Mussolini & his monarch |
Although he complained about having to deal with the monarchy such as when Hitler visited the country (and Hitler, who was adamantly opposed to monarchy, warned Mussolini that the Royal Family was against him and that the monarchy should be abolished at the first available opportunity), the Duce always seemed willing to make use of the monarchy as a dynastic tool for the advancement of Italian interests. When the so-called Austro-fascists sounded him out about the possibility of restoring the House of Hapsburg he made no objection and even spoke of another Hapsburg-Savoy dynastic alliance to cement the ties between Italy and Austria. During the Italian intervention he also proposed Prince Amadeus, Duke of Aosta, as a potential Spanish monarch (as his ancestor had briefly been). The King disliked this idea and, no doubt to his relief, Franco turned it down. Yet, there were other confrontations when Mussolini tried to interfere with the army, confrontations which the King always won such as the proposal to abolish the carabinieri (the prestigious and very royalist military police) and another to fuse the army and the MVSN (the Fascist militia or Blackshirts). Were these simply efforts to expand the much-boasted totalitarianism of the regime or part of an on-going anti-monarchist agenda?
Re-Imperatore & Duce |
After Mussolini, there was no more elite group among the Fascists than the “Quadrumvirs”, men who had led the ‘March on Rome’ in 1921; Michele Bianchi, Emilio De Bono, Cesare De Vecchi and Italo Balbo. Of these, Bianchi was dead by 1930, De Bono and De Vecchi had always been staunch monarchists and only joined the Fascist bid for power after Mussolini endorsed the monarchy and even Italo Balbo, previously an ardent republican, had become a monarchist after becoming disillusioned with Mussolini’s leadership. Balbo, like the King, had been particularly distressed at the decision to ally with Nazi Germany. Count Dino Grandi, president of parliament and a member of the Fascist Grand Council also remained supportive of the monarchy and increasingly dubious in his attachment to Mussolini (he would ultimately raise the motion in the Grand Council to restore the King to his full powers, thus removing Mussolini). Given all of that, and the fact that the army remained staunchly royalist, later proven by the fact that only one Marshal of Italy followed Mussolini in his Nazi-backed puppet republic in the north after 1943, would indicate that even if there had been an effort to abolish the monarchy before the war it almost certainly would have failed disastrously.
Prince Umberto & Mussolini |
Yet, again, even if that had been the Duce’s plan, it may not have been successful. For one thing, Mussolini was never able to have the purely Fascist military victory that he always longed for. The invasion of Abyssinia is illustrative of this. The original commander was Emilio De Bono who (though a staunch monarchist) was one of the Fascist Quadrumvirs and the Blackshirt legions were set to play the dominant role in the fighting. However, De Bono’s cautious advance was taking too much time and he had to be replaced by Marshal Badoglio who was seen at least as being more the King’s man as a traditional Piedmontese army officer (though, oddly enough, De Bono was probably more attached to the monarchy in fact than Badoglio was). The MVSN is often wrongly considered the Italian equivalent of the German SS but, in fact, it would have been more similar to the SA. It was a militia, not an elite force and mostly consisted of men who were “weekend warriors” rather than professional soldiers. Even then, by the time of World War II, many of its commanders were monarchist former army officers rather than committed Fascists.
Marshal Giovanni Messe |
Given how many monarchists remained in positions of authority in government, even within the Fascist Party itself, as well as the prevalence of royalist sentiment in the army, it is hard to see how Mussolini could have abolished the monarchy even if Italy had won the war. Part of the problem, for the Duce at least, with the royalist figures such as De Vecchi, De Bono, former leader of the predominately royalist nationalist party Luigi Federzoni (who was also on the Grand Council) was precisely that Mussolini had appointed them all to high positions. Previously, he had stated that there would, in the future, be “another” Fascist revolution and this time, “without contraceptives” (taken by most to mean casting aside the monarchy and Church) and that he was “plucking the chicken feather by feather to lessen its squawking” (referring to his diminishment of royal powers) which could certainly be added to the column of evidence that Mussolini intended to move against the monarchy at some point. However, if part of that “plucking” involved the removal of royalists from positions of power, particularly non-military officials like those mentioned above, it would have been all but impossible to do without destroying the Fascist myth of the Duce as the man who was “always right”. After all, if Mussolini is never supposed to make a mistake, how could he purge such men at the very highest echelons of the Fascist state without admitting the he had been spectacularly wrong on numerous occasions over so many years?
