Historians and the Socialist Revolution…

Historians and the socialist revolution…
From reading the extract it is apparent that the author believes that the “so called” socialist threat was no existent, and when it did emerge, was very weak and ineffective.
Evidence that can be used to support this view is when he says ‘Whenever the PSI called for a strike, which it did more than once between 1919 and 1922 the response was far from revolutionary.’ This suggests that whenever the socialist had an opportunity to strike, the impact was minimal, therefore backing up the author’s argument.   This also indicates that the socialist were not a strong enough party to be a threat.
Another piece of evidence that can be used to back up the authors opinion is when he says ‘Hence, the danger years were in 1919 and 1920,’ this is suggesting that during the time of the socialist threat, little was done by the socialists to help with the fluctuations of the Italian economy, Implying that they were not effective.
The author of source 2 suggests believing in the idea that the socialists did not do much to take over, but rather wait for something to happen, the author believes that they lacked direction and made to small of a positive impact to be called a threat.
The socialist had made Mussolini’s job of getting fascism into power much easier. The socialist spent too much of their time quarrelling amongst each over to notice the rise of fascism. Source 2.27 quotes “too immature for revolution,” this is suggesting that they were too busy dealing with insignificant problems that they did take time to notice Mussolini and fascism.
Another reason they made it easier for Mussolini to get into power was due to weakness of the socialists. They had not stepped up to the plate in becoming a powerful party, but was one known for waiting for things to happen rather than making them. It the socialist party had been strong and effective, fascism would have not been able to stand a chance of rising to power.
They had also made...