WI: The March on Rome fails?

[GeneralishJing07]

Let's say Victor Emmanuel III decides to say "no" to Mussolini and his Blackshirts, and signs Fanta's order to install a state of emergency within Rome. What happens then? How do the Blackshirts respond? What happens to Mussolini, and to fascism as a whole? What butterflies would occur beyond Italy?

 

[riki2048ksp]

The main problems that caused the rise of fascism would still be there (i.e. fear of communism, political instability, delusive outcome of WWI), so I don't think Mussolini would give up. They might follow a path of getting more and more seats in parliament during multiple elections, like the Nazis IOTL, and they would probably still gain power by the end of the 1920's. The left was too divided internally to ever pose a threat to their ascent to power.

Butterflies: probably Hitler wouldn't be inspired to try the Beer Hall Putsch, thus no prison and likely no Mein Kampf (but that doesn't mean no antisemitism). They would probably still ascend to power like IOTL, because their ascent was triggered more by the 1929 crisis.

Maybe, without the fascists in power at the right time, Fiume might remain an independent state under D'Annunzio, or anyway it wouldn't go to Italy. Also, Matteotti could live, at least a little bit longer. He might still denounce the Fascists later, but given that his OTL murder could have been a misinterpretation of Mussolini's words, it could be butterflied away.

In conclusion, I don't see any major changes if not for a later fascism in Italy

 

[Resurgam]

Butterflies: probably Hitler wouldn't be inspired to try the Beer Hall Putsch, thus no prison and likely no Mein Kampf (but that doesn't mean no antisemitism). They would probably still ascend to power like IOTL, because their ascent was triggered more by the 1929 crisis.

...except the failure of the Putsch is what convinced Hitler to subvert democracy rather than destroy it by force. That's a HUGE butterfly that negates their rise, as the Nazis could have burned out or been absorbed by another group long before '29.

 

[GeneralishJing07]

...except the failure of the Putsch is what convinced Hitler to subvert democracy rather than destroy it by force. That's a HUGE butterfly that negates their rise, as the Nazis could have burned out or been absorbed by another group long before '29.

What exactly were the Nazi Party's tactics prior to the Putsch? What do you think they would do without an earlier, successful example of fascism coming to power?

 

[Michele]

The main problems that caused the rise of fascism would still be there (i.e. fear of communism, political instability, delusive outcome of WWI), so I don't think Mussolini would give up. They might follow a path of getting more and more seats in parliament during multiple elections, like the Nazis IOTL, and they would probably still gain power by the end of the 1920's. The left was too divided internally to ever pose a threat to their ascent to power.

Butterflies: probably Hitler wouldn't be inspired to try the Beer Hall Putsch, thus no prison and likely no Mein Kampf (but that doesn't mean no antisemitism). They would probably still ascend to power like IOTL, because their ascent was triggered more by the 1929 crisis.

Maybe, without the fascists in power at the right time, Fiume might remain an independent state under D'Annunzio, or anyway it wouldn't go to Italy. Also, Matteotti could live, at least a little bit longer. He might still denounce the Fascists later, but given that his OTL murder could have been a misinterpretation of Mussolini's words, it could be butterflied away.

In conclusion, I don't see any major changes if not for a later fascism in Italy

Interesting points, but I'd add a few considerations.

First, the OTL Fascist leadership would be burned. Mussolini probably moves to Switzerland and avoids arrest (he was in Milan while his men marched on Rome), others are not so lucky. A reformed Fascist party, or a brand new extreme right party will need new leaders.

Second, either the new Fascist party or the new party might do what you say and gain seats in the parliament over time, but let's not forget that the violence in the streets remains a big factor in politics. Fascists and Communists still resort to it, especially the former. If the government's crackdown is effective and lasting, then the violence becomes less blatant and massive, and more targeted and covert - read terrorism.

Third, there is a fine possibility that both the King and the more mainstream right-wing politicians take a liking for martial law rule. Or at least for a much less liberal outlook. You'd have a swerve to the right, probably with the Communist party being outlawed, and the sort of very conservative but less "revolutionary" (and therefore less innovative but also less adventurist) regime that took hold in Poland, Greece, Romania over those two decades.

 

[GeneralishJing07]

(he was in Milan while his men marched on Rome)

Yes, Mussolini came to Rome the day after the March, only occasionally coming and stopping by to pose for photos. Like most of his ilk, a true chickenhawk.