Victor Emmanuel III |
That, however, was never an option though as Italy lost the war and so the only question left is whether losing cost the House of Savoy their crown. It certainly made a huge difference. Contrary to the popular perception (based mostly on World War II), losing wars was not something Italians were used to. Ties between the military and the monarchy were old and strongly held but, prior to World War II, Italian military operations had been overwhelmingly successful, from the war in Abyssinia, the intervention in Spain, the pacification of Libya, World War I and the war against Ottoman Turkey. The Italian military had been extremely over-hyped by Mussolini but given the recent history, the stunning losses in World War II came as quite a shock to the public and as a terrible morale blow to the royal army in particular. Of course, we know that losing the war did not automatically bring down the monarchy but there were several key points about the loss that certainly undermined the monarchy and left it in mortal danger. Examples include the German alliance, the Salo Republic and the blundering of the Allies. There was also one way in which Mussolini himself actually benefited the monarchy, albeit inadvertently.
Italian Co-Belligerent Force soldiers |
Another problem caused by the Germans and their Salo puppet state was that it provided a huge shot in the arm to all the most anti-monarchy elements in Italy. It attracted the most diehard Fascists as well as attracting even more leftist opposition. Communist partisan guerillas were rampant and could count on strong backing from the Soviet Union. Inevitably, some aid from the western Allies to other non-communist partisans found their way into communist hands. So, while anti-monarchy elements gained a stranglehold on northern Italy thanks to the state of affairs caused by Germany, in the rest of the country, short-sighted Allied policies did nothing to bolster the monarchy which was the best defense against a communist takeover of Italy. Were it not for this confused situation and the Allied occupation there may well have never been a referendum at all. Finally, Mussolini inadvertently helped the monarchy by the previously discussed efforts of him to keep the Royal Family out of the war as much as possible. He did this because he did not want them to share any of the glory but, as it turned out, it meant that they could not be blamed for the ultimate defeat and most of the military remained loyal to the monarchy. This is evidenced by the efforts taken to keep as many members of the armed forces as possible from participating in the referendum by its republican organizers.
Did the war play a major part in the downfall of the Italian monarchy? Undoubtedly, and if Italy had stayed out of the war the monarchy would likely still be here. However, I don’t think the war doomed the Italian monarchy. Those who wanted King Victor Emmanuel III to abdicate, which he proved reluctant to do, was mostly because he had been too long associated with the Fascists rather than the war, though it was certainly unpopular, particularly after all hope of victory was lost. If the Allied Control Commission had not been so unrealistic in their demands on the Italian government, things might have been very different -but of course they would not have been there in the first place were it not for the war. It is also true that the part played by the Allies in the lead-up to the referendum is often exaggerated, after a certain point (certainly after the first post-Fascist elections brought so many communists to power) they took a “hands-off” attitude, refusing to hinder or help either side. They certainly did harm the monarchist cause overall, but probably not as much as some (seeking a convenient scapegoat) like to think. The war did not doom the Kingdom of Italy but losing the war certainly made the fall of the monarchy possible and probable yet not inevitable.
If Italy had stayed out of the war, the monarchy would almost certainly have survived. There were too many monarchists in high places to make abolition of the monarchy in any way easy. If Italy had won the war, the monarchy would probably have survived, even with Mussolini triumphant, it was still too interwoven with the fabric of society and the regime to get rid out without trouble and a great deal of embarrassment. If, upon exiting the war, Germany had stayed out of Italy, it certainly would have made the retention of the monarchy more likely. If the Allies had enacted a coherent policy towards the Kingdom of Italy which was seeking an armistice, the monarchy could have survived. If Italy had been given some tangible benefit for joining the Allied cause, the monarchy might have been saved. It, of course, also goes without saying that if the Allies had behaved differently and if the referendum had been conducted fairly and by impartial authorities the monarchy could have been saved. I dislike saying so but if King Victor Emmanuel III had abdicated and left the country at the time of the defeat, it may also have made preserving the monarchy easier. As it was, the Fascist era and World War II managed to at least make possible the downfall of one of the oldest Royal Families in the world so that, for the first time in over a thousand years, there was no patch of ground over which a Savoy reigned.
I'm confused. You say repeatedly that Italy lost World War II--but I was under the impression that, starting in 1943 when Mussolini turned traitor, aided by Nazi Germany, in fighting against Mussolini and Hitler, King Vittorio Emanuele III and the Kingdom of Italy switched sides and joined the Allies in the war. If that is true, wouldn't that therefore mean that the Kingdom of Italy won the war, since she joined the side that ultimately saw victory?
ReplyDeleteWhere is my argument flawed?
Well written and interesting article, thank you! I've been a lurker on your blog for some time, and am a confirmed American Monarchist and Reactionary, but you're article shows the basic incompatibility of Monarchy with the modernist 'isms' like Fascism. I do not think a true Fascist can be a real Monarchist nor vice versa, Fascism was just an radical attempt to protect the modern republic from the very consequence of modern republics; Socialism/Communism. Again, thank you!
