvátország története a 7. századtól napjainkig, Mundus Novus, Budapest 2011, 479-480.
35
The full document see HORVÁTH Jenő, A trianoni békeszerződés megalkotása és a revízió útja,
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Budapest 1939, 405.
36
FRIED 2001, 188.
37
HAJDÚ, 108.
150