This article was downloaded by: [Royal Holloway University]

On: 20 May 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906999708]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geopolitics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713635150

Geopolitica: The 'Geographical and Imperial Consciousness' of Fascist Italy

Marco Antonsich a
a
Department of Geography, University of Birmingham, UK

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009

To cite this Article Antonsich, Marco(2009)'Geopolitica: The 'Geographical and Imperial Consciousness' of Fascist
Italy',Geopolitics,14:2,256 — 277
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14650040802578708
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14650040802578708

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Geopolitics, 14:256–277, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 online
DOI: 10.1080/14650040802578708

Geopolitica: The ‘Geographical and Imperial

Geopolitics, Vol. 14, No. 1, November 2008: pp. 1–40
1557-3028
1465-0045
FGEO
Geopolitics

Consciousness’ of Fascist Italy

MARCO ANTONSICH
Marco Antonsich
Geopolitica

Department of Geography, University of Birmingham, UK

Very few contributions have been published in English on the Italian

geopolitical tradition of the interwar years. This is rather surpris-
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

ing, given the fact that, after Geopolitik, Italian geopolitics was one
of the largest and most significant in Europe. This article aims to
fill this void, by offering a detailed and critical investigation into
this intellectual production. Although the article traces the origins
of Italian geopolitics back to the 1920s, its main focus is on Geopo-
litica (1939–1942), the journal which, more than any others,
embodied the attempts to give Italy its own geopolitics. Despite its
ambitious proposal to become the ‘imperial-geographical con-
sciousness’ of the Fascist regime, Geopolitica remained largely
confined within the circle of academic geography and ultimately
also failed to influence the development of Italian geographical
tradition.

INTRODUCTION

As the Italian geopolitical production of the 1930s–1940s was the second

largest and most significant in Europe after the German Geopolitik,1 it is sur-
prising that no articles on it have so far been published in any international
academic journals. A possible answer to this absence of studies can perhaps
be found in the linguistic barrier. Even today rather few Italian geographers
feel indeed confident enough to write in English, and even fewer foreign
geographers have a sufficient knowledge of Italian to carry out such a
study. Another possible explanation relates to the mechanisms of recruit-
ment and advancement in the Italian university system, where publication

Address correspondence to Marco Antonsich, School of Geography, Earth, and

Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
E-mail: m.antonsich@bham.ac.uk

256
 Geopolitica 257

in international journals is not stressed, thus pushing Italian geographers to

confine their works within national reviews and periodicals.
Other reasons can certainly be found. The point here is simply to stress
the fact that, until today, Italian geopolitical thought of the Fascist period has
been studied by only a few scholars in the Anglophone and Francophone
literature.2 The Italian literature is larger, of course, but not by as much as
might be expected. Here a critical reflection on the Italian geopolitical tradi-
tion started only in the 1980s. Before this time, anything which contained
the word ‘geopolitics’/‘geopolitical’ was considered taboo, as was the case
in the rest of the Western world.3 Therefore, it is not surprising that even in
Italy rather few studies have been published on this topic. Those authors
who have addressed this issue have focused on the question whether Italian
geopolitics was somehow different from German geopolitics. In this regard,
two rather distinct views have emerged. On the one hand, there is the view
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

put forward by Lucio Gambi and others, which maintains that the whole
experience of Geopolitica can be dismissed as a form of Fascist rhetoric,
which did not bring new ideas within Italian geography, being in fact only
an imitation of the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik.4 On the other hand, there is the
view which praises the originality and the moderation of Italian geopoliti-
cians, particularly when compared with their German colleagues.5 A couple
of studies can be located between these two positions.6 In contrast to this
are the works of Anna Vinci, Giulio Sinibaldi, and Marco Antonsich which
are less concerned about the originality of Geopolitica and more oriented to
understanding the historical context in which this journal was produced.7
All these studies are well documented and have helped us to better
understand the Italian geopolitical tradition. Yet, overall there has been the
tendency to focus only on some specific traits of this tradition, looking
either at its colonialist exposure, its disposition towards Fascism or its
degree of originality. As a result, a rather fragmented picture has emerged,
which has prevented a full assessment of Italian geopolitical thought as it
emerged in the 1920s–1930s and found final expression in Geopolitica. It is
the aim of the present paper to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the
development of this thought in its socio-economic, political, and intellectual
context. My argument is that even though Geopolitica was indeed highly
derivative of the German tradition of political geography/geopolitics, it rep-
resented nevertheless the involvement of many Italian geographers in the
Fascist blueprint for a colonial and imperial Italy. Moreover, it represented a
genuine attempt to transform geography into both an applied science and a
disciplina di sintesi (synthesising discipline), open also to the contributions
of other social sciences – an attempt which the Italian geographical estab-
lishment firmly resisted in the name of the autonomy of geography as an
academic discipline.
To support this argument I will examine the development of Italian
geopolitics in relation to Fascism and Italian geography more broadly. I will
 258 Marco Antonsich

first delineate the socio-economic and intellectual context after World War
I which motivated Italian geographers to abandon the naturalist character of
their discipline in order to tackle the new political and economic problems
faced by the country. It is in this context that Italian geopolitics arose as a
formal discourse. I will then investigate the specifics of this geopolitical
thought, by offering a critical account of the journal Geopolitica (1939–1942),
which represented the most formalised effort to give Italy its own geopolitics.

GEOGRAPHY AFTER WORLD WAR I

In order to understand the intellectual and theoretical tenets of Italian geopol-

itics during Fascism we should look at the Italian politico-economic crisis that
ensued at the end of World War I. Two major themes come here to the fore.
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

First, as in the case of Germany, Italian geographers were disappointed

with the war’s outcome. Despite being among the victors, Italy did not
obtain at Versailles the lands along the eastern Adriatic coast and the colo-
nial concessions which Britain, France, and Russia had promised in the
Treaty of London (1915). These concessions were offered as a way to con-
vince Italy to join the war against Germany and the Habsburg Empire. As a
consequence, many Italian geographers echoed the nationalist slogan of the
vittoria mutilata (the mutilated victory), first popularised by the irredentist
poet Gabriele D’Annunzio and later taken up by Fascism.8 In particular,
geographers criticised the fact that the Italian political delegation at Ver-
sailles was accompanied by only two military cartographers, whereas other
powers had mobilised their most famous geographers (Isaiah Bowman for
the USA, Emmanuel De Martonne for France, and the Serbian Jovan Cvijic).9
For them, this was clear evidence of the low consideration in which politi-
cians held geographical knowledge. According to Giuseppe Ricchieri, a
highly respected name within the Italian academic geography of the early
twentieth century, the geographical ignorance of Italian politicians had been
“the primary cause of immeasurable damages in our colonial and foreign
policy”.10 The comment, though, sounds somewhat ironic, as it was exactly
the close association between geography and politics which had led, in
1896, to the disastrous battle of Adwa (Ethiopia), when for the first time in
modern history a Western power was defeated by a non-Western oppo-
nent.11 Yet in the context of the territorial reshuffling associated with the
collapse of the Ottoman, Habsburg and German empires, Adwa became a
distant memory and the quest for a geography which could serve the inter-
ests of a greater Italy came to the fore again.
The second theme associated with the outcome of World War I con-
cerns the dramatic socio-economic crisis which characterised Italy in the
aftermath of the war. Italian geographers felt an urgent need to help their
country to recover from this crisis and, accordingly, aimed to transform
 Geopolitica 259

geography from a discipline traditionally concerned with the physical

aspects of the Earth into one more sensitive to the political and economic
aspects of societies.12 Since the late nineteenth century, Italian geographers,
traditionally nurtured on German and Austrian geographical textbooks, had
always maintained the integral character of their discipline. Accordingly,
geography was understood as the study of the Earth in both its physical and
human dimensions.13 This type of geography, however, was merely descrip-
tive, as the observation of the distribution of physical and human factors
was thought to be the main task of the geographer. Yet, in the interwar
years, i.e., in a context of a perceived increasing economic competition
among states, this perspective was deemed no longer sufficient. In an influ-
ential article of 1923, Roberto Almagià, one of the leading Italian geogra-
phers of the interwar period, argued for the necessity to add a ‘dynamic’
dimension to political geography, which he considered too ‘static’ (i.e.,
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

descriptive ) a discipline.14 For Almagià, while a ‘static political geography’

