WI the March of Rome failed and is put down like the Beer Hall Putsch (although after a much bloodier debacle since there wore more men in the March)? The Fascist leaders of the March are arrested or killed. Mussolini is in Milan but what happens to him and the Fascist Party?
Failed March on Rome
- Thread starter The Federalist
- Start date
Well, part of the situation would involve the King making some kind of stand against the march, which as far I am aware, he was at least a quiet support of Fascism. Perhaps some kind of recognition that this kind of empire building will destroy Italy (and that would be an odd prescience for him to have--Victor Immanuel put up with Mussolini far, far too long to really show a lot of talent in governance)
But what the heck, its not implausible for him to change his mind, or perhaps differ in opinions.
You must recall that the Fascists were formed as a response to Socialist gangs and the rising power of the political left. Clamping down on the far right WITHOUT clamping down on the far left means that VI has thrown his own throne into the hands of Socialist radicals.
I suppose what happens, based on the timing of the event, the Italian Army presents itself strongly, and while the first elements of the Blackshirts are bloodied, the march is reduced to a small skirmish and Mussolini is humiliated as a result.
How long Democracy can survive in Italy even if Victor Immanuel supports it? Answer probably isn't past WW2. Figure that Italy had real stability issues. Besides the Blackshirts, you've got socialists and you've got at least two varieties of organized criminals. Vito Corelone might be a fictional character, but the power of the Italian Mob is not to be underestimated.
Throw in the Great Depression and the nation is running for a fall. The question isn't whether democracy fails--its how badly it fails. One would hope that Mussolini or an analogue wouldn't take over as a result. Sadly, I think Italy would not survive long past 1929 as a democratic state.
But what the heck, its not implausible for him to change his mind, or perhaps differ in opinions.
You must recall that the Fascists were formed as a response to Socialist gangs and the rising power of the political left. Clamping down on the far right WITHOUT clamping down on the far left means that VI has thrown his own throne into the hands of Socialist radicals.
I suppose what happens, based on the timing of the event, the Italian Army presents itself strongly, and while the first elements of the Blackshirts are bloodied, the march is reduced to a small skirmish and Mussolini is humiliated as a result.
How long Democracy can survive in Italy even if Victor Immanuel supports it? Answer probably isn't past WW2. Figure that Italy had real stability issues. Besides the Blackshirts, you've got socialists and you've got at least two varieties of organized criminals. Vito Corelone might be a fictional character, but the power of the Italian Mob is not to be underestimated.
Throw in the Great Depression and the nation is running for a fall. The question isn't whether democracy fails--its how badly it fails. One would hope that Mussolini or an analogue wouldn't take over as a result. Sadly, I think Italy would not survive long past 1929 as a democratic state.
From what I've read on the subject, it seems that killing off the Vittorio Emmanuelle III's Mother might be a good idea.
Seems she was convinced that the Blackshirts were the only thing between the royal family and the red hordes. It appears she then browbeat her son into a similar frame of mind.
Whether getting rid of her would be enough to give Victor some backbone, who knows?
Seems she was convinced that the Blackshirts were the only thing between the royal family and the red hordes. It appears she then browbeat her son into a similar frame of mind.
Whether getting rid of her would be enough to give Victor some backbone, who knows?
Thats very good. In fact hindsight shows us that Mussolini was a Fascist, but in truth the international community saw him as a savior of Democracy. He was that man who took charge when the nation needed it and was celebrated for it. I mean heck the march on Rome did not even create the trappings of a Fascist society, that occured years later in 1925.
BUMP!!!! Can anyone add to this and check its plausibility? Its seems like an interesting path for Italy to take, what else could be said of this possibility? And what could happen to Mussolini after a failed March on Rome?
Another thing, what effect would a failed March on Rome have on Hitler and the Nazis up north? Would Hitler still take inspiration from the Italian Fascists as the model of his own party (if he hasn't already started doing that earlier, has he?) and would he still launch his Beer Hall Putsch which was based on the March?
Last edited:
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Mussolini would still have a chance to get to power if the march failed, since Italian politics was a mess. He'd lose a lot of prestige though.
One reason, the king and many others allowed the march to Rome was because they hoped Mussolini would grant some stability in Italian politics, few of his non- fascist supporters thought he'd actually be able to create a dictatorship.
One reason, the king and many others allowed the march to Rome was because they hoped Mussolini would grant some stability in Italian politics, few of his non- fascist supporters thought he'd actually be able to create a dictatorship.
I'm not convinced of that. Yes, Hitler came to power after the attempted Putsch. But popular support in Italy was much more volatile. If Mussolini is perceived as a loser, most supporters will change their minds.
Also take into account that if the march fails, Mussolini's image gets out much worse than Hitler's. At least, Hitler was in the streets during the Putsch, and later fought in the courtrooms. Mussolini was sitting back safe in Milan, and even though the toll wouldn't be as high as one might think, some bloodshed would take place. If Mussolini panics and flees to Switzerland (Milan is closer to Switzerland than the outskirts of Rome, as we know), then he won't be viable any more. Vide how D'Annunzio faded out of fashion (as a rabble rouser, not as a poet) after the Fiume mess.
I think the Italian establishment, King & Co., if they decide they don't want Mussolini and his Fascists, will go for something like the Romanian solution. Sideline the dangerous extremists, but anoint a strongman nonetheless – a general, preferably.
The intent was not stabilizing Italian politics. Unless by that you mean, prevent a Socialist takeover, either by revolution (unlikely) or by democratic vote (the real fear).
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Of course Mussolini's attempt from the beginning was to create a dictatorship, and that was also the goal of the whole fascist organization. But the non- fascists who gave their support to Mussolini saw it as a way create a stability in Italy where no government seemed to be successful, and of course stop a socialist takeover, many of Mussolini's supporters saw the Socialists as the real destabilizing force.
What happens after the failed March is in fact what should have happened: the firing squad for Mussolini, but for the chickensh*t king. Mussolini's Black Shirts had little real determined support. Crushing his little march would not have cost the king that much political capital. Basically, no one on the Right in Italy was willing to seize power by force, when it was eminently possible. Italy was mostly de-politicized country, other than urban centers of the North. Elsewhere, client-patron relationships predominated. Given the population density and the limited space in which the Leftists and the Democrats operated in, the army could have maintained order in the relatively compact geographical areas where they would have been needed. Elsewhere, the center and the south, would have not raised a finger to help the northern Leftists.