San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-09-17
EXPLAINING MUSSOLINI

To those who have overlooked none
OF the important details in the develop
ment OF the dispute between Italy and
Greece the thought must have occurred
that there is no provision in the settle
ment terms of the Council OF Ambassa-
doris that might not have been proposed
bv the League Council had the latter
BODY taken action in the matter. Then
what does Italy's quick acceptance OF
the ambassadors proposition signify?
Although no absolutely dependable
answer to that question may be given,
the actions and utterances of the ltal-
ians afford highly plausible explana-
ton Perhaps there were two factors
in Premier MusseEni's. wilful attitude
At the outset. it seems. he has determined
to settle the controversy in his own
wav. and to brook no outside interior
ence: the world must be given to under
stand that Italy was a powerful ma
ton. And apparently the Italian prime
minister was constitutionally averse to
submitting to any authority that even
purported to have the power TO enforce
its decisions over his own wishes.
If such was his spirit, then it is logi-
cal to assume that he would have re-
fused to accept from the League Coun-
Gil. as the formal. mandatory decision
OF that body, idcntically the same terms
as those proposed by the Council OF
Ambassadors. Coming from the latter
body the settlement terms seem to have
had the merit, in Mussolini's eyes, OF
being merely a suggestion, which he
was free to reject if he should see fit
TO do so. He simply didn't relish the
idea of being coerced.
In that feeling, apart from any con-
sideration of the fact that Italy had
certain pre-incurred obligations as a
member of the League, Americans may
be able to sympathize with Mussolini.
But apparently, if his first utterances
reveal the length and breadth of his
aims, his wilfulness was not an express
sion merely Of his aversion TO the League
and what it represented of the phil
osophy of coercion. He seems to have
counted upon the moral support Of
nations that were not members of the
League. When they, as we'll as the
member nations, not only failed to eX-
tend the sympathy he had anticipated
but unofficially condemned his course
as being unworthy of any civilized ma
ton protesting TO love peace and abhol
war. League or no League. internationa
law or no International law, then he
Reconsideration upon second thought
decided that, if almost the entire world
was against him. he would have littlc
chance of glorifying Italy by persisting
in that course.
If this be true, then the proposition
OF the Council of Ambassadors mus
have seemed to him a boon which hi
must quickly embrace. 1t afforded hin
an opportunity to cxtricate himself from
She dilemma into which his faulty pre-
Judgment OF the worlds attitude toward
his plans had cast him. By accepting
1.-The suggestion of the ambassadors HI
could yet get credit for being a peace
loving statesman.
From the Graeco-Italian controversy
as presented in this light. the world may
learn lesson valuable for possible fu
ture use. There will always be nation!
that, like Italy, would recoil from thu
prospect CT coercion in the settlement o
disputes directly affecting them. Ma