Italy Splits in '46

Fearless Leader · Jul 27, 2007

Ok so I was doing a bit of reading for the "WI Sicily became the 49th state" thread and I came across this interesting tidbit of information.

The referendum founding the Italian Republic in 1946 was an incredibly close affair (the choice being for a continuation of the monarchy or a pure republic). However it was not so fair when you look at it regionally. Regionally, The North was over 60% in favor of the Republic while the South was over 60% in favor of the Monarchy.

In OTL the events leading up to the referendum were quite violent and I think things could have gotten a great deal worse. Would it be plausible to have such a disparity in votes between the Monarchy and the Republic options that North and South Italy split and form different nations (Both NATO)? Could the Papal States re-emerge?

I'm curious as to your thoughts.

Max Sinister · Jul 27, 2007

I don't expect the Papal state could re-emerge.

The main question is: Who gets Rome?

Analytical Engine · Jul 27, 2007

Hmm, Republic of Italy and the Kingdom of Naples.

Borys · Jul 27, 2007

Rome goes to the Northern Republic, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies makes a comeback, with the Neapolitan Borbons on the throne.

How did the centre of the country - Marches, Toscania, Parma - vote?

Borys

Xen · Jul 27, 2007

Lets give Rome to the South, the North gets all the breaks anyways.

Would they both be called Italy? North Italy and South Italy? Would either of them vote Communist?

ColeMercury · Jul 27, 2007

The north (including Rome) becomes the Republic of Italy, the south becomes the Kingdom of Sicily and Naples (don't you think that "The Two Sicilies" is a bit of a silly name?). As of 2007, Sicily and Naples would be a constitutional monarchy I suppose.

I doubt the Papal States would re-emerge. That seems to me to be a bit... non-20th-Century.

Max Sinister · Jul 27, 2007

The thing with "two Sicilies" has historical reasons. At first both together formed the kingdom of Sicily, but under the Anjous Sicily proper rebelled and formed its own kingdom. Naples was still called Sicily, because the Anjous continued to claim the island; and when both were reunited as part of Aragon, the name of Two Sicilies stuck.

LordKalvan · Jul 27, 2007

The USA were 100% pro-unity, and would have not accepted a split, since the industrialised North was touch and go to get a communist majority.

At the 1948 general elections, the Cristian Democrats got a majority thanks to the southern voters

Dan1988 · Jul 27, 2007

Wasn't the referendum rigged? I've heard that it was rigged by the republican forces so that an Italian Republic could go forward over the wishes of the South.

Another idea along these lines, and I'm not suggesting this because I'm American, but what if Italy adopted an American-style Constitution and thus becomes a federal republic?

Nicole · Jul 27, 2007

Dan1988 said:
Wasn't the referendum rigged? I've heard that it was rigged by the republican forces so that an Italian Republic could go forward over the wishes of the South.

I've heard that the vote was rushed so that many soldiers, who tended to be pro-monarchy, would not have time to return home to vote, but nothing worse than that.

Susano · Jul 27, 2007

Borys said:
Rome goes to the Northern Republic, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies makes a comeback, with the Neapolitan Borbons on the throne.

How did the centre of the country - Marches, Toscania, Parma - vote?

Borys

Londo said:
The north (including Rome) becomes the Republic of Italy, the south becomes the Kingdom of Sicily and Naples (don't you think that "The Two Sicilies" is a bit of a silly name?). As of 2007, Sicily and Naples would be a constitutional monarchy I suppose.

I doubt the Papal States would re-emerge. That seems to me to be a bit... non-20th-Century.

Actual, as it would be an ideological split, it would be the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of Italy, both with a claim to be the only legitimate country, etc etc etc. Like divided Germany, Korea and Vietnam. And the royal house would be the Savoys - that was what the referendum was about, after all!

Wendell · Jul 27, 2007

Suppose the border between the two Italian nations ran through the city of Rome?

Antanas · Jul 28, 2007

For split victory of monarchy in referendum is needed, North will go away

Susano · Jul 28, 2007

Antanas said:
For split victory of monarchy in referendum is needed, North will go away

I was thinking something similar. A bloc divide would maybe be "necessary" to have Italy divided. Could a loss in the referendumr adicalis eteh Northenr Republicans so much that they might seek aid from USSR?

Antanas · Jul 28, 2007

yes.North was communist base, they will rule there and seek aid from USSR

Jammy · Jul 28, 2007

Who would be king or queen?

Hapsburg · Jul 28, 2007

Umberto II, most likely. He became King after Victor Emmanuel II died in 1946, albeit for only a month or so.
Unless he was forced to abdicate or something. But Umberto II was actually well-loved by the people, or so I've read.

Antanas · Jul 29, 2007

Umberto II became king in 1946 May, after his father Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated. In case of split- Umberto II king of Italy (1946-1983), Victor Emmanuel IV king of Italy since 1983

LordKalvan · Jul 29, 2007

Antanas said:
Umberto II became king in 1946 May, after his father Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated. In case of split- Umberto II king of Italy (1946-1983), Victor Emmanuel IV king of Italy since 1983

Why wish such a bad king on Italy?

Tocomocho · Aug 3, 2007

LordKalvan said:
Why wish such a bad king on Italy?

It would make interesting events in the future.

Think about the Napolitan-Sicilian people raising in the late 80's and overthrowning the unpopular king while the Republican forces advance form the north to reunify Italy again...