[bluescarni]

The Italian deaths in WW1 were overwhelmingly soldier deaths, as the fighting on Italian soil was limited to north-east border of the country (where incidentally I am from). The civilian population was largely unaffected by the war.

> And as many again from the spanish flu.

Who talked about flu? You were talking about WW1, now you are pivoting to the flu?

> And all of Europe was in a permanent condition of poverty until way into the 20th C. 80% of the population was poor working class even in 1970.

This is also grossly wrong. I suggest you better inform yourself about the 20-th century history of European societies before spouting more nonsense.

[mjburgess]

WW1 was a total war. Fascism was a response to total war which conscripted every civilian into the military. Italy did not have an army of 500,000 soliders before WW1, no country did. The british empire's armed force was 80,000 -- and was one of the largest in the world. Where do you think 500,000 "soliders" came from? They were drafted from the population.

It's literally in the first paragraph in the wikipedia article on fascism...

> Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.

> I suggest you better inform yourself about the 20-th century history of European societies before spouting more nonsense.

I'm British and I know my own history very well. Read any book of the time, "Road to Wigan Peer" will give you the quality of poverty.. and any graph by any serious economic study of human history will give you the actual level of wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_...

[bluescarni]

> WW1 was a total war. Fascism was a response to total war which conscripted every civilian into the military.

WWI was a contributing factor to the rise of fascism, which is a complex phenomenon whose roots date back at least to the late 1800s with the rise of nationalism throughout Europe, the unification of Germany, the growing distrust of liberal democracies at the turn of the century, etc. It was not a "direct result" of WWI.

> Italy did not have an army of 500,000 soliders before WW1, no country did. The british empire's armed force was 80,000 -- and was one of the largest in the world. Where do you think 500,000 "soliders" came from? They were drafted from the population.

WWI was unparalleled in magnitude with respect to previous wars, but, as far as Italy is concerned, it did not involve directly the vast majority of the civilian population (around 34M at the time), which was never in a war zone or at risk of atrocities from the opposing force. The fighting was confined to the northeastern Alpine regions of Trentino, Veneto and Friuli. The Austrians made a small advance into the Italian territory before being decisively defeated on the Piave river. The industrial and agricultural heartlands of the country were largely intact at the end of the war, no major urban centres were captured or destroyed, and important land gains were made in the form of new territories formerly under Austrian control.

WWI was hell on Earth in the trenches, but no, Italy was not in disarray and did not experience mass death or poverty as a result of WWI.

(There were of course serious economic issues in the interwar period, but their genesis is in the great depression, not WWI)

> I'm British and I know my own history very well. Read any book of the time, "Road to Wigan Peer" will give you the quality of poverty.

Life has been shit for most people for millenia, in Europe and elsewhere. But just take a look at any graph of the life expectancy over time in Europe and you will see that is has been steadily improving throughout the 20th century (with a couple of big temporary down spikes for the flu and WW2 - not WW1).