Italian Civil War

King Victor Emmanuel III initiates a war against Mussolini and the black shirts. The head of the military Pietro Badoglio sides with the monarch. Will the fascists be routed or will the upstart black shirts win a shocking victory and install Mussolini a dictator of Italy?
 
I assume you mean during the march on Rome? On one hand the Blackshirts are out numbered but wiki tells me the military supported them over the king. So probably the Blackshirts would win.
 
Last edited:

ninebucks

Banned
There is an important third faction which you seem to be ignoring: the Leftists. Socialist forces could easily throw themselves in with the liberal establishment, or their fellow revolutionaries, the Blackshirts. Any Italian civil war would be decided by Leftists.
 

Hendryk

Banned
It's an interesting possibility. Socially and culturally, Italy in the 1920s wasn't very different from Spain in the 1930s. Yet I'm not aware of any ATL involving an Italian civil war between left-wingers and right-wingers.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If the King and the military had decided to stop Mussolini during the Long March they could have done it, they feared it would only strengthen the Left Wing groups, therefor they didn't
 
There almost was a civil war, but definitely not because something the monarchy did or didnt do, besides, they were mostly on the same side anyway
Check out what was happening in places like Parma, Sarzano, Empoli, and the strikes and worker actions in in the industrial cities, even assassination attempts on Mussolini and other leading fascists

There almost was war, but the left was too disorganized and divided after the split in 1921, if the socialist party stayed united, and openly declared support to the militant antifascist movements like the Arditi del popolo, who knows
Then there was also the anarchists, as well as more center oriented socialist and republican groups, plus the various merry men like d'Annunzio, so things could go any which way

One idea-get Bordiga killed during or before 1921, so someone like Gramsci takes the lead, that plus a few more strikes and syndicalist militias should do it
 
Last edited:
There were the rudimentary beginnings of what could have become Civil War: factionalism, violence, and overt revolutionary rhetoric. However, Italy never reached the levels of pure social-political breakdown and chaos seen in Spain, Russia, and Germany. Maybe this is because of the tacit royal/military support of the Fascists, maybe because of the general Italian disinterest in governments or political dogma, perhaps a combination of factors. Revolutionary movements up to the March on Rome never really managed any ability to coalesce into more than local militia-mobs, left or right. Italo Balbo's natural organizational skills may be a (or the) major reason the Facists did so well.

Even so, the Fascist Blackshirts were little more than trained and organized armed mobs and very much vulnerable to a serious purge by the military. Had King V-E given the word to oppose them, the Blackshirts would have been toast. The Blackshirts knew this and most of the Ras including the major Blackshirt organizer Italo Balbo ordered avoidance or even surrender in the face of serious military opposition.

However, many in the military favored the Fascist Blackshirts over the Redshirt socialist/Marxist/syndicalist movements, particularly with the October Revolution so recent in memory. It was generally felt that "Black" was favorable to "Red" by the powers-that-be as well, including King and industry and the major landowners. The Blackshirts got away with things no other factions did and essentially performed the March on Rome with tacit military and royal consent.

Perhaps if you keep Balbo a Mazzinian Republican and Fascism loses a major (and audacious) organizer, the Fascists remain a smaller and more disorganized force. Eventually if the factions are all roughly balanced for long enough the situation could deteriorate into actual civil war. Most likely as chaos mounts you just see the military step in and set up a de facto Junta. Unless, of course, the military splinters along factional lines.
 
Mussolini and the Black Shirts would've been most likely crushed and Mussolini shot by the firing squad, as he should've been. There was a small chance of a Fascist insurrection in the North in case of failed March to Rome, but it was unlikely to have developed into a full-blown civil war. In a nutshell, Mussolini took a gamble that the government would not oppose him and would welcome him as the alternative to the Red Menace, much like Hitler vis-a-vis the German conservatives. Except, here, Italian conservatives and the king held all the cards, and they folded to Mussolini's bluff. It's true that there was broad sympathy to Mussolini within the army, sympathy within the Royal Family itself, and with the Church, but the balance of Force still favored the government at the time of the March. If King gave the word, the Black Shirt rabble would've been crushed by the army. The district commander for Rome, General Pugliese, was a staunch royalist who told the king he would do anything asked and awaited the order to crush the Black Shirsts, which never came. The troops and the police force around the region outnumbered the 26000 Black Shirts to be gathered in Rome, and these men were picked for their loyalty to the Crown. Like the Chinese troops in Beijing, at least the trooops stationed around Rome would have fired on the Black Shirts, had they been commanded to. If a massacre of the Black Shirts in Rome were followed by arrest and decapitation of Fascist leaders, then the chances of civil war were miniscule. In short, Mussolini went to a gunfight with a knife and won.
 
