WI Victor Emmanuel III abdicates earlier?

Don_Giorgio

In 9 May 1946 King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy abdicated in a last effort to save the Monarchy... This however was proved useless since 54% of the voters voted in favour of a Republic...
WI he had abdicated earlier? Lets say in 1943 when he sacked Mussolini and Italy switched sides... Could his earlier abdication saved the House of Savoy? Any thoughts?
 

OperationGreen

His successor and son King Umberto II was amazingly popular. Fascism and the Monarchies compliance with Mussolini did not taint him. I think the US and Allies could easily get behind Umberto.

So if Umberto becomes King, I would imagine seeing more cooperation with the allies and in 1946 he winning the Referendum with a landslide and becoming a strong US block to radical socialist politics in Italy. He is seen as a potentially great Italian Monarch, which was destroyed by his father’s decisions, and countries defeat.
 

Don_Giorgio

Wouldnt the Italians associate Umberto II with his father? Communist-leaning partisans were controlling many places in Italy in 1943-1945 and they could move against Umberto II...
 

Bregil

Sorry to necro an old thread but it seems better than making a duplicate. I was wondering the same thing as the OP. If Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated at the same time as the Italian surrender, would Umberto II's popularity have been enough to save the monarchy? If so, what would that mean for the future of Italian and European history?
 

Lord Grattan

Bregil said:
Sorry to necro an old thread but it seems better than making a duplicate. I was wondering the same thing as the OP. If Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated at the same time as the Italian surrender, would Umberto II's popularity have been enough to save the monarchy? If so, what would that mean for the future of Italian and European history?
Click to expand...

As EN said, necroed threads get locked quickly. I think (but could be wrong) that the only time a necrod thread would not be locked would be IF the person waking the thread makes a substantive and constructive comment plus offers a compelling reason why he/she has awakened an old thread rather than starting a new one.
___________

Is there any reason to believe that Italy would enjoy greater political stability during the mid 20th century with a popular and astute Umberto II as king?
 

Bregil

Thanks for letting me know. On previous forums I've frequented it was always emphasized to an extreme degree that you don't start a thread unless you can't find anything utilizing the search function. So would you recommend that I just create a new topic to address this question then?
 

Look More Closely Later

Italian 1946 Referendum

Wikipedia on 'the kingdom of Italy' (for what that's worth) seems to indicate that there was a strong north-south divide in the 1946 referendum, with the south being royalist, and the north republican. If it was a geographical thing, I'm not sure Victor Emmanuel III going a year or two earlier would have made much difference to the net result.
Italy splitting into a northern Republic and a southern Kingdom would seem to me a more likely way of preserving the monarchy, at least in the south. I don't know if the allies would have had the same interest in splitting Italy post-war that they did in dividing Germany up, though...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top