(geografia politica statica) studied the size, location, shape and structure of
the state, a ‘dynamic political geography’ (geografia politica dinamica) had
to analyse the state as “an individual who is born, growths, decays, and dies
following influences which, to a great extent, are also tied to geographical
conditions”.15 This ‘dynamism’ clearly echoed Friedrich Ratzel’s theory of
the political state as a biological organism. Yet, in another publication,
Almagià did not refer directly to Ratzel, whom he actually criticised for his
excessive environmental determinism, but, strangely enough, to Rudolf
Kjellén and Karl Haushofer.16
The term ‘dynamic political geography’ became widely used by other
Italian geographers.17 But why not call it just ‘geopolitics’ (geopolitica)?
I would argue that by using the latter term Italian geographers tried to differ-
entiate themselves from their prominent German colleagues. In contrast to
Geopolitik, Italian political geography was said to preserve a geographic
basis (contained in the ‘static’ part of the discipline), which was deemed
inseparable from the ‘dynamic’ one.18 Ernesto Massi, one of the two future
co-editors of Geopolitica, stressed this point by affirming in 1931 that in
Germany, after Ratzel, there had been the tendency to neglect the morpho-
logic, hydrographical and climatologic bases of political geography. “This is
a tendency which must be contrasted with energy, if we do not want politi-
cal geography to stop being a geography and become confused with politics,
sociology or economics”.19 As the next section will show, the ‘geographic’
character of Italian geopolitics became an issue of intense debate among
Italian geographers, particularly when Geopolitica started being published.
What is worth noting here is that, although contested, the geographic charac-
ter of Italian geopolitics remained a key argument among the supporters of a
dynamic political geography to sustain its difference from German geopolitics.
This point was also made after World War II by Giorgio Roletto, the co-editor
of Geopolitica, and later repeated by other commentators.20
 260 Marco Antonsich

Besides stressing its geographic character, Italian geographers also tried

to differentiate their concept of dynamic political geography by not fully
espousing the environmental determinist approach which was said to char-
acterise German geography. Thus, for instance, in the first Italian book of
political geography, Luigi De Marchi, while reproducing Ratzel’s metaphor
of the state as a biological organism, also added the prefix tendenziale to
his laws of development of the state.21 According to De Marchi, all laws in
political geography should indeed be understood as ‘tendencies’ rather than
proper ‘laws’, due to the fact that, being common among states, they necessar-
ily contrast one with the other. Similarly, in his textbook of politico-economic
geography, Almagià, referring to the organic growth of the state, preferred
the term ‘tendencies’ rather than ‘laws’, in order to distance himself from
Ratzel and to signify once again that the environment does not have an
absolute power over society.22 Yet, this difference seemed once again termi-
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

nological rather than substantive, given the fact that in Ratzel’s original
works environmental determinism was never presented in absolute terms.23
The goal of Italian political geographers of the interwar period was clearly
to distance themselves from the overwhelming influence of German geo-
graphical thought. Yet, rather than introducing new concepts or theories,
they often limited themselves to re-writing ideas already put forward by
foreign scholars.
In political terms as well, Italian geographers followed the same path as
other national geographic traditions and equally worked to put their discipline
at the service of the state.24 The goal, as the future editors of Geopolitica main-
tained, was to give Italy its own geographical knowledge which could be used
in the race among states over space and resources. “[It is the] duty of science
to offer to the statesman the correct, updated, and refined tools which he
needs. . . . Political geography and politics stand face to face like theory and
practice: one works out the concepts that the other must apply; one detects
the tendencies and indicates the road which the other should follow”.25
Given these premises, it is not surprising that when Fascism arose, it
attracted the sympathies of an overwhelming majority of Italian geographers.26
Its rhetoric about the injustice of the Versailles settlement and its project for
a greater Italy resonated with their nationalist feelings. Fascism and geogra-
phy established a consensual and reciprocally supportive relationship. In
1924, just two years after coming to power, Mussolini paid a symbolic visit
to the Italian Geographical Society, which throughout the interwar years
remained faithful to the ideology and the directives of the regime.27 Fascist
ideas were similarly espoused by another important geographical institu-
tion, the Touring Club Italiano, created in 1894 in order to familiarise the
Italians with the geography of their country and indirectly create a sense of
national unity.28
The facility by which Fascism managed to penetrate the Italian geo-
graphical community has been explained by the fact that Italian geographers
 Geopolitica 261

had traditionally been good servants of the state and, after Fascism came to
power, they simply confused loyalty to the state with loyalty to the
regime.29 It comes as no surprise, therefore, that geographers also willingly
accepted the institution, in 1921, of the Comitato Nazionale per la Geografia
(National Geographical Committee), which served as a way for Fascism to
coordinate and control geographical research and which, particularly under
the guidance of Nicola Vacchelli, acted as a propagandistic tool for the ide-
ology of the regime and its imperial project.30 An additional confirmation of
the close collaboration between Fascism and geographers came in 1926,
when the regime’s call for a Giornata Coloniale (Colonial Day) to support
Italy’s colonial ambitions was answered by many leading geographers and
other members of the Italian Geographical Society, who delivered public
speeches in some major Italian towns.31
According to the historian Renzo De Felice, Mussolini believed that cul-
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

ture, in all its forms, had a political meaning, as its role was to contribute
both to the prestige of Italy and Fascism and to the education of young gen-
erations along nationalist lines.32 Geography occupied a privileged position
within this plan, for Mussolini – a former geography school teacher himself –
believed along with Napoléon that geography was an “immutable element
which influences the destiny of peoples”.33 It is understandable, therefore,
why in 1925, when the regime decided to produce the most prestigious
encyclopaedic work ever published in Italy, Enciclopedia Italiana, it offered
large space to geographic entries.34 More precisely, as suggested by Costan-
tino Caldo, geography was given the important role of blending together
the variety of encyclopaedic materials in a nationalist vein.35
The majority of geographers fully shared this view, in which culture
and politics were closely tied together. This structural union found expres-
sion in the concept of coscienza geografica (geographical awareness) – a
term already introduced at the end of the nineteenth century to support the
colonial adventure in Africa and which Fascism embraced once again. The
term was defined by Roletto as follows: “[Geographical awareness] is the
unique catalyst of action and expansion . . . a key element in patriotic edu-
cation, a sign of the development of a politico-national consciousness”.36
Geographical knowledge was obviously the necessary ingredient for develop-
ing this consciousness, so an intense debate arose over the limited number of
hours dedicated to the teaching of geography in schools and the inade-
quacy of programs.37 Despite the emphasis placed on geographical aware-
ness by Fascist rhetoric, the reality was that the school reform introduced by
Fascism in 1924 downplayed the role of geography both in middle and high
school curricula.38 Moreover, by dividing its teaching between the literature
teacher (human geography) and the teacher in natural sciences (physical
geography), the reform negated the unity of geography, thus weakening its
academic disciplinary status. Despite this contradiction, the consensus of
geographers for Fascism and its nationalist programme did not falter. It is
 262 Marco Antonsich

significant that in 1937, during the thirteenth Italian Geographical Congress,

the alliance between geography and the regime was confirmed by the
Minister of National Education, Giuseppe Bottai, in the following terms:
“Geographical knowledge is even more necessary as knowledge is a form
of possession and scientific possession is the essential and best preparation
for any other form of possession. Therefore, a geographical revival is always
correlated with a political revival”.39
A few years later, when, under the patronage of the same Bottai,
Geopolitica started its publications, it was clear that the relationship
between geography and Fascism was already one of close collaboration and
mutual sympathy. They both shared the dream of a greater Italy, fuelled
particularly by the conquest of Abyssinia in 1936. From this perspective,
Geopolitica did not introduce anything new, but simply embodied the most
conscious and formalised expression of a geography which wanted to sup-
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

port Italy’s nationalist and imperialist ambitions.