Beyond Italy and Germany, what happens throughout the rest of the world, specifically Europe? Le Faisceau was the first non-Italian fascist party, and that was three years after the March on Rome. Do the people involved still involved with such parties and politics go on with fascism? Does the Nazi Party itself continue chugging forward, or does the March's failure grind everything to a halt?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, Mussolini came to Rome the day after the March, only occasionally coming and stopping by to pose for photos. Like most of his ilk, a true chickenhawk.

Beyond Italy and Germany, what happens throughout the rest of the world, specifically Europe? Le Faisceau was the first non-Italian fascist party, and that was three years after the March on Rome. Do the people involved still involved with such parties and politics go on with fascism? Does the Nazi Party itself continue chugging forward, or does the March's failure grind everything to a halt?

Not to defend Mussolini or anything, but wasn’t he a veteran of WW1?

 

[riki2048ksp]

Not to defend Mussolini or anything, but wasn’t he a veteran of WW1?

Yes, he was. He first avoided military service in the early 1900's by fleeing to Switzerladnd, got expelled and then completed the military service in Italy. He volunteered at the outbreak of WW1, but the request was turned down. He was drafted in August, and served with the 11th Bersaglieri regiment

 

[marathag]

Not to defend Mussolini or anything, but wasn’t he a veteran of WW1?

Yes, injured by a misfiring/defective Italian mortar shell.

He was out from combat in 1917 as a Corporal His brother also served, ending the war as a Lieutenant.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, injured by a misfiring/defective Italian mortar shell.

He was out from combat in 1917 as a Corporal His brother also served, ending the war as a Lieutenant.

I didn’t know that his brother was a Lieutenant. Do you know how he got his commission? Was he promoted through the ranks like Daladier or did he go through an OCS?

 

[marathag]

I didn’t know that his brother was a Lieutenant. Do you know how he got his commission? Was he promoted through the ranks like Daladier or did he go through an OCS?

There isn't much on him in English, and my Italian is terrible. But what is there is they both completely trusted each other and were very close, till he died of a heart attack.

 

[marathag]

I didn’t know that his brother was a Lieutenant. Do you know how he got his commission? Was he promoted through the ranks like Daladier or did he go through an OCS?

Some more digging, he was deferred until January 1918 from being married with 3 kids and 32 years old.
But unlike his Brother, had never been arrested. Since he had been a Professor, he was accepted by OCS and was part of the Force that blocked the Austrians at the Piave, with being noted for bravery under fire a couple times. So a far better military record than his Brother.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Italy either continues on a shaky sort of democracy akin to France or more likely falls to some type of strong man rule whether that be one spearheaded by the King and the military or by one of the leaders of the Fascist party

 

[GeneralishJing07]

Not to defend Mussolini or anything, but wasn’t he a veteran of WW1?

Funny story, that.

As Mussolini's time in the military went on, he increasingly felt miserable and even tried to use his political connections to get out before his service was officially over. It came to the point that he started to wonder, "Man, maybe my support for Italy's intervention in this war wasn't such a good idea."

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Italy either continues on a shaky sort of democracy akin to France or more likely falls to some type of strong man rule whether that be one spearheaded by the King and the military or by one of the leaders of the Fascist party

Italy wasn't a democracy though. It was a Constitutional Monarchy with the King controlling executive powers. This left the monarchy with a lot of theoretical power and influence. If Italy was ruled by a more competent and decisive King, it would have likely positioned itself to take advantage of the building tension leading up to the alternate World War. It could trade with a revanchist Germany and the other powers. Plus this alternate more competent King could try to ride the wave of ultranationalism/fasicism/reactionary fervor to create a coalition around the King. He could use this to create a sort of Royalist Dictatorship. Though this neo-Absolute monarchy would need to address the lagging economy, the backwards industrial state especially in Southern Italy (this saw its economy collapse with there being a massive Italian diaspora causing a large brain drain), and the ailing military. Maybe someone like Italo-Balbo if he's more of a Royalist here ends up like the Italian Francisco Franco returning power to the monarchy after WWII if Italy survives after it. Italo Balbo was more competent that Mussolini, and if Italy remained neutral in the war, it likely could have retained Libya while possibly taking Tunisia after decolonization occurs.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Funny story, that.

