WI Mussolini is assassinated in February 1933?

Mussolini dead, Feb 1933, Austro-German Anschluss will most likely happen


  • Total voters
    58

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
(This is not based on any known historic plot coming off, the PoD is just him getting assassinated by an anarchist or lone nut with a gun or bomb at this time).

How does the political regime in Italy evolve from there?

How does Italian foreign policy evolve over the next ten years.

How likely are things like the Abyssinian invasion, intervention in Spanish Civil War and occupation of Albania in the post-Mussolini TL?

How does the relationship with Nazi Germany evolve in particular. Is Austro-German Anschluss likely to happen, earlier, later, not at all, or at the same time as OTL?

A poll is added specifically on the Anschluss question.

Among other things, I'm trying to kick the tires and explore the mechanisms by which Italy moved from opposition to Anschluss to acceptance of Anschluss. Is the change simply accounted for by Italy's relative strength in 1934 and the progress of Germany's strengthening by 1938? Is it simply accounted for by a souring of Mussolini's relations with France and Britain, changing his perspective on how to deal with Germany? Something else?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I see from the poll results (but not any textual responses) that the majority view is that elimination of Mussolini if it changed the timing of Austro-German Anschluss at all, would make it happen sooner rather than later.

What is the rationale for that, since OTL’s Mussolini was ultimately the leader who decided to join Hitler in the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936, cooperate in Spain and then permit Anschluss in 1938?

Is the thinking that only a leader of Mussolini’s stature would have resisted and deterred Hitler’s moves on Austria in the years 1934-1937? A less firm or charismatic leadership, less respected by Hitler, would have been paralyzed in the face of Nazi-sponsored disorders in Austria in 1934? Or at least could be relied on the fold on the Austria question at least as early as France folded on the Rhineland question (Mar 1936)? No Stresa Front without Mussolini?

If Italy is steering clear of Austrian chaos in 1934, is Nazi takeover probable there, or could Austrian non-Nazis, possibly with support of other neighbors (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary) have deterred Hitler and forced him to restrain the Austrian Nazis for a time?

Regardless, what are the effects on European diplomacy, if the Nazis take over Austria in 1934 (or 1935, 1936 or 1937)?

Might Mussolini’s absence from Feb 1933 make things go differently in the Clerical versus socialist Austrian civil war in the first place, possibly preventing the Dolfuss and Schussnig dictatorships?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Civil_War
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't think it would happen any sooner due to France being willing to oppose the move, as they had already done in 1930-31 over the proposed Austro-German customs union that led to their pulling money out of the Austrian banks, collapsing that system and then the German one, leading to the rise of the Nazis and Austro-Facists. If they were willing to get that extreme over a customs union just a few years before they were going to stand up in 1934 no matter what; plus even if Mussolini is dead there is still going to be a Fascist government in Italy, probably one just as anti-German as Mussolini was in 1934. Austria was their buffer against an expansionist Germany, one that might go after South Tyrol. The big change might end up being Italy not working with Germany from 1936 on and Hitler's changed perceptions of Italy without his Fascist hero at the helm.
 
(This is not based on any known historic plot coming off, the PoD is just him getting assassinated by an anarchist or lone nut with a gun or bomb at this time).

How does the political regime in Italy evolve from there?

How does Italian foreign policy evolve over the next ten years.

How likely are things like the Abyssinian invasion, intervention in Spanish Civil War and occupation of Albania in the post-Mussolini TL?

How does the relationship with Nazi Germany evolve in particular. Is Austro-German Anschluss likely to happen, earlier, later, not at all, or at the same time as OTL?

A poll is added specifically on the Anschluss question.

Among other things, I'm trying to kick the tires and explore the mechanisms by which Italy moved from opposition to Anschluss to acceptance of Anschluss. Is the change simply accounted for by Italy's relative strength in 1934 and the progress of Germany's strengthening by 1938? Is it simply accounted for by a souring of Mussolini's relations with France and Britain, changing his perspective on how to deal with Germany? Something else?
It depends on who takes over, but in general I'd say they would invade Abyssinia and Albania. They'd provide support for Franco. They'd probably sign a non-Agression pact with Hitler and accept concessions for neutrality when the war starts.

To answer your question.

1) Germany was still to weak to risk a major war at that point.

2) Italy's relations with Britain and France had soured over Abyssinia and there was lingering resentment over Versailles.

3) Mussolini wanted to restore the Roman Empire or at least some sort of Mediterranean Empire and believed that he could only do that with the backing of a more powerful European ally.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think it would happen any sooner due to France being willing to oppose the move, as they had already done in 1930-31 over the proposed Austro-German customs union that led to their pulling money out of the Austrian banks, collapsing that system and then the German one, leading to the rise of the Nazis and Austro-Facists. If they were willing to get that extreme over a customs union just a few years before they were going to stand up in 1934 no matter what;

I could see France having leverage in 1934, but how would they have any leverage after Hitler remilitarizes the Rhineland in March 1936. It seems to me that France has a much less credible deterrent to German action in the east once Germany has asserted military control of the Rhineland.


plus even if Mussolini is dead there is still going to be a Fascist government in Italy, probably one just as anti-German as Mussolini was in 1934. Austria was their buffer against an expansionist Germany, one that might go after South Tyrol. The big change might end up being Italy not working with Germany from 1936 on and Hitler's changed perceptions of Italy without his Fascist hero at the helm.

