Italian civil war in the 1920s

ar-pharazon

Banned
So Italy was very much swept up in the revolutionary wave of the late 1910s with communists, syndicalism and anarchists gaining in power and the reaction of fascists and monarchists.

What if the fascist coup had failed and Italy had descended into civil war around 1919-1922.

How long would an Italian civil war last and who would prevail and who would intervene?
 
First of all, the march on Rome wasn't exactly a coup. The king gave Mussolini power without any sort of coercing.
However. If the king had grown some balls and ordered the army in, the fascists would have been slaughtered. A civil war, if any occurs, will probably be very short, especially with the Italian left in the mix.
 
Well the civil war will last effectively a couple of hour, plus a week or little more to subdue the remaining fascist holdout in the rest of the nation; better remember that the bulk of the fascist leadership was in the march (except Mussolini, he remained at home, so to not be directly involved if things go bad).
If the army react they can eliminate the head of the fascist snake in a single move, plus the fascist are between low and extremely low in term of weapon and supply, the entire effort was a mix of bluff and pubblic demonstration of force counting on the goverment weakness...if for some reason the reaction happen, the PFI is history.

By the time of the march of Rome the socialist/communist capacity to effectively launch a revolution in Italy it's gone, the left is too divided and weak to be an effective menace...unfortunely for everyone involved the King and the rest of the enstablishment had the wrong impression and even though that Benny can be controlled
 
Well the civil war will last effectively a couple of hour, plus a week or little more to subdue the remaining fascist holdout in the rest of the nation; better remember that the bulk of the fascist leadership was in the march (except Mussolini, he remained at home, so to not be directly involved if things go bad).
If the army react they can eliminate the head of the fascist snake in a single move, plus the fascist are between low and extremely low in term of weapon and supply, the entire effort was a mix of bluff and pubblic demonstration of force counting on the goverment weakness...if for some reason the reaction happen, the PFI is history.

By the time of the march of Rome the socialist/communist capacity to effectively launch a revolution in Italy it's gone, the left is too divided and weak to be an effective menace...unfortunely for everyone involved the King and the rest of the enstablishment had the wrong impression and even though that Benny can be controlled

There was also the strong influence of Emanuele Filiberto duke of Aosta, first cousin to the king, who had commanded the 3rd army in WW1 and after the war had been close to to Mussolini (there is even a rumor that Mussolini planned to replace the king with him, if Vittorio Emanuele had not accepted the fait accompli produced by the March on Rome.
Looking from our vantage point, it is quite obvious that there was no real danger of a communist insurrection, and that the Fascist movement was more bluster than anything else: the army was faithful to the dynasty, and if ordered to do so they would have stopped the march without any problem. The problem is that the old establishment, liberals and socialists, had been discredited by the long war and the unsatisfactory peace settlement, the Catholics were still reluctant to participate in full to political life (Italy and the Church were still entertaining not very friendly relations) and a lot of people wanted "change", irrespective of where it was coming from: the antics of Emanuele Filiberto did not help either, but he was not a big mover-and-shaker although he was quite popular among the discharged soldiers.
 
So Italy was very much swept up in the revolutionary wave of the late 1910s with communists, syndicalism and anarchists gaining in power and the reaction of fascists and monarchists.

What if the fascist coup had failed and Italy had descended into civil war around 1919-1922.

How long would an Italian civil war last and who would prevail and who would intervene?

Well, much of how this civil war would go down depends on timing. Let's, for the sake of cleanliness, say that the March on Rome caused the civil to happen, erupting a Monarchistic vs. Socialist war of sorts. Sounds familiar, no? Considering the then present failure to deal with the soviet threat, I imagine international pressure to nip this revolution in the bud would be considerable. Of course, the soviets would be involved: perhaps not as voraciously at first, in part due to certain foreign policy polish needing to be applied, but they would certainly be involved. The USA might send assistance, but Great Britain, France, Spain, and possibly even the BeNeLux would send intervention in the form of volunteers to the Monarchistic side. I wouldn't imagine a war lasting more than 2 years, but that entirely depends on how serious the internal situation gets. The Germans and former Austria-Hungarian territories (Czechoslovak Legion, methinks) would likely send aid to the monarchistic side, in order to not allow a serious danger to geopolitical hegemony in the region. It would be unknown who would prevail, at least from my cursory glance at the situation, but it is certainly possible for the socialistic forces to "win" the war and establish a weird situation where all that remains is for Greece to fall, and then all of the "Romes" would be under one purpose, one goal: international socialistic revolution. Still, my money would be on the monarchy to win, and a very militaristic autocratic government to emerge from the rubble.

First of all, the march on Rome wasn't exactly a coup. The king gave Mussolini power without any sort of coercing.
However. If the king had grown some balls and ordered the army in, the fascists would have been slaughtered. A civil war, if any occurs, will probably be very short, especially with the Italian left in the mix.

