Why did the Italian goverment collapse so easily?

[waldzee]

Mussolini committed Grand Treason by leaving the resort hotel where he was both lawfully & comfortably detained & then setting up the 'fascist Republic of Salo'. Given that he wasted half a million soldiers in the Soviet Union campaigns, hsi detention was rather humane.

While Pietro Badoglio, admittedly, " dodged a charge' for his alleged atrocities in Ethiopia, in practise he negotiated an end to the war as the lawfull head of Italy.

I fail to see what an additional million casualties would have proved in Italy.

In any case, you have the 'high treason'charge backwards.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CJK1990,

How could anyone commit high treason against Mussolini?

Italy was a monarchy and Mussolini wasn't its head of state.

Cheers,

Sid.

[CJK1990]

That's a very technical argument that ignores the fact that Mussolini de facto exercised unlimited powers at the time, and thus de facto treason was committed. If the King of Britain dismissed Churchill, appointed a puppet government and then surrendered to Germany, I'm pretty sure people would agree that treason was committed.

[DrG]

CJK1990,
I see you go on with the story of the treason... The Grand Council of Fascism was made of men who were fully entitled to vote as they wished, they didn't have to bow in front of Mussolini, and he was well aware, before the Council started, that he was in minority. Some of them were misled (Ciano in first place, who fled from Badoglio to... Germany! this is enough to understand how much he hadn't understood the results of the vote), chiefly by Grandi, De Stefani and maybe Bottai, but anyway they were adults and voted as they thought was the best choice. Moreover, the King had no duty to appoint another Fascist govern (nor the Gran Council had asked it).
Anyway, I really don't understand what idea do you have of war: war is made to reach peace. A peace better than before the war, but peace, not war per se. You are the first to state that you don't believe in any chance of separate peace with USSR, exactly like Ambrosio (!) by the way, yet you still argue that Italy should have sacrificed pointlessly the lives of its soldiers and inhabitants to go on fighting (while the Blitz took more British lives than the Anglo-American bombings of 1943 in Italy, it should be noted that the latter were just at their beginning and were able to kill as many as 2,000-3,000 people in a single attack, something never happened before; and, I repeat, Hamburg's firestorm, that the British tried to repeat on Milan a few days later, was an horror that any wise govern should have avoided, unless ultimate victory were quite sure).

Waldzee,
I fear there are a few mistakes in your message. Mussolini was an hostage, kidnapped without any legal charge and detained against his will (he wanted to be taken to his villa in the countryside of Predappio and stay there). Anyway, he didn't ask to be freed by Hitler and it's well known that he was far from happy to see the Germans "saving" him. He accepted to led the Fascist Republic only after strong pressures by Hitler, who even threatened to turn Italy into a new Poland.
About Italian losses on the Russian front, they were about 90,000, not an "half million".

Guido

[CJK1990]

I guess my point is that most governments do not surrender until defeat is truly imminent no matter how unfavorable the situation looks. For example the Ethiopian government did not surrender to Italy outright after being invaded just because the situation looked hopeless. I agree that the situation was indeed bleak, but they were not faced with imminent disaster. In that circumstance most governments would fight on in the small hope that they could negotiate more favorable terms later. Not only that, most would fight on for honors sake and to impose a cost on the invader for their actions. Moreover as I said before there was a real chance that the invasion could have been repulsed at Salerno, if that happened the Allies might decide to bypass mainland Italy. Alternatively, they might have held out until Germany surrendered and then try to exploit East-West tension to make peace on relatively favorable terms. Again, this was unlikely but it forms a rational basis for fighting on.

[Patton42]

Hello CJK1990, I am enjoying your arguments to your point, even though I think you are outnumbered here. I will take exception on your comparison with the situation in Italy and your fictional situation that if Churchill had been replaced by a “puppet” government and then that government had surrendered to the Germans that it would be considered treason by the British people; this is not an apples to apples comparison with the Italian situation. First in Italy it was not a “puppet” government, there was nothing illegal about the ousting of Mussolini. And while I will I am not a big fan of Badoglio or the King, the process was legal. You must remember that a government is supposed to represent the will of its people, not subject IT’s will on their people. The English people were almost unanimously united in their “hatred” and determination it oppose Germany, so if Churchill was sacked and a new government immediately declared a truce or surrendered to Hitler, then yes, they would feel that they were betrayed. In Italy it was very much the opposite, with many people with strong feelings against the Germans, and most people wanting the war to end. From my understanding there had always been predominately anti-German feelings held by the Italians. They had fought against the Germans in WW1, and the average Italian did not consider them their ally. On the other hand many Italians had either relatives in America who helped support them, or they dreamed of one day going to America. When it was announced that Mussolini was disposed, there were scenes of Italians dancing in the streets in celebration. So a comparison between the two in your “what if” does not fit.