Ah, so if you had voted in the poll, you would have voted for later or not at all Anschluss. The poll majorities are slightly shifting.


abc123
I'm not even sure would Fascism in Italy survive death of Mussolini in 1933?

How were you thinking the regime would deterioriate? After Mussolini's death the King and government decide to let other parties organize and compete? There are leftist uprisings?

CryHavoc101 - the Violet Gibson option in 1926 is an interesting one. It's worth its own thread I think.

However, if I had proposed a PoD that Mussolini was killed earlier everybody would have posted back insisting that Hitler would not be able to rise to power because he'd have no successful example. And so then without Hitler in power Europe lives happily ever after.

One reason I specified a PoD in Feb 1933 is I wanted to explore implications of a timeline where Hitler definitely *is* in power, but he does not have Mussolini to deal with.
 

abc123

Banned
abc123


How were you thinking the regime would deterioriate? After Mussolini's death the King and government decide to let other parties organize and compete? There are leftist uprisings?

.

I really don't know, IMO all options are open.

But let's talk about his sucessors in Fascist Party first? Who could suceed him in 1933?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I know this is jumping ahead of the initial questions of immediate succession to Mussolini within the Fascist apparatus, but, I've got a couple more speculations on the medium term consequences.

a) Geostrategic & regional implications: If post-Mussolini Italy is less hostile and adventurous in its foreign policy, how is British naval planning affected? Without so much worry about a two front naval war in the Mediterranean and the Pacific, might Britain (and even France) take a more pro-China, anti-Japan stance in the late 1930s, or at the very least, might they fortify Indochina and Malaya more.

Within the Mediterranean itself, if Britain fears Italian hostility less, and Italy is not investing in things like Mussolini's project of anti-British propaganda in the Arab world, perhaps the British are far less worried about the Mediterranean. One effect might be that they worry less about appeasing Arab and Muslim opinion, so, there might not be any Palestine White Paper and the resulting cutback in jewish immigration to Palestine (and head-on clashes between Zionists and Britain) from 1939 onward. Thoughts?

b) Internal Italian political implications: Is there a way we could end up with a democratic republic post-Mussolini, massive growth of the Anarchist and Socialist Left, and ultimately a Civil War analogous to the Spanish one, with German and Soviet aid to the competing factions?
 
b) Internal Italian political implications: Is there a way we could end up with a democratic republic post-Mussolini, massive growth of the Anarchist and Socialist Left, and ultimately a Civil War analogous to the Spanish one, with German and Soviet aid to the competing factions?

wouldn't it be more likely a north-south split? with the right vs. the extreme right?

with Allies supporting the government in Rome.

all the northern industries supporting an Italian Nazi Party as their attack dog to be rid of control from Rome.
 
wouldn't it be more likely a north-south split? with the right vs. the extreme right?

with Allies supporting the government in Rome.

all the northern industries supporting an Italian Nazi Party as their attack dog to be rid of control from Rome.
I doubt there would ever be an Italian nazi party. None of them were big fams of nordicism or the Aryan superman myth for obvious reasons.
 
IF there was an Italian civil war it would be along north-south lines.

suggest Farinacci http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Farinacci as their leader
He was an anti semite, but not a nazi. There are a few reasons that Nazism wouldn't find an audience in Italy.

1) The Nazi racial hierarchy puts Germans above the Mediterranean Europeans (Latins and Greeks). Something like that isn't going to attract much support.

2) The majority of Italy's military and political leaders weren't ant-semetic. Not even Mussolini was. He had a Jewish mistress and only passed anoti-semetic laws in the late 30's to suck up to Hitler.

3) Many southerners believed that southern Europeans were superior. After all, between the Greco-Roman civilization and the defeat of Napoleonic France, Europe was being dominated by southern Europeans. Britain and Germanys rise was relatively recent. It's something that even Hitler acknowledged.

A coup led by Farinacci isn't going to be very successful IMO. Depending on when this takes place, as I see it the only potential leaders if Mussolini dies are Dino Grandi, General Badoglio, Marshal Balbo or Ciano working with one of the other three.
 