GEOPOLITICA

The origin of Geopolitica is rooted in a curious anecdote. In 1937, Ernesto

Massi, the future co-editor of Geopolitica, was barred by the powerful
Almagià from presenting a paper to the thirteenth Italian Geographical Con-
gress. This skirmish pushed Massi, eager to create his own space of
research, to ask for the support of Father Agostino Gemelli, the founder and
first chancellor of the Catholic University of Milan, where, in 1936, Massi
had been appointed professor of political and economic geography. The
Franciscan friar, an influential figure of the time and open sympathiser of
Fascism,40 wrote a letter of reference to introduce Massi to Bottai. The Minister
of National Education then met with Massi and encouraged him to start a
journal with Giorgio Roletto, Massi’s mentor, by providing the two with a
well-known publishing company, Sperling & Kupfler.41
The anecdote recounted by Massi shows the key role played by Bottai –
one of the most respected intellectual figures of Fascism – who always sup-
ported Geopolitica, by guaranteeing the subscription from numerous
schools and by offering also the possibility of a cumulative subscription
with his prominent journal Critica Fascista.42 This allowed Geopolitica,
which was printed monthly in about 1,000 copies, to rely on a stable core of
readers – besides those occasional ones who, until April 1941, could find
the journal also at the newsstands.43 Geopolitica was published between
January 1939 and December 1942. Each monthly issue had about 60–70
pages and was characterised by original research papers, commentaries,
brief notes, statistical tables about Italy’s commercial exchange, and so
called ‘sintesi geopolitiche’, in other words geopolitical maps which,
similarly to the maps published by the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, aimed at
 Geopolitica 263
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

FIGURE 1 Mare Nostrum; the Italian living space in the Mediterranean Region. Source:
Geopolitica 3 (1939) p. 161.

introducing new elements of dynamism within traditional cartography (see

Figure 1).44
Although the main editorial office was located in Trieste, where Roletto
and his assistants were based, two additional offices were opened in Milan
and Rome, under the guidance respectively of Massi and Ugo Morichini, the
latter being the head officer of the information and education sector of the
Confederazione fascista dei commercianti (the group representing the inter-
ests of the merchants within the Fascist corporativist system).
Despite the large support among geographers for Fascism and its
expansionist ambition, the appearance of Geopolitica, whose editorial board
was composed of some well-known Italian geographers (e.g., Umberto
Toschi, Roberto Biasutti, Goffredo Jaja), was met with clear resistance from
the institutional sectors of Italian geography. It is, for example, significant
that the first issue of the journal was not reviewed by the Bulletin of the
Italian Geographical Society, which later also continued to ignore Geopolitica,
generating the resentment of its editors.45 This silence of the major organ of
Italian academic geography can be explained in terms of the debate about
the scientific status of geopolitics. Back in 1930, Elio Migliorini, the director
of the Bulletin, had already criticised the works of Haushofer for being
beyond the domain of political geography, i.e., beyond the scientific bases
 264 Marco Antonsich

on which, according to Migliorini, political geography had to be built.46 Ten

years later, in the entry ‘geopolitica’ written for the Dictionary of Politics of
the National Fascist Party, Migliorini reiterated the same critique towards
Haushofer and his Geopolitik, doubting, more generally, the scientific char-
acter of any geopolitics, which was accused of moving away from the main
tenets of political geography.47 Migliorini’s critique can be explained if we
consider the context in which it was made. In the 1930s, Italian geography
was indeed a discipline whose scientific and academic status was still to be
fully acknowledged. As observed by a geographer of that time, geopolitics,
while possessing the merit of bringing geography back to the study of real
problems, at the same time endangered the content and method of geogra-
phy as it had developed up to that point in Italy.48 It was not Geopolitica’s
nationalist stance or its putting itself at the service of the expansionist
project of the regime which bothered these representatives of the geographical
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

establishment. Rather, it was the desire of Geopolitica to radically transform

Italian geography, accused of being ‘outdated’ and ‘suffocating’.49
This tension between the radical programme put forward by Geopolitica
and the conservative concerns expressed by the institutional circles was also
reflected in the debate about the definition of geopolitics. Given the confu-
sion around the term that was characteristic for Germany and, at a later
date, the United States,50 a group of important Italian geographers gathered
in 1941 in Rome under the patronage of the National Geographical Commit-
tee in order to establish a common definition. This group, formed, among
others, by Giorgio Roletto, Antonio Renato Toniolo, Umberto Toschi and
Carmelo Colamonico, reached the following conclusion: “Geopolitics is the
doctrine which studies political phenomena with regard to their spatial distri-
bution and environmental relations, causes, and development. Geopolitics,
therefore, identifies itself with political geography”.51 By this definition, the
eminent group of geographers aimed to restate the ‘geographical’ character
of geopolitics.
Yet, paradoxically, this definition upset both those geopoliticians who,
like Massi, thought that geopolitics ‘synthesised’ all the different branches of
geography and thus was more than political geography, and the representa-
tives of institutional geography. The director of the Bulletin commented in
quite negative terms on that definition: “It is not appropriate to identify
political geography (which is a science and as such has a universal character,
valid for all countries) with geopolitics, which is political and has exclu-
sively national goals”.52
In its first issue, Geopolitica stated clearly that it aimed to become the
“geographical, political and imperial coscienza (awareness)” of the Fascist
state.53 Consequently, the editors advocated the development of an ‘autarchic’
geopolitical thought, i.e., one which would be exclusively rooted in the
Italian intellectual tradition, independent of other geopolitical schools.54
Given this position, there is some irony in the fact that immediately following
 Geopolitica 265

this editorial Geopolitica published the greetings of Karl Haushofer, the

founding father of German Geopolitik.55 As Vinci has demonstrated, Geopolitica
always showed a confused sentiment of admiration, subordination and
competition towards its German counterpart – the same attitude that,
according to De Felice, the Fascist regime actually showed towards its
German ally.56 On the one hand, in fact, the two geopolitical schools clearly
had common points. Like Geopolitik, Geopolitica attempted to investigate
the relations and causes of geographical facts, beyond the geographical tra-
dition of descriptive studies.57 Massi, in particular, who, contrary to Roletto,
knew German and had friendly personal relations with Haushofer, was
fascinated by the explanatory power of environmental determinism and
continually oscillated between this deterministic approach and one in which
the role of human will predominated over the influence of the soil.58
At the same time, however, Geopolitica also sought to carve out its
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

own autonomous space – an attempt, however, carried out in a rather

inconsistent way. Italian geopolitics was indeed presented as the middle
ground between German determinism and French possibilism or, better,
‘the balance’ among different paradigms (environmental determinism, possi-
bilism and geographical humanism).59
Yet, in pursuing their ‘autarchic’ ideal, Roletto and Massi refused to
acknowledge the influence of any foreign tradition, praising instead the
ideas of those whom they saw as ‘precursors’ of the Italian geopolitical
thought: Niccolò Machiavelli, Giuseppe Mazzini, Giacomo Durando, Carlo
Cattaneo, and Cesare Correnti.60 As a further way to stress this ‘autarchy’,
Geopolitica called upon the glorious past of the Roman Empire, eulogised
as a great example of geopolitica in atto (geopolitical praxis). By putting
forward this form of practical geopolitics, along with a tradition of formal
geopolitics embodied by the aforementioned ‘precursors’, Geopolitica
clearly was aiming to supply with the former what was missing in the latter.61
Interestingly enough, this ‘Roman-Mediterranean’ geopolitical praxis was
portrayed against the ‘Nordic’ geopolitical praxis of the ‘barbarian’ tribes.62
While the latter was depicted as amassing as many people and as much ter-
ritory as possible without really organising them, the former was praised for
reaching an optimum equilibrium between the different territories which
formed the Roman Empire.63 Italian Fascism, obviously, was presented to be
the inheritor of this superior geopolitical praxis – a representation which
indirectly set Italy apart from and even ‘above’ its German ‘ally’.
A similar factor of differentiation from Germany was also found in the
debate over race. Even in this case, the desire for autonomy and indepen-
dence led Geopolitica to affirm the existence of an autochthon ‘Roman
race’, described as the product of the mix between the dolichocephals (the
Neanderthal Man) and the brachycephals (the Aryans).64 Apart from this
biological reference, the notion of Roman race was not however constructed,
like in Germany, on notions of ‘blood’ and ‘purity’, rather on psychological
 266 Marco Antonsich

and spiritual characteristics: no unity in blood, but unity in a common impe-

rial and civilising spirit.65 This ‘spiritual’ definition was cast in relation to the
project of an Italian living space in the Mediterranean region which, con-
trary to the German Lebensraum, could not have been based on common
biological and linguistic ties.

