Fiori di maggio: the Kingdom of Italy after WWII
- Thread starter DonFitzcarraldo
- Start date
I do share your dislike for the Savoys: the four who got the crown of Italy were not much (although VEIII put up a good performance during WW1 and Umberto might - but just might - have been the best of a sorry lot.
VEIII's failure to abdicate in 1943 (which looked quite obvious) and the lukewarm support of the church (who looked forward to a republic where their presence would be stronger by managing De Gasperi and the Christian-Democratic party) sealed the result of the referendum IMHO. Probably there were irregularities and some ballot stuffing, but it may have favoured the monarchy in the south and the republic in the north: I doubt it might have been enough to create a swing. Umberto made a very wise decision when he accepted the results and left for exile: if he had decided to stay and contest the outcome it might have handed very badly for Italy.
It was expected to be close: one of the monarchist complaints was that Italian soldiers still in prison camps could not vote (not that it would have made a difference: the bulk of Italian war prisoners returned in 1945 and early 1946)
I kinda hoped that the last line would kinda give it away, but I should make clear at this point that I am not butterflying away Communist reactions. Those reactions are going to be very ugly. They just haven't happened yet 
As for the hamfisted way the referendum was run, the Allies really didn't have a hand in running things on the ground (such as, perhaps, the number of polling stations...); that was left to the Italian government. The extent to which the Allies were officially involved remained ambiguous ITTL, and although I know the scope of that extent I will leave it ambiguous here. The more explicitly communist nature of the insurgency in the RSI (Bologna Soviet) and the larger scope of the damage done lead to a greater fear of communism in Italy; and certainly not without merit.
McCarthy will soon be a very busy man...
ETA: From the OTL perspective of an OOC monarchist, I personally loathe the House of Savoy and think that Italian unification was a mistake in the first place. But this seemed like an interesting POD...
As for the hamfisted way the referendum was run, the Allies really didn't have a hand in running things on the ground (such as, perhaps, the number of polling stations...); that was left to the Italian government. The extent to which the Allies were officially involved remained ambiguous ITTL, and although I know the scope of that extent I will leave it ambiguous here. The more explicitly communist nature of the insurgency in the RSI (Bologna Soviet) and the larger scope of the damage done lead to a greater fear of communism in Italy; and certainly not without merit.
McCarthy will soon be a very busy man...
ETA: From the OTL perspective of an OOC monarchist, I personally loathe the House of Savoy and think that Italian unification was a mistake in the first place. But this seemed like an interesting POD...
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
I kinda hoped that the last line would kinda give it away, but I should make clear at this point that I am not butterflying away Communist reactions. Those reactions are going to be very ugly. They just haven't happened yet
As for the hamfisted way the referendum was run, the Allies really didn't have a hand in running things on the ground (such as, perhaps, the number of polling stations...); that was left to the Italian government. The extent to which the Allies were officially involved remained ambiguous ITTL, and although I know the scope of that extent I will leave it ambiguous here. The more explicitly communist nature of the insurgency in the RSI (Bologna Soviet) and the larger scope of the damage done lead to a greater fear of communism in Italy; and certainly not without merit.
McCarthy will soon be a very busy man...
ETA: From the OTL perspective of an OOC monarchist, I personally loathe the House of Savoy and think that Italian unification was a mistake in the first place. But this seemed like an interesting POD...
In this order: I saw it coming, at least in a Republic, the ICP would feel it would be easier to overthrow it in favor of an Italian Union. With a monarchy however, the very opposite of everything they stood for, you know there will be blood.
I don't expect everyone to like where this is going, but Umberto is going to be an exceptionally interesting man depending on what he and his Prime Minister does for the next 5-10 years, give or take.
And as a pro-Monarchist (but not wholly dedicated to the cause) I kinda did approve the Italian unification, but really I was more okay with either Cavour's original intention (a North Italy under the Savoyards, and the Two Siciles under the Bourbons.) But I do agree that uniting the entire peninsula was a mistake, as was trusting Napoleon III to a promise he could not keep.
As for Tripoli...Even if they do retain the city, I don't expect the Italians to hold it for long in the face of the Libyans, more so should their monarchy goes down the drain.
Yes, that's my sense as well.
Whatever Victor Emmanuel was in the Great War, he completely undermined it with his conduct after it. He ends up as a small figure, and not just in stature.
Umberto's early years seemed promising, more so than his forebears. But we'll never really know. I just can't help feeling that of all the Savoyards, he was the one that least deserved the fate of 1946.
The Church had plenty of reason for ambivalence at that point, and not just because of memories of 1870. The Savoyard monarchy looked in a bad way, and Pius and much of the Curia may have been looking to hedge their bets, rather than go down with an unpopular dynasty.
All that said, Pius XII was by all accounts very dismayed to see the monarchy abolished. He seems to have personally liked both VEIII and Umberto. He was himself a scion of the "Black Nobility."
Undoubtedly. I think were were significant irregularities, some deliberate, but I'm less sure they made the difference.
