Zadar was the Adriatic foothold assigned to Italy by the Treaty of Rapallo, a settlement that made the city both a marker of territorial compromise and a possible link in plans for armed resistance. Although Italy retained Zadar, it received neither an inland area around it nor the adjacent islands, leaving the city an Italian possession surrounded by Croatian territory. Its limited status sharpened the wider conflict over Dalmatia and the future of Fiume.

Territorial Status under the Treaty

Announced on November 12, 1920, the Treaty of Rapallo shifted Italy’s eastern border to Monte Nevoso and secured Trieste, while relinquishing Dalmatia apart from Zadar. The city was thus retained without the surrounding land or islands that might have connected it more securely to Italy. The settlement also made Fiume independent; Croatia received Sussak, including Port Baross, and Fiume was cut off from maritime trade with the East. Zadar’s narrow territorial status belonged to a broader Adriatic compromise whose consequences were sharply contested.

Dalmatia and the Fascist Dispute

In a meeting about the treaty, the status of Dalmatia became a test of what Italian national claims should mean in practice. The Dalmatian participants were described as Italian and as having been Italian since Roman times, while the settlement placed them under Croatian rule. Mussolini pressed them to state their aims clearly rather than simply follow Gabriele D’Annunzio. He raised several possible objectives: annexation as far as the Bay of Kotor, an Italian-Yugoslav republic, or full autonomy. The debate exposed a tension between emotional solidarity with the Dalmatian cause and the practical question of what political arrangement its advocates would actually pursue.

After two hours, Mussolini withdrew his proposed agenda and accepted a compromise. The agreed position applauded the new borders, objected strongly to the loss of Dalmatia, and maintained that Fiume should be Italian. Zadar therefore stood within a settlement that Italian fascists could endorse in part while continuing to reject its implications for Dalmatia and Fiume.

Strategic Role in Plans for Resistance

Zadar also appeared in a proposed route for a possible march from Fiume toward Rome. Alceste De Ambris described using naval vessels based at Fiume, noting that journeys to Zadar had already been made; from there, he argued, the distance to Ancona was not excessive. The plan envisaged landing troops at Ancona and seeking support among fascists in the Marches. This was a proposed exit strategy, not an action carried out in the evidence.

The city’s role in these accounts is consequently double. The treaty made Zadar a small, isolated Italian possession, while the resistance plan treated it as a potential waypoint between Fiume and the Italian mainland. Its presence in both the territorial settlement and the military discussion shows how the Adriatic question connected disputes over national borders to competing plans for political action.