Massacre of the Acqui Division

Following the decision of the Italian government to negotiate a surrender to the Allies in 1943, the German Army tried to disarm the Italians during Operation Achse. On 13 September the Italians of the Acqui resisted, and fought the Germans on the island of Cephalonia. By 22 September the last of the Italian resistance surrendered after running out of ammunition. A total of 1,315 Italians were killed in the battle, 5,155 were executed by 26 September, and 3,000 drowned when the German ships taking the survivors to concentration camps were sunk by the Allies. It was one of the largest prisoner of war massacres of the war, along with the Katyn massacre,^[4][5] and it was one of many atrocities committed by the 1st Mountain Division (German: 1. Gebirgs Division).^[6]

Interpretations and perspectives on the Cephalonia Massacre: the historical debate in Italy[edit]

In Italy, the traditional interpretation of the Cephalonia Massacre places the event in the context of the Resistance against Nazi-fascism. Within this framework, there are readings that view the soldiers of the Acqui Division as genuine anti-fascists. There are also interpretations that see them as patriots who decided not to surrender their weapons and decided to fight and die for their country. In both cases, the resistance nature of the event lies in the awareness of choice, which transforms those soldiers from mere executors of orders into "volunteer" fighters. Despite the Acqui Division having fought the Germans following an order from the Supreme Command, in fact, the majority of its troops expressed the desire to oppose the Germans before such order arrived on the island.


According to this interpretation, the choice to resist the Germans, voluntary and conscious, was also majority, if not plebiscitary: therefore, the Division faced the clash as a compact force. From this point of view, the well-established disputes that emerged before the battle between the "rebel" officers and the "hesitator" Gandin are interpreted as the opposition between the impetuosity of young men eager to fight and the wise family man negotiating with the Germans, who would like to save the honor of the arms and the lives of his soldiers: a simple generational contrast that does not question the unity of intentions between the commander and his subordinates.


These are the pillars upon which the idea of Cephalonia as the "first act of the Resistance"^[34] is based, often mentioned in memoirs and present in the work of authoritative historians.


From the very beginning, polemical readings of the facts have opposed the canonical interpretation: on the one hand, some survivors expressed very critical judgments against the actions of General Gandin, considered too weak or even intending to betray to bring the Division into the German field; on the other hand, others accused some young officers, predominantly reserves, identifying in their rebellion against Gandin the main cause of a useless clash and the fierce reprisal that followed.


The fracture among the survivors corresponds to two historiographical interpretations of the facts that, although diametrically opposed, can both be traced within the realm of revisionism, understood as criticism of the dominant thought.


The historical researcher Massimo Filippini^[35] accuses the young 'rebel' officers. The main culprit, among the many who immediately sided with the clash against the Germans, is identified in the person of Captain Renzo Apollonio, to whom Filippini also attributes the disgrace of having collaborated with the Germans after the battle. According to Filippini, Apollonio and the others were guilty of insubordination, conspiracy, and rebellion, hindering Gandin's work, who, far from wanting to betray, was only seeking a peaceful and, above all, honorable solution to the complicated situation in which the Division found itself. Note that the hypothesis of incitement, together with a critical judgment on the action of Apollonio, has recently been taken up by a historian of undisputed value such as Elena Aga Rossi.^[36]


But Filippini's revisionism goes further; he is indeed one of the supporters of the legitimacy of the execution of Italian prisoners, basing his affirmation on the well-known argument that, in the absence of a declaration of war, these were to be considered franc-tireurs, an argument devoid of legal basis, as detailed by Marco De Paolis.^[37]


Opposed to those of Filippini and Aga Rossi are the theses of the historian Paolo Paoletti,^[38] the main accuser of Gandin, according to whom the general acted with the intention of leading the Division into the German field after the armistice. Paoletti goes beyond the accusations of ineptitude and weakness commonly directed at the general by his detractors: Gandin, from the outset, intended to hand over the armed division to the Germans to continue fighting alongside them and, to this end, negotiated with them. Reversing Filippini's view, according to Paoletti, the young "rebel" officers and, in particular, Captain Renzo Apollonio were heroes, whose initiative thwarted the plan of the "traitor" Gandin. Therefore, Gandin betrayed his own country, trying to bring the Division over to the enemy's side, but he also betrayed the Germans when, forced by his subordinates, he ordered the Acqui to fight against the Wehrmacht; for this reason, according to Paoletti, Gandin was not shot alongside the other officers.


More recently, interpretations have been added to the canonical and revisionist readings of the affair, shifting the choice of the soldiers of the Acqui from the ideological sphere to the moral one. According to Gian Enrico Rusconi,^[39] the first desire of those men was to return home, but not at all costs: keeping their weapons, safely and honorably, as befits a soldier who has done his duty. This is a significant downsizing of the epic of Cephalonia, which, however, does not deprive the soldiers of the Acqui of a 'heroic' aspect: not the heroism of the political martyr or the soldier faithful to the extreme sacrifice, but that of the good family man who tries to make his way back home, refusing to yield to dishonorable compromises.


Even Patrizia Gabrielli^[40] proposes an unconventional reading of the facts, according with her the distance from home, the loss of the role of head of the family, now fully covered by the women at home, the apathy and frustration due to the long inactivity may have pushed those men to fight to reclaim, against the humiliating conditions imposed by the Germans, their dignity, which actually never failed during that apparent holiday that, unlike what is described in the film 'Mediterraneo', did not make them lose their sense of responsibility.


Finally, Silvio Olivero^[41] tries to mediate between the different interpretations. Olivero, noting the diversity of views that characterized the soldiers of the Acqui in the approach to the clash and the multiplicity of possible motivations that led them to fight, all plausible and worthy of being remembered, identifies the main merit of those men precisely in their capacity to smooth over differences. According to Olivero: "Moved by such different motivations (loyalty to the Crown, military obedience, anti-fascism, the desire for redemption, the desire to return home honorably), the soldiers of the Acqui were therefore the first Italians to leave behind the fierce divisions that in Italy would have caused countless deaths";^[42] in Cephalonia "the divisions that in Italy would have led to civil war were revealed, but the soldiers of the Acqui knew how to overcome them: they were the first fighters of the Resistance, but also - and above all - the first Italians who regained unity by overcoming the differences that opposed them".^[43]