Are you intentionally leaving out the internal political situation of Italy or did you perhaps not read up on it? The king, Emmanuel II, gave power to the blackshirts over concerns of the more left and more anti-monarchy political factions would forcibly descend the country into civil war with their own marches. Much akin to the Reichstag fire, this is how you should be thinking of it. But, to further lend credence to your generous analysis of Italian politics, if Emmanuel II had ordered the military to simply kill the blackshirt protestors, what in the actual fuck do you think would've happened next? Sure, the blackshirt protestors would have seriously lost many numbers from such a thing, but they would have made back their numbers in the violent call for revolution against the corrupted state. And of course, how could I forget your mention of a "short" civil war? Are you implying that the left would've made such quick work of the italian state, which is effectively wanking hard enough that the condescending discharge is visible on your face from here, or that the "left" (which, you so cleverly omit that the fascists were quite similar and close to in the period, considering) would be quashed quickly, which is equally nonsensical and laughable?

It astonishes me the full force of work and effort put forth to even quantify an interest in the topic, I applaud everyone here for their well thought and well put offerings.
 
Are you intentionally leaving out the internal political situation of Italy or did you perhaps not read up on it? The king, Emmanuel II, gave power to the blackshirts over concerns of the more left and more anti-monarchy political factions would forcibly descend the country into civil war with their own marches. Much akin to the Reichstag fire, this is how you should be thinking of it. But, to further lend credence to your generous analysis of Italian politics, if Emmanuel II had ordered the military to simply kill the blackshirt protestors, what in the actual fuck do you think would've happened next? Sure, the blackshirt protestors would have seriously lost many numbers from such a thing, but they would have made back their numbers in the violent call for revolution against the corrupted state. And of course, how could I forget your mention of a "short" civil war? Are you implying that the left would've made such quick work of the italian state, which is effectively wanking hard enough that the condescending discharge is visible on your face from here, or that the "left" (which, you so cleverly omit that the fascists were quite similar and close to in the period, considering) would be quashed quickly, which is equally nonsensical and laughable?

It astonishes me the full force of work and effort put forth to even quantify an interest in the topic, I applaud everyone here for their well thought and well put offerings.

Sorry no, talking with the benefit of hindsight the only real occasion of the left to stage a revolution was during the Biennio Rosso, after that while the enstablishment still feared her, it was too weak and divided to be an effective menace and the event of the Matteotti murder clearly demonstrated this.
The entire march of Rome was an huge risk, if the army fight back there is no possibility to rebound, the bulk of the fascist forces (that were low in supply, ammunition and weapons) and more importantly the great part of the leadership is here and at risk to being captured or/and killled...and without them there is only a bunch of thugs left behind in their regional stronghold that barely speak with other cell.
It will be a nasty affair, lot of violence but in the end very brief and will see Italy taken over by the military with the King (and a lot of politician) blessing
 
No, actually. You had my entire post, quite wrong.

I'm not saying the left would be crushed by anyone. It's quite obvious that I meant they'd be against the fascists, and like luke said in his own post, if the march on rome gets put down by the army, the fascists are utterly fucked, with a military dictatorship being the most likely end to the struggle.

How about, instead of assuming i'm an idiot and raging at me for no apparent reason aside from the shit you just assumed about what I said, you actually read it?

The left, under no circumstances, would support mussolini and the fascists against the government. And, even if some sort of fascist revolution that you've posited occurs, it would still get stomped into the ground. Tell me, do the fascists have tanks? artillery? automatic weapons? enough small arms to equip a couple divisions? a way to produce ammunition for said quickly-formed military formations? an air force?

No. All the fascists had were a large number of paramilitaries, that would be slaughtered in any sort of head-on fight against the italian army, especially with the italian army being fairly veteran, so soon after the first world war. The army alone could, as I said, slaughter the blackshirts, but considering the communists and socialists are quite likely to support them to prevent the fascists from being in control, mussolini doesn't have a bloody chance.

Although mussolini would certainly survive a failed march on rome, being in milan, the inevitable civil war would be very short, before the fascists were forced underground, perhaps into an insurgency. The military did have some fascists within it, but many of said soldiers and officers were part of the march on rome.

In conclusion, I would like to cordially invite you to calm down, and not yell at people for making harmless statements on a forum.
Good day, sir!
 
First of all when blackshirts started March on Rome, they already took control over industrial centers in North Italy. In case of civil war, even in worst case scenario they would have at least several well fortified bases if operation.
Second, Benny was never big fan of monarchy and whole March of Rome was to abolish the monarchy and establish fascist republic, but what was unexpected was King backing down. Our Il Duce didn't wanted civil war now when taste of power was so sweet for him and he played along.
In case if civil war, we might see some broad alliance of anti-monarchist forces but how stable it would be, depends on their hate of monarchy .
 
