Nonsense or not, this deserves a glance. I've been forwarded a note by Loris Palmerini, who declares that "the Italian Republic has no legal consistence. We may say, it does not exist". Reason: the 1946 referendum (when italian citizens were called to choose between becoming a new republic or continuing being ruled by the king) was illegal, because millions could not vote. In fact in 1946 - Palmerini says - also Istria (Capodistria, Pola), Dalmatia (Spalato, Zara) and the Adriatic islands (of former Yugoslavia) were territory of the italian state, occupied by Titus' troops: they passed to Yugoslavia only in 1947 with the Paris treaty. Though the italian residents living there had the right to vote, no voting site was held in those regions in 1946. More: also the ones who had escaped the local genocide and flew to Italy had no possibility to vote (hundreds of thousands, who according to Palmerini were likely to be in favor of the monarchy). "There was chaos and the civil war going on" Palmerini admits. "But millions of people could not vote: also Trieste, Bolzano and the whole Friuli; was this referendum legal?". Consider the final results of the referendum: 12.717.923 voted for the republic, 10.719.284 for the monarchy."
The thought of rewriting history is fascinating. And shocking. Right now, I have no idea if Palmerini is right: his comments may be seen with suspicion as he signs as the “President of the Tribunal of the Veneto People”, he says that the republic is illegal and a sort of a "coup d’etat". He's not the first one to promote these ideas.
Read more...
To be continued... or not?
