In spite of the recent transnational turn, there continues to be a considerable gap between Fascist studies and the new approaches to the transitions, imperial collapses, and legacies of post–World War I Europe. This article posits itself at the crossroads between fascist studies, Habsburg studies, and scholarship on post-1918 violence. In this regard, the difficulties of the state transition, the subsequent social unrest, and the ascent of new forms of political radicalism in post-Habsburg Trieste are a case in point. Rather than focusing on the “national strife” between “Italians” and “Slavs,” this article will concentrate on the unstable local relations between state and civil society, which led to multiple cycles of conflict and crisis. One of the arguments it makes is that in post-1918 Trieste, where the different nationalist groups contended for a space characterized by multiple loyalties and allegiances, Fascists claimed to be the movement of the “true Italians,” identified with the Fascists and their sympathizers. Accordingly, while targeting the alleged enemies of the “Italian nation” (defined as “Bolsheviks,” “Austrophiles,” and “Slavs”), they aimed to polarize the Italian-speaking community along different political fault lines to reconfigure relations between the state and civil society.

尽管最近出现了跨国转折，法西斯主义的研究与过渡，帝国崩溃和第一次世界大战后的欧洲遗产的新方法之间仍然存在相当大的差距。本文假定自己处于法西斯主义研究，哈布斯堡王朝研究与1918年后暴力研究之间的十字路口。在这方面，国家过渡的困难，随后的社会动荡以及后哈布斯堡的里雅斯特崛起的新形式的政治激进主义就是一个典型的例子。本文不是关注“意大利人”与“斯拉夫人”之间的“民族冲突”，而是将重点放在国家与公民社会之间不稳定的地方关系上，这导致了冲突和危机的多个循环。它提出的论据之一是在1918年的里雅斯特之后，在不同民族主义者团体争夺具有多种忠诚和效忠特征的空间的地方，法西斯主义者声称是“真正的意大利人”的运动，与法西斯主义者及其同情者一道。因此，在针对所谓的“意大利民族”（定义为“布尔什维克”，“奥地利人”和“斯拉夫人”）的敌人的同时，他们旨在使意大利语社区沿不同的政治断层线分化，以重新配置国家之间的关系。和民间社会。