ITALY’S SPAZIO VITALE

Since the beginning of his political career, Mussolini stated that the Mediter-
ranean was the space where Italy could regain the greatness of ancient
Rome. “Our destiny is on the sea . . . because of her geographical shape
and location, [Italy] must go back to the sea, must find in her surrounding
element the ways of her fortune” he wrote in 1919 in Il Popolo d’Italia.66 “If
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

for others the Mediterranean is a road, for us it is our life”, he added in

1936, when the confrontation with Britain, the new delenda Carthago, had
become the leitmotif of his foreign policy.67 The Adriatic space, and more
precisely the Balkans, also figured as an aspect of this greater Mediterranean
strategy. In April 1939, Italy invaded Albania and the following year
launched its disastrous attack on Greece, a traditional ally of Britain and a
key state in the control of the eastern Mediterranean.
To this picture of Italy’s grand strategy Geopolitica added few new
elements. From the first issue, its editors affirmed that the areas of the Med-
iterranean and the Balkans were indeed Italy’s spazio vitale (living space).
This term, borrowed from Ratzel and German Geopolitik, was frequently
used by the Italian geopoliticians, but not with the same demographical and
racial connotation as in Germany.68 An analysis of the articles published in
Geopolitica reveals indeed that the Italians attributed mainly an economic
character to this concept, which was at times confused with other notions
such as grande spazio (great space – the German Grossraum), comunità
imperiale (imperial community), or spazio economico autarchico (autarkic
economic space).69
Since the end of World War I, Italy had felt squeezed by the economic
blocs constructed around France and Britain.70 This economic pressure
obviously accentuated when in 1936 the League of Nations imposed economic
sanctions on Italy as punishment for its aggression on Abyssinia. Facing this
‘closure of spaces’, Italy aimed to build its own exclusive economic bloc,
which could supply Italy with much needed raw materials. In this sense, the
Italian ‘living space’ was conceived first and foremost as an autarchic space,
but one which extended far beyond the neighbouring regions to include
African colonies as well, thus becoming a greater or imperial space.
The emphasis on the economic, rather than on the political dimension
of the Italian living space did not please everybody at Geopolitica, which
indeed published an anonymous note stressing that this interpretation was
 Geopolitica 267

not in line with Ratzel’s original thought and, moreover, it obfuscated the
principle that any living space had to be accompanied by the predominance
of a single country.71 This was an important point, as it raised the question of
the nature of the relations among the future member countries of Italy’s living
space. On this point, Geopolitica tried to show that despite the fact that the
great economic space that Italy wanted to build was in its own vital interests,
it could actually also meet the interests of the other member countries.72
The fact that an economic rather than a demographic or racial dimen-
sion was privileged in the construction of the Italian living space could be
explained also in relation to the fragmented ethnic composition of the Med-
iterranean region, as aptly described by Renzo Sertoli Salis: “Whereas the
German living space relies, in areas of its influence, on cognate races,
which can therefore help define it, the Italian living space cannot rely on a
similar criterion of racial kinship; it must therefore be integrated, due to the
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

intense ethnic mixture of the Mediterranean zone, with other economic,

military and strategic elements.”73
Geopolitica featured also articles which discussed the notion of ‘European
living space’.74 Both the Italian and the German regimes supported this
idea, often propagated under the name of ‘new European order’, which,
according to the German Minister of Economics, Walther Funk, and his Italian
colleague, Raffaello Riccardi, should have led to the creation of a European
customs and monetary union.75 Yet, the boundaries of this space remained
always a matter of debate and, in this regard, it is interesting to note the
attempt of Geopolitica to push them beyond Europe, to include the whole
Mediterranean region, the Middle East, and Africa.76 The rationale behind
this initiative was clearly to shift the centre of gravity of this European space
southwards, i.e., away from Germany and closer to Italy. However, by
doing so, the Italian geopoliticians were mixing, once again, the notions of
living space, great space and pan-region (see below), casting a shadow of
ambiguity and approximation on their self-declared endeavour to bring ana-
lytical and scientific clarity in the study of international problems.77

MARE NOSTRUM

As mentioned above, Italy’s living space was located in the Mediterranean

and in the Balkan regions. Due to lack of space, I will not discuss this latter
region, where the competition between Italy and Germany over their
spheres of influence clearly surfaced in the pages of Geopolitica.78 The
Mediterranean, however, attracted much more attention, among both the
Fascist regime and the Italian geopoliticians.
In order to legitimise Italy’s right to rule over the Mediterranean,
Geopolitica adopted the same rhetoric about ancient Rome and the mare
nostrum which until then the regime had already widely deployed. Yet, it
 268 Marco Antonsich

also introduced a new focus on the geographical features of this space to

further Italy’s hegemonic aspirations. The central location of Italy was
presented as the key factor which justified Italy’s leading role in the Mediter-
ranean. According to Roletto, “In order to become united, the Mediterranean
has always revolved around a centralizing pivot, whose role has been more
effective when it matched the geographical centre of the basin”.79 It was this
central geographical position which had given Italy in the past – and would
give her again in the future – the capacity to ‘harmoniously’ balance the East
and the West of the Mediterranean.80
The Mediterranean’s geographical features were also scripted so as to
support the idea of ‘unity’ of this space. Drawing on a sort of legge tenden-
ziale, Geopolitica emphasised that “if all internal seas serve the purpose of
joining rather than dividing peoples, no other Mediterranean sea, more than
our Roman one, forms an absolute physical, biological, economic and
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

human unity”.81 Interestingly enough, however, this view was rejected by

Massi – another of the many contradictions and inconsistencies which char-
acterised Geopolitica. Massi argued that the unity of the Mediterranean
region was not based on geographical features, but on the volontà
dell’uomo (human will).82 This explained why, for him, this unity was geo-
political, rather than merely geographical. This point is important, as it
underlines the emphasis that Italian geopolitics always put on human will.
From this perspective, nature was presenting only possibilities and limits to
human action, without entirely determining its course.83 Although at first
sight this view might simply appear to echo French possibilism, it seems
preferable to interpret it as another sign of the adherence of geographers to
Fascist ideology. Fascism, in fact, heralded the capacity of Man to overcome
any natural obstacles – what was called volontarismo (voluntarism).84 This
idea, which was best rendered by one of Mussolini’s slogans (‘It is the spirit
which tames and bends the material’), was largely echoed by Italian geogra-
phers and helped shape the specific character of an Italian geopolitics
which had proclaimed itself the geographical doctrine of Fascism.85 “[We]
intend – wrote Geopolitica in 1940 – to restore the importance of man in
geographical studies, by considering also his spiritual, psychical and racial
aspects . . . we intend to emphasize political will as a determining factor in
the anthropogeographical field”.86 It was exactly this superior will of the
Italian race that, in addition to geographical conditions, was also used to
justify Italy’s leading role in the Mediterranean.
It is interesting to observe that within the Mediterranean space the
German ally was not welcomed. The goal was to create, according to
Mussolini’s dictum (‘the Mediterranean to the Mediterranean peoples’), an
autonomous, independent and, at least in the early 1940s, neutral bloc.87 In
the words of Paolo D’Agostino Orsini, “German, Slavic and Nordic peoples
can reunite as they wish; they are and must stay out of the Mediterranean.
To be sure, the Mediterranean peoples do not intend to interfere with their
 Geopolitica 269

affairs and enter into their spheres of action and ‘living spaces’. The Medi-
terranean is the ‘living space’ of Imperial Italy”.88 In order to realise this
‘new Mediterranean order’, Geopolitica supported Mussolini’s policy of
friendship with Mediterranean Muslim countries and equally condemned
the presence of Britain in the Mediterranean which, by controlling Suez and
Gibraltar, “imprisoned Italy in its sea”.89 In this regard, it is important to note
that Italian maritime strategists held a completely opposite view. Aware of
the inadequate maritime power of Italy, they supported an entente with
Britain, which was viewed as the only realistic possibility for Italy’s Mediter-
ranean ambitions, and instead treated France as the new delenda
Carthago.90
The Mediterranean was not only thought as a living space per se, but it
also served in the construction of a more ambitious geopolitical project,
Eurafrica. This term was first introduced in 1929 by Richard Coudenhove-
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

Kalergi as part of his Pan-European idea and later incorporated by Karl

Haushofer in his theory of pan-regions.91 In Italy, the term first appeared in
1930 in an article by Paolo D’Agostino Orsini, a colonial geographer and
future contributor to Geopolitica.92 Even if the article did not refer to
Coudenhove-Kalergi, it presented the same geopolitical project of an autar-
chic space between Europe and Africa.93 In his original vision, this space
was essentially conceived in economic and demographic terms, i.e., as a
source of raw materials, a new market and an area of settlement for Europe-
ans. No political or cultural considerations applied, contrary to Haushofer’s
Panideen theory. The Mediterranean was said to be the ‘junction zone’
(zona di saldatura) between the two continents, which would have been
connected not via Suez, in the hands of Britain (which was explicitly
excluded from Eurafrica), but by a Transafrican railway, from Tripoli
(Libya) to Cape Town (see Figure 2).94
The central position of Italy in the Mediterranean was once again used
to give Italy a sort of natural primacy over Eurafrican space, in clear compe-
tition with a similar claim put forward by the Germans.
The term Eurafrica circulated widely in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s
and became part of the rhetoric of the regime as well. Interestingly enough,
it did not disappear in the post-war years, but it remained in use until the
1960s, though mainly confined to military circles as a project for a ‘third
way’ between the two opposite imperialisms of the USA and USSR.95