As you say, the biggest factor was VEIII - his reign, and how he refused to terminate it in a timely manner to save the monarchy.
Last edited:
Great timeline here. I'm curious about the hints in TTL peace treaty. Wasn't Eritrea their oldest overseas colony, and with a plurality of Italians?
Will keep following.
Will keep following.
Yes it was the oldest colony but don't have an italian plurality, still there were lot of voices of local to remain bind to Italy in a commonwealth fashion...as the alternity was being 'united' with Ethiopia and that was not a real popular choice.
Lol. What were the demographics - were the Italians a significant minority? Also was Eritrea historically run centrally like Algeria, or administered separately?
Less than 40,000 by 1946.
No, what united Eritrea - a pretty diverse society, predominantly Christian but with a large Muslim minority, and numerous tribes - was a dislike of the idea of being run by the Amhara.
And once the Americans and British handed them over to Haile Selassie (as reward for his allegiance to the Allied cause) after the war, they got to like it even less.
The problem is both logistic and timing, the first is that no way for the Soviet to support any communist rebel faction due to Italy being surrounded by western nation...except Yugoslavia but i doubt that Tito will have much intention of helping Stalin if the break up happen in schedule, plus Uncle Joe was too prudent for this, it leaved the Greeks on their own device and if Togliatti go for the fight it will receive the same treatment.
Timing because the moment the economic situation become better and reconstruction begun people will have more serious things to do than start a revolution like rebuid so if Togliatti want to act is in a 'do or die' situation with minimal or no support (except something from Tito before the split up but i don't expect that much due to him supporting at the same time the communist in Greece...plus this can really piss off the americans)
In 1939 there were 76,000 Italians in Eritrea (total population: 740,000) which is significant enough. Eritrea was never a settlement colony. The Italian population was mostly concentrated in the capital, Asmara which had a better climate (in 1939 Asmara had a population of 98,000 with just over 50% Italians).
Up to 1897 the colony was governed by a military officer appointed by the Ministry of War (the last military governor was gen. Baratieri who tied his name - and not in a good way - to the first Ethiopian war). From 1897 to 1936 the colonial governors were civilians appointed by the Ministry of colonies; after 1936 Eritrea became one of the 6 provinces of AOI (Italian East Africa, with a viceroy in Addis Ababa).
Eritrea was never a problematic colony to govern: relations with Eritreans were always quite good and a significant number of them enrolled in the colonial forces (60,000 Eritreans "ascari" (almost 10% of the total native population of Eritrea) fought - and fought well - in Ethiopia in 1936. The ascari performed very well also during the campaign of 1940-41: they fought in Somaliland, at the battle of Cheren and during the final resistance on Amba Alagi.
As other have said, if the Eritreans could have had their say in the post war settlement the preferred solution would be to remain with Italy.
The Church and the Savoyards have, of course, always had a troubled history with each other. But at this point the Vatican is still happily in the grip of the Black Nobility and is scared shitless of Communism. Umberto's a smart kid, whose to say he didn't go up to the Holy Father and say "Hey, your Holiness, Communism is pretty damn strong in some areas. I'd hate to see them get elected w/o a devout Catholic above them on the foodchain..."? The Crown-Vatican relations are more a marriage of convenience at this point OTL.
And I'm still deciding whether my update today will be concerning Italian peace negotiations and seeing which parts of her empire she can salvage, or seeing what the communists do.
And I'm still deciding whether my update today will be concerning Italian peace negotiations and seeing which parts of her empire she can salvage, or seeing what the communists do.
In 1939 the Italians were 76,000 or 10% of the total population.
On the religion side the Muslims were 2/3 of the native population and the copts the balance (but the division was also one of geography the coast was almost totally Muslim).
And a fair number left after the Allied conquest.
But as you say, either way it's not that many; unlike Libya, it was never a settlement colony per se.
Religious demographics in Eritrea are elusive, especially that far back, but Eritrea has generally been considered to be Christian majority in the modern era. Certainly it is today (depending on which survey you credit, substantially so).
And yes the north and coastal parts of the country are where the Muslims predominate, while the Christians are concentrated in the central highlands.
And rightly so.
God help Italy if they had actually won control of the country after the war.
After the death of Cardinal Maglione in 1944 Pius XII did not nominate a new secretary of state, but split the responsibilities of the office between monsignor Tardini (external affairs) and monsignor Montini (internal affairs = Italian affairs). Both Montini and Tardini had been close confidants of Pius XII for many years (and Montini will go on to become archbishop of Milan in 1953 and pope in 1963). Montini (born near Brescia in Lombardy) was not tied in any way to the old Roman aristocracy: his sympathies where rather with the Azione Cattolica (Catholic Action) and he took them from his father who was the director of a newspaper not casually named like the organization.
I believe that the lukewarm feelings of the papacy toward the dinasty come in a significant way from the role that Montini played in those years (and obviously from Alcide De Gasperi who did not believe the monarchy could stay after the disasters of the dictatorship and the lost war).