[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: foto-stazione[1].jpg (384 KB, 1824x1196)
384 KB
384 KB JPG
Who actually 'won' Italy's years of lead? Because it kind of seems like both sides lost. The right-wingers failed to take over power and install a new Mussolini. The left-wingers failed to implement any sort of Italo-communist order, and politicians like Bettino Craxi who played around with socialist ideas sold out and abandoned their former supporters once they achieved power.

The main victors seem to be the neoliberals and bankers who wanted to financialize Italy's resources. They gained power over time, while both far-right and far-left factions lost influence by the end of the anni di piombo. Why is this, though? Why didn't the partisans fight harder for what they wanted, instead of surrendering to a bunch of neoliberals who had sat ought the fighting?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.