ReplyDelete@chrisp: I agree with you for the most part and like how you put it--although I would go further and say that fascism is ultimately rooted in Marxist socialism (hence why it's incompatible with Christianity or monarchy), it simply substitutes biology for class and thus is more internally consistent (and so less hypocritical) than internationalist Communism. Hence, if all else were equal (which it obviously isn't), fascism would be more dangerous for that reason--it has a greater potential than Communism to fool people into thinking it has the internal consistency of reality.
DeleteThe problem is that there is no clear definition for "fascism". Today it is no more than an accusation and even at the time it was quite vague and usually just came down to whatever the dictator ordered. If by "fascism" you mean national socialism (as opposed to international socialism aka Marxism) then it is certainly incompatible with monarchy. If, however, by "fascism" you mean corporatism then it is very compatible, being an outgrowth of the guild system of the middle ages & even before.
DeleteI don't know how appropriate it would be in a comment on a blog entry about something else but what you said about corporatism being an outgrowth of the guild system interests me and I would be curious to hear more.
DeleteToday the term "corporatism" is often tossed around as government being dominated by big business interests. However, actually, it simply means government representation based on occupation and organic social groups rather than individuals grouped together on the arbitrary basis of geography. So, in the old days, every craft had their guild which oversaw things like quality control etc and represented the interests of their industry in dealings with the government. Corporatism is a furtherance of that so that every industry would be organized into a corporation (some used other names) that would represent labor and capital together in that industry and to provide representatives to deal with the state.
DeleteI have, at times, described it in this way: most people know about the problems of lobbyists having undue influence in government. Elected representatives are often influenced by lobbyists to favor their interests rather than those of the people who elected them. In a corporatist system (though this is a simplification) the lobbyists themselves would *be* the representatives and every industry would have their own.
This is a system that has been rarely tried and even then seldom given a fair chance (Mussolini talked about it but never really went all the way with it as, as I said, his policies were erratic). I don't know if it would be best (I don't believe in 'ideal' systems) but I would like to see it given a try somewhere, sometime.
Just a quick remark: Although Bavaria never was a corporatist state, the idea had influenced the constitution of 1946. There was a corporatist second chamber of parliament (the Senate), that consisted of representatives of the corporations, but also of the cities, universities and the clergy. Initially quite influential, its rights were restricted step by step and finally it was abolished in 2000 after a plebiscite as an “undemocratic relic”. I would have rather abolished the chamber of representatives…
DeleteI'd probably agree in your place. There were a few countries that tried it or something similar, Austria, Spain, a couple of the Baltic republics, Portugal, but they were cut short by various events. Seems to me there was promise, I would, again, not be opposed to it being given an honest chance somewhere.
DeleteThank You! A proper analysis that has all the value of the most impartial objectivity.
ReplyDeleteI would say that if Italy had won, Mussolini would have certainly tried to move against the monarchy sooner or later. The fact that he resented sharing the spotlight with the king and the fact that he was a lifelong republican that simply learned to expertly conceal his beliefs when it served him are both well documented.
ReplyDeleteWhether he would have been powerful enough to pull it off is an open question, but I have little doubt that he would have at least tried once he thought the opportune time had arrived. Maybe sometime in the mid 1950s. 10 years would have been enough time to gradually purge the military and party of the most ardent monarchists, and it could have been done slowly and delicately enough to avoid an obvious pattern.
It would have possibly created problems regarding Croatia and Albania, which would have been only connected to Italy via the monarchy, but in a dictatorship, such things can be fungible.
That would only hold true if you believe Mussolini was a successful leader. Originally, after moving to the right to gain power, Italy improved dramatically. Then he started to move back to the left and the economy ground to a halt which made more people question his judgment and be reminded of the value of the monarchy -having someone above the Duce. If Mussolini and Fascism turned Italy into a paradise, he may have been able to move against the monarchy eventually but I tend to think that would not have happened. Mussolini always seemed to pull back to his socialist roots and that was never going to be conducive to a stable and prosperous economy.
DeleteI think there are several issues with the referendum: first it was quite possibly rigged, with voter intimidation and a batch of antimonarchy votes 'discovered' just as the republicans had given up hope of winning. Secondly, the monarchists won in the south, including in Rome, while the fascist and communist north were in favour of a republic. In effect, without strong fascist support the monarchy would not have been abolished! This left Italy without a monarchy but with a fascist party that still thrives.
ReplyDeleteThe refusal of Victor Emmanuel to abdicate until a month before the referendum was the final and fatal setback to the monarchist cause. King Umberto and Queen Maria Jose proved to be effective campaigners for the monarchy in the month of active campaigning available to them, and in fact their efforts started to close the gap in public opinion polls. As it was, the pro-republican factions were worried that the royal couple might turn around voter sentiment. That's why, when the first voting results started to come in from the South, people thought it was entirely plausible that the monarchy might win. If the royal couple had more time, many observers said in 1946, they could have brought in a Savoy victory. It is baffling why Victor Emmanuel doomed his own dynasty by not giving them this opportunity.
ReplyDelete