Gaetano Salvemini (1873–1957) is one of the most influential intellectuals of Italian and European twentieth-century history. As 2023 marks the 150th anniversary of Salvemini's birth, this special issue of Modern Italy aims to attract the attention of an international readership and contribute to filling the gap in scholarly publications in English, offering a tool to approach Salvemini's intellectual production and biography. We have chosen to focus on four aspects of Salvemini's life that we consider particularly suitable for introducing his personal trajectory and the evolution of his thinking, adopting a transnational approach: his interpretation of the Great War and the Adriatic question; his antifascist exile in Great Britain and, from 1934, in the United States; and the publication of his most important studies on Fascist Italy. The choice of these topics aims to shed light on Salvemini's contacts and stimulating exchanges with foreign scholars, his international experiences, and how these transformed his ideas on Liberal and Fascist Italy.

In 1958, A.J.P. Taylor's essay The Troublemakers explored the tradition of dissent against power politics in the United Kingdom. Gaetano Salvemini, who had always shown a consistent interest in British political and cultural debates, shared many of the positions put forward by these ‘troublemakers’, such as free trade, the fight against military expenditure, and suspicions regarding standing armies. At the outbreak of the First World War, Salvemini used these arguments to support Italy's involvement in the war against autocratic and militarist central powers. Salvemini's journal L'Unità reported the stances expressed by a ‘troublemaker network’ called the Union of Democratic Control, despite their criticism of the United Kingdom's line of action during the war. In the course of the conflict, Salvemini kept in close contact with a specific group of ‘troublemakers’ around Robert Seton-Watson's journal The New Europe. Salvemini championed The New Europe's fight for subject nationalities in the Habsburg Empire, though he criticised their support of Yugoslavian claims to Istria, Trieste and Venezia Giulia. This essay will focus on the complex relationship between Salvemini and these British ‘troublemakers’ through the former's writings and correspondence.

In 1925 the Fascist dictatorship forced Gaetano Salvemini to leave Italy and begin a new life in exile. Salvemini understood he could find political and financial support in London to achieve two main aims: to live a decent life as an antifascist exile and fight the Fascist dictatorship from abroad. Thanks to a network encompassing intellectuals, academics, journalists, and politicians, London provided Salvemini with a platform for sharing antifascist stances outside Italy. This essay will develop research on this topic by taking into account Salvemini's conference speeches, articles, books, and essays written while in Britain, from 1925 to 1934. The corpus of the selected texts will show that Salvemini carefully singled out topics that were able to attract the attention of a foreign audience, particularly British public opinion. Therefore, the analysis of Salvemini's intellectual production during this period and the reaction of the press will contribute to cast a new light on his antifascist strategies; in other words, it will lead to a consideration of the extent to which being part of a British intellectual network transformed his approach to the antifascist struggle.

This essay analyses Salvemini's major works on Fascism, namely The Fascist Dictatorship in Italy (1927), Mussolini Diplomate (1932) and Under the Axe of Fascism (1936). The focus of this analysis is twofold: to explore both Salvemini's methodology and the events leading to the publication of these works. In The Fascist Dictatorship in Italy, Salvemini examines the origins and the rise of Mussolini's movement, highlighting the complicity of the monarchy, the army, and industrial magnates. In Mussolini Diplomate, he analyses Fascist foreign policy from 1922 to 1932, in which Salvemini is unable to identify a consistent strategy, but only a propagandistic approach aiming to foster diplomatic relations. In Under the Axe of Fascism, Salvemini dissects Fascist economics, debunking the idea that the corporate state was an original and equitable compromise in the conflict between capital and labour, as was being portrayed abroad. An analysis of these three volumes brings into focus some noteworthy aspects of Salvemini's so-called ‘historiographical workshop’, which have hitherto been overlooked by historians (such as his adept use of sources and his endeavour to combine social sciences and economics), as well as underscoring his ability to forge cultural and intellectual networks, an essential element for undertaking such a complex task.

Long neglected, Gaetano Salvemini's years of exile (1925–1949) now constitute a crucial period for reconsidering his intellectual and political profile. This article intends first to propose an overall interpretation of Salvemini's exile that considers the years 1919 to 1925 as the culmination of a profound turning point in his life. The central part of the essay is devoted to reconstructing the genesis of Salvemini's relationship with the United States and dwells on the reflections written after his first trip overseas in 1927. In them it is possible to find a clear analysis of the impact of Fascist propaganda on American soil and a definition of the tasks that exiles were called upon to perform in their host countries. Building on these premises, the study rereads Salvemini's years of American exile by focusing on three aspects. Firstly, his great ability to adapt to the American academic world. Secondly, his commitment to the field of research, with works dedicated to the study of Fascism, some centred on a reinterpretation of the concept of democracy and others on the methodology of history. Thirdly, his prodigious activity carried out in the antifascist struggle.

The ‘Fact Checking’ series of titles published by Laterza since 2020 is, in the first place, a response to the proliferation of historical fake news, which has grown exponentially as a consequence of social networks. But it is also a response to an increasingly systematic political abuse of history – not only in Italy. The authors and the public firmly believe in the necessity of restoring complexity and value to historical research, as well as in the importance of playing a significant role in the public debate about our past. In many ways the political use of history works in an authoritarian and anti-democratic manner, spreading erroneous and dangerous convictions among broad sections of society. Among the examples which appear in various sections of the article, we discuss the books in the series which problematise the ‘official’ and victimist version of events which took place on the Italian-Yugoslavian border at the end of the Second World War. Other parts of the article examine the instrumental readings of the history and experience of twentieth-century communism.

If the ‘colour line’ was prophetically defined as the issue of the twentieth century, in the twenty-first century the concern of many scholars is with the research methodology that the attention on the colour line has generated. Migration, postcolonial, and blackness studies focusing on Italy have all asked fundamental questions on how to reframe history, memory, and culture. Charles Burdett (2018) has posited that migration and mobility are vital for the repositioning of the discipline of Italian Studies and Modern Languages as a whole. Critics have argued that Italian Black literature is redefining Italian literature (Romeo 2017) and its reception (Patriarca 2018). Alessandra Ciucci's recent monograph The Voice of the Rural: Music, Poetry and Masculinity among Migrant Moroccan Men in Umbria (2022) and the volume The Black Mediterranean: Borders, Bodies and Citizenship (2021) edited by the Black Mediterranean Collective contribute to this discussion. Both books offer new approaches to analyse migration and deconstruct Eurocentrism. They both emphasise the migrants’ agency and theorise the researcher's position as a tool for the decolonisation of culture.