I know this is jumping ahead of the initial questions of immediate succession to Mussolini within the Fascist apparatus, but, I've got a couple more speculations on the medium term consequences.

a) Geostrategic & regional implications: If post-Mussolini Italy is less hostile and adventurous in its foreign policy, how is British naval planning affected? Without so much worry about a two front naval war in the Mediterranean and the Pacific, might Britain (and even France) take a more pro-China, anti-Japan stance in the late 1930s, or at the very least, might they fortify Indochina and Malaya more.



b) Internal Italian political implications: Is there a way we could end up with a democratic republic post-Mussolini, massive growth of the Anarchist and Socialist Left, and ultimately a Civil War analogous to the Spanish one, with German and Soviet aid to the competing factions?

Nope, nyet, nada, not possible; the fascist had lot less influence politically and in the society at this stage than their nazi and communist counterpart at their own begining, plus except Balbo there is no real leadership material in their rank at the moment.
On the other side, the socialist, communist and everyone else has been neutered, exiled (both internally and externally) and basically is dangerous like a puppy.
Finally, and more importanly, the armed forces are firmly on the King side so any rebellious attempt will be very short...in any case any soviet help will need to go through sea lane and this will mean that every soviet ships is a target (like OTL Spanish civil war demonstrated).
What we will can see is someone take the control of the goverment in name of the departed dear leader and to continue the official rule of the fascist party; in reality the King and the old political enstablishment will be the one with a greater control than OTL ...long term we can see some rapprochment with the cristian democrats like De Gasperi.
Basically Italy will become more like the average dictatorship run by a commitee.
 
wouldn't it be more likely a north-south split? with the right vs. the extreme right?

with Allies supporting the government in Rome.

all the northern industries supporting an Italian Nazi Party as their attack dog to be rid of control from Rome.

Please, the North-South split (at least on great economic line) really started on the 60's and become a (stupid and irrealistic) meme in the 90's with the Lega...but is realistic as Prussia deciding to secede from Germany.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Please, the North-South split (at least on great economic line) really started on the 60's and become a (stupid and irrealistic) meme in the 90's with the Lega...but is realistic as Prussia deciding to secede from Germany.

Only 1960s? Wow. Much later than most people think. Among people I've chatted with there's an impression the split goes back to the renaissance, with more learned people correcting them saying that the economic divergence came only after the Piedmontese takeover in the 1860s. So you're talking a whole century later than even that. Not that it's wrong, it's different than what is usually said.

BTW, what about the possible geostrategic consequences in the Med, Africa, Middle East, Austria and Spain of a post-Mussolini Italy? In particular to prospect of greater relief from a sense of potential threat in Britain and France?
 
Only 1960s? Wow. Much later than most people think. Among people I've chatted with there's an impression the split goes back to the renaissance, with more learned people correcting them saying that the economic divergence came only after the Piedmontese takeover in the 1860s. So you're talking a whole century later than even that. Not that it's wrong, it's different than what is usually said.

To be much more specific, yes the true economic divergence started at the beginning of the 'Risorgimento' with Lombardy and later Piedmont starting to industrialize and the Kingdom of Two Sicilies beginning his descent to 'failed nation' status.
This was exacerbated by the Piedmontese takeover that due to cultural, linguistic and economic factor basically treated the South as a colony for the first 10 years...and later just don't cared much about that.
With the post-war II economic boom the true difference exploded with the North become the economic engine of the nation and the goal of an astoudanting internal emigration effort, while the South greatly lagged behind engulfed in the result of century of bad administration, horrible economic and political decision, lack of infrastructure and industries, so greatly exacerbating the situation to both an economic and cultural level.
It's not that there were no difference before, there were, there were a lot but were very 'manageable' and in general Italy with his limited industrialization was at whole an agricultural nation with some exception (Lombardy, Piedomont and some other areas like Genoa), even if south Italy was always the weakest part.
Honestly the first truly national proof of this profound political difference was the Monarchy referendum of 46, with the nation divided between the monarchist south and repubblican north...but it was needed something very catastrophic like Italy partecipation in WW2 to truly flesh out it.

BTW, what about the possible geostrategic consequences in the Med, Africa, Middle East, Austria and Spain of a post-Mussolini Italy? In particular to prospect of greater relief from a sense of potential threat in Britain and France?

Well, first it's better remember that at the time Benny was a very respected world leader, considered the one who saved Italy from chaos and basically there were a line of foreign politicians, industrialist and journalist to swoon over him.
Both Paris and London will feel a lot worried regarding any possible regional instability and will try to support anyone who look strong enough to keep things in order; if it's a democratic goverment they will be happier but in reality they are not so choosy (naturally for France this depend on when it happened, as any 'popular front' goverment will be very very wary of a continued fascist goverment).
In any case the war in Abyssinia will be aborted and i doubt that anyone in charge (probably a triumvirate between Balbo, Ciano and Badoglio or De Bono...with the King play 'kingmaker':eek: and having a very strong say in how things will go) will support the Nationalist so much in the Spanish civil war.
Regarding Austria, well maybe the '34 attempt will be succesfull due to Italy being too occupied, later they will be opposed...and frankly both Ciano and Balbo were a lot worried of Germany and they will stick with France and UK
 
Top