No, actually. You had my entire post, quite wrong.

I'm not saying the left would be crushed by anyone. It's quite obvious that I meant they'd be against the fascists, and like luke said in his own post, if the march on rome gets put down by the army, the fascists are utterly fucked, with a military dictatorship being the most likely end to the struggle.

How about, instead of assuming i'm an idiot and raging at me for no apparent reason aside from the shit you just assumed about what I said, you actually read it?

The left, under no circumstances, would support mussolini and the fascists against the government. And, even if some sort of fascist revolution that you've posited occurs, it would still get stomped into the ground. Tell me, do the fascists have tanks? artillery? automatic weapons? enough small arms to equip a couple divisions? a way to produce ammunition for said quickly-formed military formations? an air force?

No. All the fascists had were a large number of paramilitaries, that would be slaughtered in any sort of head-on fight against the italian army, especially with the italian army being fairly veteran, so soon after the first world war. The army alone could, as I said, slaughter the blackshirts, but considering the communists and socialists are quite likely to support them to prevent the fascists from being in control, mussolini doesn't have a bloody chance.

Although mussolini would certainly survive a failed march on rome, being in milan, the inevitable civil war would be very short, before the fascists were forced underground, perhaps into an insurgency. The military did have some fascists within it, but many of said soldiers and officers were part of the march on rome.

In conclusion, I would like to cordially invite you to calm down, and not yell at people for making harmless statements on a forum.
Good day, sir!


You know, I do so apologize for reading your post wrong, I forget whose responsibility it is to be concise in authorial situations.

Who says the fascists need to fight a symmetrical war? If they are slaughtered in the March, then they will retreat, regroup, and use the "Bloody Sunday" approach to garner more followers than previously anticipated. The Vietnamese managed to keep their hearts and minds from American tanks, aircraft, and artillery, and not to mention that a civil war would draw very similar parallels to the Soviet situation. The one thing that made the Bolsheviks succeed in the turmoil of Russia was the competency of leadership and understanding of the importance of a railway station, a telegram office, and a royal palace. The same can be said of the fascists in Italy, if there was one thing they could do it was take over a country with a seemingly small force. I don't need to prove their competence in taking over a whole country, it happened.

To your final comment: don't you understand how dialogue works? I will not feverishly agree, nor suckle your opinion into some semblance of reason. You must prove your ideas true even against the hardships of thought and speech. We would get nowhere if we all nodded our heads like you so much try to. Ideas are animals, come to terms and accept none of them will facilitate your ego to touch itself.
 
That is true, the Vietnamese won. Not militarily though, by the end of tet their capacity for warfare was exhausted. However, they had monumental amounts of support from foreign nations. State of the art equipment, planes, even pilots, with logistical support and training to boot. Unlike the Vietnamese, the fascists are unlikely to have outside support. They will initially control the north, sure, and asymmetric warfare can certainly be attempted, but they again lack the terrain advantages and incredible supply network the Vietnamese did. They would fight the army primarily in flat, developed territory, and the cities. They are unlikely to win either, due to their lack of almost everything except for men. They aren't even likely to have support of the population, as the fascists did not gain the north through standard political routes. No, they were used to crush the existing, militant communists and socialists there. If the fascists are say, busy fighting a modern and veteran military, the reds can give them utter hell.

And the fascists in Italy did not take over the country. It was handed to them, because the king did not have enough spine to oppose the left himself. With the majority of the fascist generals and or officers present for the march on Rome, the fascist forces are unlikely to have any actually good commanders, compared to the government.

The fascists have absolutely no advantages, nor meaningful support from foreign states. I see their chances as nil.
 
Instead of the March on Rome. Would not an Italian Civil war be more likely with the Biennio Rosso and transform that into a longer lasting period of conflict and civil war?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Instead of the March on Rome. Would not an Italian Civil war be more likely with the Biennio Rosso and transform that into a longer lasting period of conflict and civil war?
That's what I was thinking though I should have clarified it more in the OP-more left wing uprisings, Italian equivalents of Soviet councils, street fighting and reactionary forces mobilizing probably in the south, though fighting each other as well-monarchists, fascists, Catholic conservatives etc... Fighting the communists and each other.
 
Instead of the March on Rome. Would not an Italian Civil war be more likely with the Biennio Rosso and transform that into a longer lasting period of conflict and civil war?

The problem was that the PSI's leadership during the Biennio Rosso didn't really support the 1920 factory occupations and kind of vacillated on what to do in response to them. If they were more like the Bolsheviks with the soviets and aggressively used them as a means of taking state power (say Gramsci and his group that would later become the Communists are able to take over), then they could have carved out their own territory in the North that would have fought against the more conservative southern regions. They might well lose (and would be distinct underdogs IMO) but that'd get you to civil war.
 
If the civil war was large and last a more then a few months . Italy would have been forced from Libya and possibility Somalia
 
Top