CONCLUSION

Despite presenting itself as the doctrine of the Fascist state, Italian geopoli-
tics hardly exercised any influence on the choices of foreign policy of the
regime – a fate not very dissimilar from its German counterpart.96 Through-
out the four years of publication of Geopolitica, its editors met only once
 270 Marco Antonsich
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

FIGURE 2 The Italian Transafrican Railway Line. Source: Geopolitica 12 (1941) p. 571.

with Mussolini. As Massi later acknowledged, “Our relationship with the

regime was very difficult. It is true that we influenced the political class with
some articles, and I was personally in contact with Lessona, the Ministry for
Italian Africa. But the regime was not really looking to us to make its
choices”.97 After all, Geopolitica, rather than tracing new foreign policy
directions, limited itself to confirming the choices already made by the
regime. Rather than opening new geopolitical scenarios, its role was to sub-
stantiate and legitimate these choices through studies which, despite their
analytical and normative claims, often ended up being largely descriptive.
 Geopolitica 271

Contrary to what previous commentators have observed, Geopolitica

does not stand as an isolated journalistic experience.98 Instead, it should be
considered as the final stage of an intellectual movement which originated
in the aftermath of World War I and which sought to transform the tradi-
tional, ‘static’ geography practiced until then in Italy into a new, applied,
and ‘dynamic’ discipline, at the service of the country’s national interests. In
their language, Italian geopoliticians definitely adopted the same emphatic
rhetoric deployed by the Fascist regime – a trait which later commentators
used to justify the purge of Geopolitica from the Italian geographical tradi-
tion.99 Yet, this interpretation is inadequate, since Italian geopolitics actually
reproduced the late nineteenth-century Italian geographical tradition of a
discipline at the service of the country’s colonial ambitions. In this sense,
Italian geopolitics can be seen as a confirmation of Ó Tuathail’s thesis on
the structural link between the emergence of contemporary geopolitics and
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

the late nineteenth-century rivalry among European powers for the acquisi-
tion of new lands in Africa.100
This close association between geography and politics re-emerged even
more explicitly after World War I, when a new nationalist wave spread
among many Italian geographers and prompted them to support Fascism’s
imperial dreams. In this context, as happened in other nations (e.g., Germany
and the USA), the line separating geography and geopolitics (i.e., the line
between an objective, impartial savoir and a politically driven savoir) became
blurred.101 Italian geographers pushed for the development of an autono-
mous Italian geopolitics, not dissimilarly from their American colleagues who,
in the early 1940s, invoked the need to study that ‘lurid scientific system
invented by a Briton and used by the Germans’.102 Not surprisingly, some
famous Italian geographers (e.g., Toschi, Biasutti, and Jaja) joined Geopolitica.
Yet Elio Migliorini, the president of the Società Geografica Italiana (the insti-
tutional watchdog of Italian academic geography) fiercely resisted accepting
geopolitics as a form of geography. This fact is indirectly revealing of the
innovative and transformative force associated with Geopolitica and Italian
geopolitics more generally. In fact, they aimed at re-writing geography into a
discipline that was not only ‘active’ (i.e., applied), but also open to other
social sciences. This was perceived as endangering the status of geography as
an autonomous academic discipline. Rather ironically, however, it is exactly
this inter-disciplinary openness that, since at least the ‘cultural turn’ of the
1980s, has become a dominant approach in human geography.103
As happened in Germany, geopolitics in Italy was banned from the
universities after World War II with the excuse that it had been too close to
political power. Only in the 1990s, following the great geopolitical revival
that a decade earlier had started in the Anglo-Saxon world, did geopolitics
surface again also in Italy. This resurgence has been led in particular by the
journal Limes, Rivista Italiana di Geopolitica, a widely read bi-monthly
which presents itself as a democratic forum for debating Italy’s national
 272 Marco Antonsich

interests.104 Limes, however, is not the creation of geographers, who are

barely represented in the editorial board, but journalists, foreign policy
experts, and other academicians. Any interest in a theoretical debate on
geopolitics is absent and, apart from adopting a similar ‘national’ perspec-
tive on world politics and having another Bottai among its founders, Limes
has little in common with Geopolitica.105
Among geographers, geopolitics has also made a comeback, which has
taken three main forms. First, there has been a new interest in the history of
geopolitics and its theoretical tenets, explored, in limited instances, also
from a critical geopolitical perspective.106 Second, the label geopolitics has
been assigned to a rather significant number of studies and initiatives in
land use planning.107 The geopolitical character of this production, how-
ever, is not always clear, as it often skips the question of the political and
focuses instead on the technicalities of the socio-economic organisation of
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

space. Third, a new series of geopolitical textbooks have been published,

which, despite their traditional approach, have had the merit of bringing
political geography and geopolitics back in the university classrooms.108
Overall, however, both these latter disciplines remain rather overlooked
within Italian geography today – a condition, in this case, not very dissimilar
from other national contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments and Mark Bassin for his assistance in editing the text.

NOTES

1. D. Atkinson, ‘Geopolitical Imaginations in Modern Italy’, in K. Dodds and D. Atkinson (eds.),

Geopolitical Traditions. A Century of Geopolitical Thought (London: Routledge 2000) p. 95.
2. The only exception is the work of David Atkinson, who in various publications has analysed
the Italian geopolitical visions of Africa during Fascism, covering also the editorial production of the
journal Geopolitica (1939–1942). D. Atkinson, ‘Geopolitics, Cartography and Geographical Knowledge:
Envisioning Africa from Fascist Italy’, in M. Bell, R. A. Butlin, and M. Heffernan (eds.), Geography and
Imperialism, 1820–1940 (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1995) pp. 265–297; D. Atkinson,
‘Geopolitical Imaginations’ (note 1); D. Atkinson, ‘Creating Colonial Space with Geographies and Geo-
politics’, in R. Ben-Ghiat and M. Fuller (eds.), Italian Colonialism (New York: Palgrave MacMillan 2005)
pp. 15–26. Besides Atkinson, only one other publication in English has so far appeared on the same
topic: L. Gambi, ‘Geography and Imperialism in Italy: From the Unity of the Nation to the ‘New’ Roman
Empire’, in A. Godlewska and N. Smith (eds.), Geography and Empire (Oxford: Blackwell 1994) pp. 74–91.
Recently, Geopolitics has published a new study on the cartography of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in
which the author briefly touches on the history of Geopolitica (E. Boria, ‘Geopolitical Maps: A Sketch
History of a Neglected Trend in Cartography’, Geopolitics 13 (2008) pp. 278–308). In French, the only
works published on the subject are D. Lopreno, ‘La géopolitique du fascisme italien: La révue mensuelle
<<Geopolitica>>’, Hérodote 63 (1991) pp. 116–129 and C. Raffestin et al., Géopolitique et Histoire
(Lausanne: Payot 1995).
 Geopolitica 273

3. L. Hepple, ‘The Revival of Geopolitics’, Political Geography Quarterly 5 (supplement) (1986)

pp. 21–36.
4. Gambi, ‘Geography and Imperialism’ (note 2). This view is also shared by C. Caldo, Il territorio
come dominio. La geografia italiana durante il Fascismo (Napoli: Loffredo Editore 1982) p. 85.
5. G. Merlini, ‘Geografia politica’, in AaVv., ‘Un sessantennio di ricerca geografica italiana’, Memorie
della Società Geografica Italiana, Londra, 1964, pp. 415–450. See also M. P. Pagnini, ‘La geografia politica’,
in G. Corna Pellegrini (eds.), Aspetti e problemi della geografia Vol. I (Settimo Milanese: Marzorati 1987)
pp. 407–443.
6. Somewhat in between the two positions discussed above are the works of M. E. Ferrari, ‘La
rivista ‘Geopolitica’ (1939–1942): Una dottrina geografica per il Fascismo e l’Impero’, Miscellanea di
storia delle esplorazioni 10 (1985) pp. 211–291; I. Luzzana Caraci, ‘Storia della geografia in Italia dal secolo
scorso ad oggi’, in G. Corna Pellegrini (eds.), Aspetti e problemi della geografia (Settimo Milanese: Marzorati
1987) pp. 45–95 (part of this work is reproduced in English in I. Luzzana Caraci, ‘Modern Geography in
Italy: From the Archives to Environmental Management’, in G. S. Dunbar (ed.), Geography: Discipline,
Profession and subject since 1870 (Dordrect: Kluwer Academic Publisher 2001) pp. 121–151).
7. A. Vinci, ‘’Geopolitica’ e Balcani: l’esperienza di un gruppo di intelletuali in un ateneo di con-
fine’, Storia e Società 47 (1990) pp. 87–127; G. Sinibaldi, ‘Alle origini della rivista ‘Geopolitica’ (1939–1942)’,
Clio 41/2 (2005) pp. 267–294; M. Antonsich, ‘La rivista ‘Geopolitica’ e la sua influenza sulla politica fascista’,
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

