Yuri Sgherri | Communist Youth Federation (Italy)
Thanking and Greetings
Before I dwell into my own topic i must spend a few words to congratulate and thank everybody who made this event possible and each of you who decided to attend this Conference. I thank the Organizing Committee of the International Scientific conference dedicated to the 73rd anniversary of the Victory in the Korean War, the Embassy of the DPRK in the Russian federation, the DPRK International Solidarity Group, the Russian Society for Friendship and Cultural Cooperation with the DPRK, the World Anti-imperialist Platform and the International Association of Peace Foundations. Last but not least i must thank Alexander Mostov, director of the 4th Department of the DPRK ISG who gave me the chance to be here.
Introduction
The historical experience of the DPRK should represent for Italian Communists a glorious example of the potentiality of self-reliance in the struggle against imperialism. Western communists for so long overlooked the importance of political, economical and military independence to make socialism a viable path and not simply a messianic mirage.
American imperialism has been the primary threat to world peace since the end of the Second World War. The Korean War was the first major conflict in which the brutality of American military intervention became evident to millions of people across the world.
At the time of the beginning of the Korean War, Yugoslavia was the only “rogue state” of the International Communist Movement and inside the capitalist world, communist forces were the leading forces of peace, of anti-imperialist struggle.
My argument today is that the Italian Communist movement and the broader peace movement played a decisive role in preventing a direct military involvement of Italy in the Korean War.
The role of Italy in the Korean War
It is well known that UN Security Council Resolution 82 of 25 June 1950 was used in the war for justifying direct military intervention by US forces. The first and subsequent Resolutions also allowed US to exercise diplomatic pressure on other UN members to join the American warmongers. This was the case for Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey.
Italy was in a different situation. Article 53 of the UN Charter define Italy as an enemy state; it was not a member until late 1955 so it had no international obligation to join the imperialist war by any means. Still, by the same day the Italian Government communicated to the UN Security Council not commitment but solidarity to American Korea. On 27 September 1950 Italy offered to send a field hospital.
The medical mission arrived in Korea in October 1950. Italian personnel were initially provided with outdated medical equipment, and no surgeons were assigned until 1952. They also received the same uniforms and tents previously used in Somalia, which proved unsuitable for the Korean winter. As a result, the Italians had to request winter clothing from the American forces and eventually established the hospital inside a school building to protect both patients and staff from the freezing temperatures.
To sum up, Italian presence in the Korean war has been limited to the presence of one field hospital in Seoul which by the end of the war had reached 200 beds and 71 volunteers. No direct military participation was registered despite imperialist pressure.
The role of Italian Communist in preventing direct military involvement in the Korean War
Historians often focus on what happened. However, what did not happen can sometimes be equally revealing. The absence of direct Italian military participation in the Korean War allows us to draw important conclusions about the balance of political forces within Italy in 1950.
First, it is true, Italy did not belong to the UN in 1950. There were no international obligations for the country to join the war but eventually interest in aligning to the UN with the hope of soon joining them. However, strong political pressure from Washington has been historically confirmed. informal pressure was recorded through the US Embassy in Rome against Italian Government. A substantial source of pressure was coming from the fact that in 1950 Italy was still part of the European Recovery Program, the country’s growth depended on it in the aftermath of the war.
Repeatedly, the US asked Italy to join the war effort by sending a Division or an escort vessel.
What we already know is that by the 27 of September 1950 Italian Government decided to not give up completely to American pressure and instead settled for sending the notorious field hospital.
What, then, led Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi to reject direct military participation despite Italy’s political and economic dependence on the United States?
I argue that the decisive factor was the strength of the Italian anti-imperialist movement, led primarily by the Italian Communist Party and supported by a broad network of socialist, trade-union and other organizations.
In 1949 the World Peace Congress of Paris founded the international movement of “Partisans of Peace” which in Italy were led by the communist party. the Italian Communist Party together with Socialists and other political forces conducted bravely struggle against American Imperialism both inside and outside the Parliament.
Pietro Nenni, Secretary of the Italian Socialist Party, described the conflict as a national liberation struggle for the Korean people. Palmiro Togliatti, Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, denounced the American intervention as an act of aggression against a national liberation movement.
The anti-imperialist movement had already demonstrated its strength during the debate over Italy’s accession to NATO in 1949. De Gasperi was fully aware of the political tensions generated by that decision and sought to avoid provoking another wave of mass mobilization by committing Italian troops to Korea. The decision to limit Italy’s contribution to a medical mission reflected not international constraints but the domestic balance of political forces.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the experience of the DPRK teaches us that peace is not preserved through concessions to imperialism. The Korean people secured peace because they were able to defeat imperialist aggression through their own strength and determination. History shows that negotiations alone cannot guarantee peace; rather, meaningful negotiations become possible only when imperialism is confronted by a force capable of resisting it.
The Italian case offers a different but complementary lesson. The anti-imperialist movement in a capitalist country cannot usually determine events as decisively as a socialist state defending its sovereignty. Nevertheless, it can still exercise real political influence. The fact that Italy ultimately refrained from sending combat troops to Korea illustrates how a strong communist and peace movement can shape government decisions, even indirectly.
These achievements are often difficult to recognize precisely because they are indirect. It is easy to measure the results of battles that were fought, but much harder to measure the wars that were limited, the interventions that never took place, or the political decisions that were altered. For this reason, anti-imperialist movements should never underestimate their own historical role. Even when victories are not immediately visible, they can leave a lasting impact on the course of events.
For us, this is not only a historical lesson but also a political one. The struggle against imperialism must continue both in the countries that defend their sovereignty and within the imperialist states themselves. Different fronts of the same struggle can contribute to the same objective: resisting imperialism and defending peace.