As Mussolini's time in the military went on, he increasingly felt miserable and even tried to use his political connections to get out before his service was officially over. It came to the point that he started to wonder, "Man, maybe my support for Italy's intervention in this war wasn't such a good idea."

I looked into it and this is what I’d found.

Mussolini

Benito Mussolini was a brilliant Socialist journalist who in 1914 declared war, put himself at the head if the anti-Socialist movement in Italy, manoeuvred himself into power by 1933 and ruled the country until overthrown in 1943. He was a dynamic but insecure personality, who appeared...

books.google.ca

It looks like a bit of a mixed record. He was eager to join and fought bravely early on, but grew exhausted with the war as time went on. He wasn’t well liked among the rank and file, because he’d used his newspaper to push for the war. He also attended an officer training course briefly, but because of his past as a socialist revolutionary he was kicked out of OCS.

Italy wasn't a democracy though. It was a Constitutional Monarchy with the King controlling executive powers. This left the monarchy with a lot of theoretical power and influence. If Italy was ruled by a more competent and decisive King, it would have likely positioned itself to take advantage of the building tension leading up to the alternate World War. It could trade with a revanchist Germany and the other powers. Plus this alternate more competent King could try to ride the wave of ultranationalism/fasicism/reactionary fervor to create a coalition around the King. He could use this to create a sort of Royalist Dictatorship. Though this neo-Absolute monarchy would need to address the lagging economy, the backwards industrial state especially in Southern Italy (this saw its economy collapse with there being a massive Italian diaspora causing a large brain drain), and the ailing military. Maybe someone like Italo-Balbo if he's more of a Royalist here ends up like the Italian Francisco Franco returning power to the monarchy after WWII if Italy survives after it. Italo Balbo was more competent that Mussolini, and if Italy remained neutral in the war, it likely could have retained Libya while possibly taking Tunisia after decolonization occurs.

Mussolini was bad, but Balbo had his problems too. He played the primary role in killing Italian naval aviation. Grandi would probably be better.

 

[GeneralishJing07]

Are there any sources describing the situation in Italy between the end of WWI and Mussolini's seizure of power? I know that there was mass deadlock and constant strikes, but I'm looking for some stuff that's more in-depth and lengthy about it.

 

[Michele]

Are there any sources describing the situation in Italy between the end of WWI and Mussolini's seizure of power? I know that there was mass deadlock and constant strikes, but I'm looking for some stuff that's more in-depth and lengthy about it.

In Italian? Plenty. Maybe there is something in English, the keyword you need is "biennio rosso".
Here's an article I found: https://libcom.org/history/italian-factory-occupations-biennio-rosso which has no author credit, is clearly translated from the Italian language, and provides the anarchists' POV.

 

[lukedalton]

There isn't much on him in English, and my Italian is terrible. But what is there is they both completely trusted each other and were very close, till he died of a heart attack.

Let's say that there are a lot of hint that the family life of young Mussolini and his brother was not really ...quiet due to his father alcholism, the two brothers were instead very attched to their mother

[/QUOTE]In Italian? Plenty. Maybe there is something in English, the keyword you need is "biennio rosso".
Here's an article I found: https://libcom.org/history/italian-factory-occupations-biennio-rosso which has no author credit, is clearly translated from the Italian language, and provides the anarchists' POV. [/QUOTE]

Yep, it's a little more complicated than what the article put it, to make things simple, at the time there were a lot of fervor for the revolution due to the event in Russia and Hungary and the PSI and union leaderships greatly increased the revultionary fire in the workers, unfortunely they soon realized that they don't have much a change for a revolution (while the army was not very keen for other foreign deployment and in some occasion revolted, there were little love lost for the factory workers that many veterans and soldiers thought as well payed coward)...but unfortunely by this stage they had lost control of the workers that wanted some confrontation. Giolitti at the time, simple put the factory under siege (the owners demanded instead the use of artillery ), isolated the workers and let the course of the rage run off.

 

[GeneralishJing07]

In Italian? Plenty. Maybe there is something in English, the keyword you need is "biennio rosso".
Here's an article I found: https://libcom.org/history/italian-factory-occupations-biennio-rosso which has no author credit, is clearly translated from the Italian language, and provides the anarchists' POV.

Thanks for that.

I might create a TL about this. What do you guys think?