Limes. Rivista Italiana di Geopolitica 4 (1994) pp. 269–279; M. Antonsich, ‘Géopolitique méditerranéenne
de l’Italie fasciste’, in H. Coutau-Bégarie (ed.), La pensée géopolitique navale (Paris: Institut de Stratégie
Comparée - Economica 1995) pp. 163–190; M. Antonsich, ‘Eurafrica. Dottrina Monroe del fascismo’, Limes.
Rivista Italiana di Geopolitica 3 (1997) pp. 261–266. M. Antonsich, ‘’Geopolitica’, ‘Hérodote/Italia
(Erodoto)’, ‘Limes’: Geopolitiche italiane a confronto’, Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana 3 (1997)
pp. 411–418.
8. On the notion of ‘vittoria mutilata’, see J. H. Burgwyn, The legend of the mutilated victory:
Italy, the Great War, and the Paris Peace Conference, 1915–1919 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
1993).
9. G. Ricchieri, ‘La geografia alla Conferenza per la pace a Parigi, nel 1919’, Rivista Geografica
Italiana April–Aug. (1920) pp. 101–109; A. R. Toniolo, ‘I moderni concetti di geografia sociale e politica’,
L’Universo 3 (1923) pp. 203–212; G. Graziani, ‘I risultati del convegno per la diffusione della cultura
geografica in Italia’, Rivista Geografica Italiana (Jan.–April 1923) pp. 57–62; C. Errera, Orizzonti odierni
della geografia (Bologna: Regia Università degli Studi di Bologna 1928); L. De Marchi, Fondamenti di
geografia politica (Padova: Cedam 1929).
10. Ricchieri (note 9) p. 109.
11. M. Carazzi, La Società Geografica Italiana e l’espansione coloniale in Africa (1867–1900)
(Firenze: La Nuova Italia 1972).
12. S. Grande, ‘Un nuovo orientamento della geografia’, L’Universo 8 (1923) pp. 595–606.
13. Luzzana Caraci, ‘Storia della geografia’ (note 6).
14. R. Almagià, ‘La geografia politica. Considerazioni metodiche sul concetto e sul campo di studio
di questa scienza’, L’Universo 10 (1923) pp. 751–768.
15. Ibid., p. 765.
16. R. Almagià, ‘Gli indirizzi attuali della geografia e il Decimo Congresso geografico nazionale’,
Nuova Antologia, July (1927) pp. 246–254. This misinterpretation might be related to the fact that Ratzel’s
Politische Geographie was never fully translated into Italian. A partial translation was made in 1899 by
Cesare Battisti, but it was never published – today this partial translation is available in V. Calì, Cesare
Battisti geografo. Carteggi 1894–1916 (Trento: Edizione Temi-Museo del Risorgimento 1988). The major
ideas of the Politische Geographie were, however, presented in the review made by Olinto Marinelli
(‘Federico Ratzel e la sua opera geografica’, Rivista Geografica Italiana 10 (1903) pp. 272–277).
17. L. De Marchi (note 9); A. R. Toniolo, ‘Per l’insegnamento della geografia politica nelle scuole
medie superiori’, in Atti dell’ XI Comgresso geografico italiano, Vol. III (Napoli, 1930) pp. 266–269;
G. Roletto, Lezioni di geografia politico-economica (Padova: Cedam 1933) p. 11; U. Toschi, Appunti di
geografia politica, 2nd ed. (Bari: Macrì 1940) p. 43.
18. E. Massi, I nuovi compiti della geografia politica (Rome: Studium 1931) p. 11; Roletto, Lezioni
di geografia (note 17) p. 13; Toschi (note 17) p. 48.
19. Massi, I nuovi compiti (note 18) p. 9
20. G. Roletto, L’evoluzione della scienza geografica. Appunti curati da K.C., academic years 1946–
47, 1947–48 (Trieste: University of Trieste 1948) p. 25. See also Merlini (note 5) and Pagnini (note 5).
 274 Marco Antonsich

21. De Marchi (note 9) p. 11.

22. R. Almagià, Elementi di geografia politico-economica (Milan: Giuffré 1936) p. 202.
23. M. Bassin, ‘Friedrich Ratzel, 1844–1904’, in T. W. Freeman (ed.), Geographers Biobibliographi-
cal Studies (London: Mansell Publishing Limited 1987) p. 126.
24. D. Hooson (ed.), Geography and national identity (Oxford: Blackwell 1994); A. Godlewska
and N. Smith (eds.), Geography and empire (Oxford: Blackwell 1994).
25. G. Roletto and E. Massi, Lineamenti di geografia politica (Trieste: Università degli Studi di
Trieste 1931) p. 26.
26. Caldo (note 4); L. Gambi, Una geografia per la storia (Torino: Einaudi 1973); Luzzana Caraci,
‘Storia della geografia’ (note 6).
27. Caldo (note 4) p. 30ff.
28. Ibid., p. 32. See also S. Pivato, Il Touring Club Italiano (Bologna: Il Mulino 2006).
29. Luzzana Caraci, ‘Storia della geografia’ (note 6) p. 69.
30. Luzzana Caraci, ‘Modern Geography in Italy’ (note 6) p. 139.
31. Caldo (note 4) p. 49ff.; Gambi, ‘Geography and Imperialism’ (note 2) p. 26.
32. R. De Felice, Mussolini il Duce. Gli anni del consenso (1929–1936) (Torino: Einaudi 1974) p. 107.
33. B. Mussolini, Opera omnia. A cura di E. e D. Susmel, Vol. XXVI (Firenze: la Fenice 1958) p. 190.
34. Caldo (note 4) p. 36.
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

35. Ibid., p. 37
36. G. Roletto, La geografia come scienza utilitaria. Discorso inaugurale dell’A.A. 1928–29
(Trieste: Regia Università degli Studi economici e commerciali di Trieste 1929) p. 20.
37. M. Antonsich, La coscienza geografico imperiale del regime fascista. ‘Geopolitica’ (1939–1942),
unpublished master’s thesis Catholic University ‘Sacred Heart’ of Milan, 1991, p. 30ff.
38. Almagià, ‘La geografia politica’ (note 14).
39. G. Bottai, Discorso inaugurale al XIII C.G.I., Vol. I (Friuli: Atti del XIII Congresso Geografico
Italiano 1937) p. 29. See also G. Bottai, ‘Mète ai geografi’, Bollettino della Regia Società Geografica
Italiana 1 (1939) pp. 1–3.
40. R. A. Webster, The Cross and the Fasces. Christian Democracy and Fascism in Italy (Stanford:
Stanford University Press 1960) p. 213. See also G. Cosmacini, Gemelli. Il Machiavelli di Dio (Milano:
Rizzoli 1985).
41. Personal interview with Ernesto Massi, Rome, 15 Nov. 1991. There are no additional sources,
either written or oral, which can confirm the version offered by Massi. Yet, no other geographer, histo-
rian or person has so far contradicted this interpretation, which has already been publicised (see M.
Antonsich, ‘La rivista ‘Geopolitica’’ (note 7)).
42. M. Antonsich, ‘La rivista ‘Geopolitica’’ (note 7) p. 272. It is significant that the first issue of
Geopolitica opened with an inaugural note by Bottai, whose name always figured on the cover of the
journal as one of the founders. On the importance of Bottai in supporting Italian geography more
broadly see Atkinson, ‘Geopolitics, Cartography and Geographical Knowledge’ (note 2) p. 274ff.
43. The exact number of copies is debated, as other sources talk of 2,000 (L. Romagnoli, ‘La
rivista Geopolitica (1939–1942) di Giorgio Roletto ed Ernesto Massi’, in Atti del XXVIII Congresso
Geografico Italiano (2003) pp. 3329–3333). In March 1941, Massi joined the army and was then
deployed on the Russian front, leaving Geopolitica in the hands of Roletto and Morichini. It is difficult
to say, though, whether the problems with the distribution of the journal originated from his departure
or from the general difficult conditions in which Italy was gradually plunged after it entered the world
conflict in June 1940.
44. For a visual analysis of these maps see Atkinson, ‘Geopolitics, Cartography and Geographical
Knowledge’ (note 2) and E. Boria, Cartografia e potere (Torino: UTET 2007).
45. Anonymous editorial, Geopolitica 8–9 (1940) p. 373.
46. E. Migliorini, ‘Recensioni e annunzi bibliografici’, Bollettino della Regia Società Geografica
Italiana 6 (1930) p. 622.
47. E. Migliorini, ‘Geopolitica’, in Dizionario di Politica del Partito Nazionale Fascista, Vol. II
(Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana 1940) p. 250.
48. A. R. Toniolo, ‘Crisi della geografia’, Scientia 2–3 (1943) pp. 52.
49. Editorial note, ‘Precisazioni’, Geopolitica 11 (1941) p. 537.
50. M. Antonsich, ‘Dalla Geopolitik alla Geopolitics: Conversione ideologica di una dottrina di
potenza’, Quaderni del Dottorato di Ricerca in Geografia Politica 4 (1994) pp. 19–53 (French translation
 Geopolitica 275

