_With Whom and Where?_ History learned from far-off events teaches men little; but that which we see written daily under our eyes ought to be more successful. Now these chronicles of every day tell us that revolution is made with an army and not against an army; with arms, not without arms; with movements of trained squadrons, not with the untrained masses called to meetings in the squares. They succeed when they are made in an atmosphere of sympathy on the part of the majority; if this is lacking they die down and fail. Now in Fiume the army and navy did not fail. A certain revolutionary spirit of the eleventh hour did not take definite shape; it was the work sometimes of anarchists and sometimes of Nationalists. According to some emissaries it was possible to put the devil and holy water together, the nation and that which was against the nation: Misiano and Del Croix. Now I reject all forms of Bolshevism, but if I were obliged to choose one, I should choose that of Moscow and Lenin, if for no other reason because at least it has gigantic, barbaric and universal proportions. What revolution was it to be, then? National or Bolshevist? A great uncertainty, complicated by a great many minor considerations, confused men’s minds, while the nation, in a mood of revolt against that which had happened round Fiume, abandoned itself to an attitude of grief, in which the only bright spot was the hope that the episode would retain its local character and come quickly to a peaceful conclusion. _Hypotheses and Certainties._ If there had been an insurrection on our part—and this was not possible owing to the armed forces which the Government had at its disposal—there must have been one of two results: defeat or victory. In the first case, everything would have been irretrievably lost in the abyss of civil war. Let us, for the sake of argument, presuppose the second hypothesis: that of victory with the fall of the Government and of the régime. After the more or less easy period of demolition, what form would the revolution take? Social, as some Bolshevists wish—those with the motto “Always further Left,” the equivalent of the grotesque “Go to the reddest”—or national, Dalmatian and reactionary, as others desire?