How could the Italian Monarchy have survived WW2?

To commemorate (?) the return of Re Vittorio Emanuele III's and Regina Elena's mortal spoils to Italy I thought of this little AHC:

Have Italy remain a monarchy to the present day with a POD no earlier than 25 July 1943.

Bonus points if it is not a better management of the armistice and co-belligerancy, as I think that's the easiest to achieve.

Take note that the 1946 Referendum results were very close in otl and the areas which saw more partisan activity (mostly the north) were generally more inclined towards the Republic.
 
The easiest way it's a better management of the surrender, avoiding the total collapse of the armed forces and the state and it's better that VEIII abdicate in favor of it's son; this has also the benefit to limit the influence of the PCI. Naturally an italian surrender that favor the ally mean some buttefly that extend outside Italy
 
The easiest way it's a better management of the surrender, avoiding the total collapse of the armed forces and the state and it's better that VEIII abdicate in favor of it's son; this has also the benefit to limit the influence of the PCI. Naturally an italian surrender that favor the ally mean some buttefly that extend outside Italy
All of this (and the abdication of VEIII should come sooner rather than later) plus avoid the farce of the escape from Rome.
I'm not sure if this would be enough (the responsibilities of House Savoy in aiding and abetting Mussolini's resistible ascent [cit.] may be too obvious for the dynasty to be saved)
 
I think that an "heroic" defense of Rome, maybe a captured or even better martyrised King would do the trick (especially if the better managed 8 September means that some Italian territory is successfully defended until the Allies arrive).

But is there a later possibility? What could the King have done after the 25th of April 1945 to tip the balances? (This second part of the challenge is very hard, I know).
 
I think that an "heroic" defense of Rome, maybe a captured or even better martyrised King would do the trick (especially if the better managed 8 September means that some Italian territory is successfully defended until the Allies arrive).

But is there a later possibility? What could the King have done after the 25th of April 1945 to tip the balances? (This second part of the challenge is very hard, I know).
Apologize for his actions and his omissions would have been the minimum: because of his weakness (and also because of bad advisers including his own cousin the duke of Abruzzi) he opened the door to 20 years of dictatorship and did not oppose the entry in a war for which the country was woefully unprepared.
For much lesser sins, his grand-grandfather did not hesitate to abdicate immediately after the defeat at Novara and to go in exile. I never had much sympathy for Carlo Alberto, but in his final and darkest hour he behaved like a king.
 
The king should have Mussolini and some party bigwigs tried and executed.
That should appease the blood lust of many.

Or even better, abdicate and have his son do that.
 
Perhaps if VEIII had(somehow)managed to
arrange things so that by the fall of 1943 ALL of Italy was firmly in Allied hands. This
of course butterflies away what happened in
Italy in WWII IOTL- a bloody, grinding fight
all the way through Italy, during which
many Italians were killed & much property
destroyed(It might also have shortened
WWII in Europe). Then, as lukedalton
suggests above, if VEIII- as his own sort
of personal apology for letting Mussolini
in- had abdicated in favor of his son, the
monarchy would have I think managed
to survive(it might even have become
popular ITTL)(Of course, the Italian
monarchy would have to accept, as the
price for their survival, the loss of all their
political powers & reduction to playing a
purely ceremonial role, as in Great Britain)
 
VEIII should abdicate ASAP. That's the minimum. If Umberto is in charge for longer he might give the monarchy's prestige some much needed boost, perhaps enough to tip the scales in the referendum (which, as noted, was relativey close). Might not suffice anyway, but it's the minimal requirement.
 
The big question is what happens if monarchy is confirmed at the referendum.
The communist party might take it badly and there are plenty of arms cached on the mountains and in the big cities of the north.
The risk of an insurrection is real, although it's not a certainty.
The reaction of the USA is another question mark. I think they preferred a republican regime, to mark a complete break up with the past
 
The big question is what happens if monarchy is confirmed at the referendum.
The communist party might take it badly and there are plenty of arms cached on the mountains and in the big cities of the north.
The risk of an insurrection is real, although it's not a certainty.
The reaction of the USA is another question mark. I think they preferred a republican regime, to mark a complete break up with the past


Interesting point re US reaction- but I think
the Yankees would have gone along with
retaining the Italian monarchy as long as it
was staunchly anti-Communist.
 
Interesting point re US reaction- but I think
the Yankees would have gone along with
retaining the Italian monarchy as long as it
was staunchly anti-Communist.
Possibly, but the result should have been incontestable. Worse case for them would have been a contested referendum, with claims that the vote had been rigged
In any case, the Americans had already the church on board and the Christian Democrat party was the natural outcome.
It might've been different if VEIII had abdicated in 1943, but he didn't until May 1946. By that time it was way too late.
 
The big question is what happens if monarchy is confirmed at the referendum.
The communist party might take it badly and there are plenty of arms cached on the mountains and in the big cities of the north.
The risk of an insurrection is real, although it's not a certainty.
The reaction of the USA is another question mark. I think they preferred a republican regime, to mark a complete break up with the past

If the attempted assassination of Togliatti https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/togliatti-assassinated-july-14-1948.298756/ wasn't enough to trigger a Communist insurrection in 1948--with the Cold War well underway--the victory of constitutional monarchy versus republic in a democratic referendum isn't going to do so in 1946 (when the Cold War was just beginning, and the Communist parties are still cooperating with non-Communist parties in western Europe).

I'm not denying that there were hotheads in the PCI who dreamed of insurrection, but neither Stalin nor Togliatti supported them. They both knew an insurrection would fail. In the post I mentioned I quoted Togliatti's remarks in 1960: "Certainly, an insurrectionary outbreak--and its defeat--either in 1946 or 1948--would have suited some comrades very well. No danger of the bureaucratization of the party in that case! And the so-called 'revolutionary cadres' could have gone off happily to schools of tactics and strategy in prison or in exile!"
 
If the attempted assassination of Togliatti https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/togliatti-assassinated-july-14-1948.298756/ wasn't enough to trigger a Communist insurrection in 1948--with the Cold War well underway--the victory of constitutional monarchy versus republic in a democratic referendum isn't going to do so in 1946 (when the Cold War was just beginning, and the Communist parties are still cooperating with non-Communist parties in western Europe).

I'm not denying that there were hotheads in the PCI who dreamed of insurrection, but neither Stalin nor Togliatti supported them. They both knew an insurrection would fail. In the post I mentioned I quoted Togliatti's remarks in 1960: "Certainly, an insurrectionary outbreak--and its defeat--either in 1946 or 1948--would have suited some comrades very well. No danger of the bureaucratization of the party in that case! And the so-called 'revolutionary cadres' could have gone off happily to schools of tactics and strategy in prison or in exile!"
I don't disagree, and when I wrote that insurrection was a possibility and not a certainty I had the failed assassination attempt in mind. However, 1946 was quite different from 1948: there are a lot of arms and explosive around, the command structure of the partisan brigades is still very strong and most of the war prisoners have not yet returned home (a major complaint of the monarchic side was that the referendum was held too early).
I am still convinced that it was touch and go in 1946, and that the victory of the republic defused what might have been a dangerous situation
 
Top