in Stratégique 4 (1995) pp. 53–87). See also G. Ó Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics (Minneapolis: Minnesota
University Press 1996) chapter 4.
51. Anonymous note in Geopolitica 12 (1941) p. 567.
52. E. Migliorini, ‘Una nuova definizione di ‘geopolitica’’, Bollettino della Regia Società Geografica
Italiana (April 1942) p. 166.
53. Anonymous note, ‘I direttori di ‘Geopolitica’ ricevuti dal Duce’, Geopolitica 2 (1939) p. 75. In
Italian, the term coscienza can be translated both as ‘awareness’ and ‘conscience’. It is interesting to
observe that Karl Haushofer used a similar terminology to define geopolitics: “das geographische Gewissen
des Staats” (M. Bassin, ‘Blood or soil? The Völkisch Movement, the Nazis, and the Legacy of Geopolitik’, in
F.-J. Brüggemeier et al. (eds.), How Green were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third
Reich (Athens: Ohio University Press 2005) p. 218). Gewissen clearly stands here for ‘conscience’, i.e., the
source of moral or ethical judgment. Given Massi’s acquaintance with and esteem of Haushofer and his
Geopolitik, we could assume that coscienza should equally be translated with ‘conscience’. Yet, this trans-
lation would sound odd in Italian, as the terms ‘coscienza geografica’, ‘coscienza imperiale’, or ‘coscienza
politica’ would be generally understood as meaning ‘awareness’ or ‘consciousness’, not ‘conscience’.
54. G. Roletto and E. Massi, ‘Per una geopolitica italiana’, Geopolitica 1 (1939) p. 6.
55. K. Haushofer, ‘Der italienischen ‘Geopolitik’ als Dank und Gruss!’, Geopolitica 1 (1939) pp. 12–15.
Wisely enough, however, Haushofer carefully avoided any reference to his Geopolitik, praising instead the
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

practical geopolitics of ancient Romans.

56. Vinci (note 7) p. 122. R. De Felice, Mussolini il Duce. Lo stato totalitario, 1936–1940 (Torino:
Einaudi 1981).
57. F. Farinelli, I segni del mondo (Firenze: La Nuova Italia 1992) p. 235ff.
58. Antonsich, La coscienza geografico (note 37) pp. 100–111.
59. Roletto and Massi, ‘Per una geopolitica italiana’ (note 54) p. 10. Geographical humanism was
the approach attributed to the French geographers Albert Demangeon and André Siegfried.
60. Roletto and Massi, ‘Per una geopolitica italiana’ (note 54) p. 11; Anonymous editorial, ‘Echi e
precisazioni’, Geopolitica 12 (1940) p. 586. On the precursors see: C. Schiffrer, ‘Geografia e politica nel
pensiero di Carlo Cattaneo’, Geopolitica 11 (1939) pp. 578–587; C. Premus, ‘Studi geopolitici sul libro
‘Della nazionalità italiana’ di Giacomo Durando’, Geopolitica 12 (1939) pp. 619–622; A. Scocchi, ‘L’Italia
e i Balcani nel pensiero di Mazzini’, Geopolitica 11 (1940) pp. 486–490; A. Bosisio, ‘Spunti di geografia
politica nel pensiero di Niccolò Machiavelli’, Geopolitica 6–7 (1941) pp. 351–357.
61. It is interesting to note that this distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘practical’ geopolitics would
be theorised, some fifty years later, by Ò Tuathail and Agnew (‘Geopolitics and Discourse – Practical
Geopolitical Reasoning in American Foreign-Policy’, Political Geography 11/2 (1992) pp. 190–204).
62. U. Morichini, ‘Le vicende alterne della concezione geopolitica italiana’, Geopolitica 1 (1939)
pp. 36–41.
63. Ibid., p. 38.
64. R. Pozzi, ‘Autoctonia originaria della razza italiana’, Geopolitica 8–9 (1941) pp. 386–391;
R. Pozzi, ‘Autoctonia originaria della razza italiana’, Geopolitica 10 (1941) pp. 463–471; R. Pozzi, ‘Nostri
problemi della razza’, Geopolitica 5 (1941) pp. 292–293. Also the second version of the Manifesto della
Razza (Manifest of Race) issued on 25 April 1942 propagated the idea of the Italian race as a product of
the mix between Mediterranean and Aryan elements.
65. R. Sertoli Salis, ‘Razza e nazionalità nella pace d’Europa’, Geopolitica 1 (1941) pp. 12–19. On
this specific difference between the German and Italian racial doctrine see also De Felice, Mussolini il
Duce. Lo stato totalitario (note 56) p. 250.
66. B. Mussolini, ‘Italia marinara, avanti!’, Il Popolo d’Italia (18 Dec. 1919) p. 1.
67. Mussolini, Opera omnia, Vol. XXVIII (note 33) p. 71. See also N. Quilici, ‘Mussolini e il Medi-
terraneo’, Il Mediterraneo 1 (1938) pp. 9–13. Delenda Carthago (‘Carthage must be destroyed’) refers to
the Fascist rhetoric of depicting the struggle against Britain in the Mediterranean in terms of the struggle
between Rome and Carthage during the Punic Wars for the control of the Mediterranean.
68. On the notion of Lebensraum see, among others, G. Corni, Il sogno del ‘grande spazio’. Le
politiche di occupazione nell’Europa nazista (Roma-Bari: Laterza 2005).
69. Due to space constraints, it is impossible to discuss in detail all these different notions. It suf-
fices here to say that they all shared the same idea of a great space, economically self-sufficient, led by
Italy. For a further discussion see Antonsich, La coscienza geografico (note 37).
70. E. Massi, ‘L’ora della geopolitica’, Critica Fascista (15 Aug. 1940) pp. 325–328. See also
L. Chersi, ‘Considerazioni geopolitiche sul nuovo ordine internazionale’, Geopolitica 4 (1941) pp. 206–210.
 276 Marco Antonsich

71. Anonymous editorial, Geopolitica 1 (1941) p. 31.

72. Chersi (note 70) p. 208. See also J. Mazzei, ‘Il problema degli ‘spazi vitali’’, Rivista di Studi
Politici Internazionali 3 (1941) pp. 334.
73. R. Sertoli Salis, ‘Razza e nazionalità nella pace d’Europa’, Geopolitica 1 (1941) p. 17.
74. Antonsich, La coscienza geografico (note 37) pp. 131–133.
75. A. Fossati, ‘La ricostruzione economica dell’Europa’, Commercio 9 (1940) p. 5.
76. Anonymous editorial, ‘Panorami’, Geopolitica 10 (1940) p. 400.
77. Roletto and Massi, ‘Per una geopolitica italiana’ (note 54) pp. 8, 11.
78. Antonsich, ‘La rivista ‘Geopolitica’’ (note 7) pp. 276–277.
79. G. Roletto, ‘Geopolitica mediterranea’, in Autori vari (eds.), Problemi economici e demografici
del Mediterraneo (Milano: Giuffré 1942) pp. 104.
80. A. R. Toniolo, ‘L’unità economica e politica del Mediterraneo’, Geopolitica 3 (1941)
pp. 165–169.
81. Ibid., Editors’ introduction, p. 165.
82. E. Massi, ‘Problemi mediterranei’, Geopolitica 12 (1940) pp. 531–540.
83. For a similar discussion in the German geographical and geopolitical tradition, see M. Bassin,
‘Politics from Nature’, in J. Agnew et al. (eds.), A Companion to Political Geography (Oxford: Blackwell
2003) pp. 13–29.
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