If the Black shirts were massacred, couldn't that push balance in the favour of the reds, leading to revolution that way?
 
Badoglio wasn't in command of the military when Mussolini siezed power was he? And regardless, Vittorio Emanuelle III pretty much backed Mussolini's play because he was afraid of the communists taking over. "Better Black than Red" he said. (ha, that rhymes. :p) Makes sense as the Communists will want nothing to do with the House of Savoy.

Badoglio and Vittorio Emanuelle III arrested Mussolini and siezed power in 43-44 because that was the best deal Italy was going to get really.
 
Okay, let's say Vittorio smashes the Fascists and asks the socialists and liberals to form a coalition government as the only other solution. The new government eventually comes on a conflict course with the king, the kings is forced to abdicate and the communists joins government, the conservative establishment launches a coup with the fascists, monarchists and right-wingers rallying to their banners. Some yet unnammed General arrives with colonial troops from Libya, while the king secretly returns from his French exile. The civil war begins.
 
Okay, let's say Vittorio smashes the Fascists and asks the socialists and liberals to form a coalition government as the only other solution. The new government eventually comes on a conflict course with the king, the kings is forced to abdicate and the communists joins government, the conservative establishment launches a coup with the fascists, monarchists and right-wingers rallying to their banners. Some yet unnammed General arrives with colonial troops from Libya, while the king secretly returns from his French exile. The civil war begins.

Yes but why? I mean why would the king do something like that?
In order for a monarchy to maintain itself class cooperation is necessary
The driving force behind fascism was the fear among the middle class, that in case of revolution, they might lose that little they still had, and the need to self organize into paramilitary groups that will force everyone into class cooperation

This is exactly the same sentiment they shared with the monarchy, and were mostly royalists and catholic, so no opposition to the monarchy there

Before there even was a distinct fascism, there were small squadre, or squadrist militias, the basic purpose of which was to violently break up strikes and use terror and violence against the multiplying proletariat organizations, doing exactly the reactionary work the monarchy would of done, if everything wasnt such a mess

So why would the king try to stop the people themselves from being reactionary?
 
I don't know, allegiance to democracy? Bad judgement? After all, he didn't fare that well under fascism, perhaps he saw that risk and decided that he would be better able to control a parliamentarian centre-left government? Perhaps fearing a back-lash if the fascists were let in?

Speaking about that, does anyone know why the socialists and communists didn't rise against the fascists when they still had a chance? Of course, hind-sight is easy, but a general strike and arming of the proletariat would've made a reasonable reaction to fascists being let in to power if you ask me.
 
read about the congress of 1921

that plus the most influential socialists didnt support armed resistance, for some reason, and the communists were led by Bordiga, who was excessively careful, really not wanting a civil war that would cost the lives of thousands of workers and bring what he saw as "state capitalism" in place of the monarchy

however there was armed resistance, the mayor leftist parties really just had to proclaim their support, there were dozens of syndicalist militias, republican socialist and even communist war veterans, grupe di difesa proletaria, Ardity del popolo, not to mention the anarchists, and as said before, people like d'Annunzio, who really didnt care who they fight as long as they can do it for freedom, chauvinism, and the inspiration to write more futurist poetry

olnly real problem was, aside the disunion after the 1921 congress, the fact that the police, the army, practically all the state aparatus, the church, the industrialists, the big land owners, foreing investors if there were any, banks, nobility, and the monarchy was leaning on the side of the blackshirts, basically waiting for them to sort things out, because noone wanted to really go and mess with difesa proletaria groups or get into firefights with armed workers on strike
 
Top