The Purging of Fascist Economists in Post-war Italy

Cardia reconstructs the tortuous route of a cumbersome procedure that did not resolve the overlap between two different normative roots: “the de-fascistification or purge intended as the removal or discrimination of public employees and elements compromised by fascism; the purge, understood as a punishment for illicit gains and crimes committed during fascism” (2005, p. 36). These two approaches had different rules and systems of sanction.

Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, DGIS, Div. i, Professori universitari, Epurazione (1945–1947), bb. 34, 369 personal folders (henceforth EP) with additions from the Consiglio di Stato: Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Consiglio di Stato, Sezione speciale per l’epurazione, Fascicoli dei ricorsi (1945–1952), prot. 5879 (1946), Gangemi Raffaele, prot. 9169 (1946), Amoroso Luigi (henceforth CS). Unless otherwise specified, the quotations are taken from the defence depositions made by the economists in the hearings. They are referred to using only the date and page range.

That is, someone who joined the Fascist Party before 28 October 1922, the date of the March on Rome that brought Mussolini to power.

That is, someone belonging to a fascist action squad.

See also Archivio Storico INA Assitalia, Fondo dei Vertici INA, 1943–1948, s. iii, f. 15, doc. 1–9.

Cardia has drawn up a division of the senators into their professions, according to which there were sixty-six university teachers and sixteen names in common with the registers of the Ministry of Public Education. Brizi, Serpieri. Einaudi, Flora, Medolaghi and Sitta are included only among those judged by the senate, with only Einaudi not referred for openly anti-fascist conduct. All the others were acquitted on 8 July 1948 (the date of the abolition of the Royal Senate and their forfeiture of office).

From this comes the central position of the University of Rome (twelve procedures) followed by Naples and Florence (five), Bari, Catania and Turin (three), with four significant exceptions (Bologna, Milan, Padua and Pisa).

Indicted for defending fascism and for writing the preface to Mussolini e la sua opera (Arena 1928), in support of the writings and speeches of the Duce.

There are various versions of these files. The most widespread was divided into thirty-nine points: generalities; membership of the National Fascist Party (before 1922, March on Rome, etc.); party positions and assignments; “Has he been involved in racial duties or commissions? […] Did he produce racial publications or take part in racial conferences? […]” (no. 16); career, advancements and honours; publications; politically sensitive works, speeches or conferences; military career; membership of the Republican Fascist Party; activities and behaviour after 8 September. Only a few had attachments, not being satisfied with the limited space and the many yes/no questions. Of the economists the only ones were Amoroso, Gribaudi and Mazzei.

The most effective papers in this regard are of course those in support of acts of private heroism, brought to light only because they were required for the defences. There are documents relating to support or direct involvement in the resistance (D’Addario, De Castro, Fantini), enrolment in the Allied forces (da Empoli, De Castro), the opening of their homes and the institutes they headed to people persecuted for political or racial reasons (Bandini, Fantini, Griziotti, Mazzei), the selection of such people as assistants (Fantini, Griziotti, Mazzei); attributing false service or study assignments to wanted persons to help escape detection (Fantini, Griziotti, Mazzei, Marsili Libelli), the organisation of exams for persecuted or students not complying with conscription documents (Fantini); the protection of German colleagues escaping from the nazis (Griziotti for Albert Hensel), placing pupils bound for Germany into the safekeeping of sworn enemies of nazism (who then, in turn, became exiles) and of “a healthy economic school” (Cova placed under the protection of Palyi and Lederer by Griziotti), the search for safe locations abroad for those most in danger (Griziotti once more, for Dino Jarach); generosity in granting material and financial aid to the needy (Fantini, Griziotti, Mazzei, Marsili Libelli); tip-offs to those under police surveillance, warning them to go to ground and collaborating in the destruction of compromising papers (Fantini), the use of medals of honour from the Great War as a permit to confer with the military and obtain the release of political prisoners and the participation and organisation of escape plans from military prisons (also Fantini).

Amoroso rose to become a symbol of this hypocrisy: “Can the young like us, who have been betrayed more than any others, allow a man who once tried to deceive us by exalting and incensing a tyrant and all his system of oppression and ugliness to continue to hold the positions that he soiled and contaminated, and that with the most shameless audacity he be allowed to tell us that he played a double game” (ibid., verso). Gangemi was no less so: “The Gangemi who today throws over his shoulder the white mantle of the lamb and seeks protection and aid must certainly be eliminated from the school if we wants to give it back the dignity and the decorum that they want for it” (CS, Gangemi, Lettera di A. Tarchi, 11 August 1944, verso).

Due to the accusations relating to his co-editorship of the Rivista Italiana di Statistica, his Principii di economia corporativa and his participation in international scientific congresses in which he spread fascist principles with the power of his dialectics.

De Meo, for example, is described as: “the perfect example of a man who fornicated with fascism, enjoying its protection and privileges without ever appearing in the limelight” (EP, b. 12, Commissariato Aggiunto per l’Epurazione…, 9 February 1945). When the political patronage went beyond the limits of common decency, it was compared to a parental relationship. This is the case of the Catanese Santi Floridia, known as the “son of the illustrious Minister Acerbo” (b. 13, Floridia, Trascrizione della lettera di Rosario Pennisi, n.d.).

De Francisci had been chancellor of the Sapienza University of Rome (1930–1932; 1935–1944) and, between fascism and the Republic, Minister of Grace and Justice.

Such was Einaudi’s authority that the meaning of that letter is incorporated in the opinion of the Council of State: “the exposition of corporative economics contained within responded purely to educational needs, since that was the qualification of the professorship and the course.”

The ratio can be deduced from the censors of De Francisci Gerbino. According to them it was necessary to beat up the “bad teachers” who pretended “to want to write ‘a school book’ to make a biased point” and the managers […] who in the transition “continue[d] to [enable] secretly the functioning [of the old system by influencing] what in the fascist language were called capillary veins” See, further, EP, b. 11, Lettera del Centro Antifascista Italiano, Sezione di Palermo (n.d.); ibid., Denunzia presentata dal Sig. Pietro Grado (n.d.).

Leonardo Severi was Minister of National Education after the fall of fascism, from July 1943, in the first government presided by Marshal Pietro Badoglio.