84. Caldo (note 4) p. 184

85. G. Jaja, ‘È lo spirito che doma e piega la materia’, Bollettino della Regia Società Geografica
Italiana 2 (1939) pp. 124–142.
86. Anonymous editorial, ‘Perché siamo dei mistici?’, Geopolitica 3 (1940) p. 120.
87. R. Sertoli Salis, ‘La guerra europea, il Mediterraneo orientale e l’Italia’, Geopolitica 10 (1939)
pp. 522–526.
88. P. D’Agostino Orsini, ‘Le direttrici geopolitiche dell’espansione italiana alla Mostra delle Terre
d’Oltremare’, Rassegna Sociale dell’Africa Italiana 5–6 (1940) p. 382.
89. De Felice, Mussolini il Duce. Lo stato totalitario (note 56) pp. 321–325. On Mussolini’s policy
towards the Muslims see R. De Felice, Il Fascismo e l’Oriente. Arabi, ebrei e indiani nella politica di
Mussolini (Bologna: Il Mulino 1988).
90. France had always been considered as the traditional rival by Italian naval strategists. See
Antonsich, ‘Géopolitique méditerranéenne’ (note 7).
91. T. Botz-Bornstein, ‘European transfigurations – Eurafrica and Eurasia: Coudenhove and
Trubetzkoy revisited’, The European Legacy 12/5 (2007) pp. 565–575; J. O’ Loughlin and H. van der
Wusten, ‘Political Geography of Panregions’, The Geographical Review 80/1 (1990) pp. 1–20.
92. Corriere Africano (1 Dec. 1930). See also P. D’Agostino Orsini, Eurafrica. L’Europa per
l’Africa, l’Africa per l’Europa (Roma: Cremonese 1934).
93. Rather than the ideas of Coudenhove-Kalergi, D’Agostino Orsini engaged the Eurafrican
project of the French Guernier, which he saw as the expression of the imperial interests of France and
Britain. See E. L. Guernier, L’Afrique, Champ d’expansion de l’Europe (Paris: Armand Colin 1933).
94. A. Biondo, ‘La Transafricana italiana’, Geopolitica 12 (1941) pp. 569–575.
95. Antonsich, ‘Eurafrica’ (note 7). It is interesting to note that today the term ‘Eurafrica’ has been
put forward again by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in his project for a partnership between
Europe and Africa (D. Flynn, ‘Sarkozy Proposes ‘Eurafrica’ Partnership on Tour’, Reuters-Africa (27 July
2007), available at <http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN723359.html>, accessed 11 Jan. 2008.
96. H. Heske, ‘Karl Haushofer: His Role in German Geopolitics and in Nazi Politics’, Political
Geography Quarterly 6/2 (1987) pp. 135–144.
97. Personal interview with Ernesto Massi, Rome, 15 Nov. 1991.
98. Vinci (note 7).
99. Gambi, Una geografia (note 26).
100. Ò Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics (note 50) p. 21 ff.
101. In Germany, the distinction between (political) geography and geopolitics along the para-
digm ‘science’ vs. ‘ideology’ was drawn by Carl Troll in an article originally published in Erdkunde
(1947) and then translated in English (C. Troll, ‘Geographic Science in Germany during the Period
1933–1945. A critique and justification’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 39 (1949)
pp. 99–137. Yet, this distinction does not hold against a detailed historical account, as shown by M. Fahl-
busch, M. Roessler, and D. Siegrist, ‘Conservatism, Ideology and Geography in Germany 1920–1950’,
Political Geography Quarterly 8/4 (1989) pp. 353–367; H. Heske, ‘German Geographical Research in the
 Geopolitica 277

Nazi Period: A Content Analysis of the Major Geography Journals, 1925–1945’, Political Geography Quar-
terly 5/3 (1986) pp. 267–281; K. Kost, ‘The Conception of Politics in Political Geography and Geopolitics
in Germany until 1945’, Political Geography Quarterly 8/4 (1989), pp. 369–385. A similar distinction was
raised in the USA by Isaiah Bowman, ‘Geography vs. Geopolitics’, The Geographical Review 32/4 (1942)
646–658. For a critical reading see G. Ó Tuathail, ‘The Critical Reading/Writing of Geopolitics: Re-Reading/
Writing Wittfogel, Bowman and Lacoste’, Progress in Human Geography 18/3 (1994) pp. 313–332.
102. J. J. Thorndike, Jr., ‘Geopolitics: The Lurid Career of a Scientific System which a Briton
Invented, the German Used and Americans Need to Study’, Life 13/25 (1942) pp. 106–115. See also
Antonsich, ‘Dalla Geopolitik alla Geopolitics: Conversione ideologica di una dottrina di potenza’, Quaderni
del Dottorato di Ricerca in Geografia Politica. Universita’ di Trieste 4 (1994) pp. 19–53 (French translation:
‘De la Geopolitik à la Geopolitics’, Stratégique 4 (1995) pp. 53–87).
103. An important point to note in this regard, though, is the fact that, while in the 1930s–1940s
the idea of geopolitics as a disciplina di sintesi also relied on the contributions of physical geography,
this latter input has almost disappeared from the arrays of disciplines which inform the present ways of
doing human geography.
104. First published in 1993, under the guidance of Lucio Caracciolo and Michel Korinman, Limes
has become rather suddenly an editorial success, as testified today by the 35,000–40,000 copies printed
for each issue.
Downloaded By: [Royal Holloway University] At: 18:04 20 May 2009

105. Bruno Bottai, former secretary general of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and son of
Giuseppe Bottai, is a member of the editorial board of Limes.
106. M. Antonsich et al. (eds.), Europe between Political Geography and Geopolitics. On the Cente-
nary of Ratzel’s ‘Politische Geographie’ (Rome: Memorie della Società Geografica Italiana 2001); G. Ferro
(ed.), Dalla geografia politica alla geopolitica (Rome: Memorie della Società Geografica Italiana 1994).
The renewed interest in the history of geopolitics was marked also by the series of colloquia organised
in 1994–1995 at the University of Trieste by Marco Antonsich and Maria Paola Pagnini, under the name
Giornate Triestine di Geopolitica. Unfortunately the proceedings of these conferences, attended by well-
known Italian geographers, have been published only irregularly in the bulletin Quaderni del Dottorato
di Ricerca in Geografia Politica, University of Trieste, Faculty of Political Science.
107. This research trend developed around the Istituto Geopolitico F. Compagna, created in the
early 1990s by Tullio d’Aponte at the University of Naples ‘Federico II’. An introduction to this form of
geopolitics is T. D’Aponte, ‘I ‘tempi’ della geopolitica: Dal ‘dominio dello spazio’ alla ‘cultura politica del
territorio’’, in G. Ferro (ed.), Dalla geografia politica alla geopolitica (Rome: Memorie della Società
Geografica Italiana 1994) pp. 149–158. It is interesting to note that, although D’Aponte and his
colleagues do not refer to Geopolitica, this journal already mentioned in 1939 that, because of autarchic
exigencies, among the duties of the geopoliticians there were also those related to land use planning
(Anonymous editorial, ‘Valorizzare gli studi geografici’, Geopolitica 3 (1940) pp. 95–96). A similar
approach is also adopted by G. Bettoni, Dalla geografia alla geopolitica (Milano: Franco Angeli 2004).
108. G. Ferro, Fondamenti di geografia politica e geopolitica. Politica del territoio e dell’ambiente
(Milano: Giuffré 1993); A. Vallega, Geopolitica e sviluppo sostenibile. Il sistema mondo del XXI secolo
(Milano: Mursia 1994); G. Corna Pellegrini and E. Dell’Agnese, Manuale di geografia politica (Roma: La
Nuova Italia Scientifica 1995); G. Lizza, Territorio e potere. Itinerari di geografia politica (Torino: UTET
1996); P. Fabbri, Istituzioni di geografia politica (Bologna: Clueb 2000); M. Casari, G. Corna Pellegrini,
and F. Eva, Elementi di geografia economica e politica (Roma: Carocci 2002). A notable exception is the
more recent textbook by E. Dell’Agnese, Geografia politica critica (Milano: Guerini 2005), where the
author openly engages with critical geopolitics.