The war was lost by mid 43’ for the Axis. Hitler knew this. He knew the condition of is troops, fuel, attritional losses. They could not touch American and Soviet manufacturing. He refused to accept reality and MILLIONS more would die because of his stubbornness?? Insanity?? Cowardice??? I do not know, but this decision led to misery on an epic scale. Most Italian military leaders knew likewise that the war was over, so what were they to tell their troops, “fight and die here so Hitler may get 6 or 12 more months time before he too was defeated”. Why should Italian, men, woman, and children be expected to die for Hitler just because he refused to admit defeat??? Hitler felt betrayed by his own people, and as the war turned he felt them unworthy of his reign, and thus he believed they should parish with him in flames. How many woman and children of Germany died because Hitler would not submit to the inevitable? This is not something that should be looked upon with admiration decades there after, but should be looked on as an abomination in the name of humanity.. Why should Italians die for this…?

[Carl Schwamberger]

.... How many woman and children of Germany died because Hitler would not submit to the inevitable? This is not something that should be looked upon with admiration decades there after, but should be looked on as an abomination in the name of humanity.. Why should Italians die for this…?

Well put

[CJK1990]

By "puppet government" I meant a puppet of the King. After the Armistice, though, the Italian government was de facto a puppet of the Allies. Ousting Churchill would have been "legal" as well but it would have been totally unprecedented to do so. And yes, most Italians wanted peace but so did everyone else. The question is peace on what terms. Did most Italians favor surrender? They probably instead wanted a compromise peace. You can argue that the Fascist propaganda was very poorly conducted and failed to explain to the Italian people that the Allies were the real obstacle to peace. The bombing could easily have been used to motivate people into fighting against the "Anglo-American barbarians".

[CJK1990]

The reason you fight on is due to the need to exhaust all available alternatives prior to surrender. Let me give you a scenario, admitedly not all that likely, on how this war might have been turned around. Remember though this would be from the perspective of 1943. The Italians hold on and the Axis manages to either defeat the invasion of the mainland or hold the Allies south of Rome through 1944 with some German aid. Germany uses some of the units that would have been used in Italy and sends them to Normandy because the Atlantic Wall is less complete there. The Allied invasion is repulsed and the Germans transfer forces East to stop the Soviets. Because of the defeat at Normandy and the lack of progress in Italy Roosevelt gets defeated in the 1944 Presidential election. The new Republican administration is more anti-communist and decides to make a compromise peace with Germany and Italy to stop the Soviets. Germany would agree to restore the freedom of France, the Low Countries and Norway. This would cause a Stalin-Hitler peace. If the Salerno invasion failed Sicily would either be made independent or returned to Italy. Otherwise Italy gets divided into Monarchist/Fascist North Italy and Republican South Italy, states which are guaranteed by the U.S. and Germany. Now before you say that I am out of my mind, I do recognize it is quite remote. But nevertheless, this is similar to how Hitler was basing his strategy after 1942 and had some credibility at the time.

[Patton42]

CJK1900, as with most debates on this site, I don’t think either side will be swayed by the other. I will leave my contribution to this discussion with this post. I do note that you prefaced your last posting with the understanding that it was highly unlikely, so yes I understand you understand the remoteness of your what if situation. With that said, there was no chance of that situation happening. I know Hitler desperately clutched to the fact that the Allies would split or give up, but it was not going to happen. Germany and Japan both made the mistake of underestimating the Americans resolve to see the war through to the end, just as you are in your projected alternate-scenario. As for that, there was not ONE major American amphibious assault that was repulsed or subsequently driven back to the sea in the entire war. Not one island in the Pacific, not in Torch, or Husky. But in your hopeful scenario you have them failing twice!!!! Even if Salerno would have failed the first time, Hitler would still have had to keep troops in Italy to guard against subsequent attempts. Nothing was stopping Overlord. Nothing. I think the Germans had 120 planes left in France Normandy to defend against the invasion, the Allies had 12K. Plus you are forgetting that the Allies were already on Italian mainland before Salerno. Montgomery and the 8th had landed days earlier in operation Baytown. The Allies could have just reinforced the beachhead here and driven north. Plus, don’t forget in 44 the Allies also landed in strength in Southern France, Operation Dragoon. The Axis was not keeping the Allies out of Europe.

But Hitler was living in denial, and millions died while he did. I guess we can do lots of what ifs, but let’s just look at the reality of the choices that the Italians and Germans made. Italy, when it was very obvious that further resistance could do no real good, capitulated. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. The interim Allied government that came in left a few years later, leaving the Italians in control once again of their country. Hitler on the other hand refused to face reality. Millions died in vain, Germany lost, and Eastern Germany lived under the harsh control of the Soviet Union for 40 plus years…

It’s easy for us armchair generals to look back and say what if. We have all refought battles in our minds, but real leaders need to govern for their people. They need to be able to know when a war is unwinnable, and spare their people from untold death and misery. There was a reason Hitler did not drive around Berlin and look into the eyes of “his” people as their city lay in ruin. War is not clean, it is hell.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CJK1990,

Mine was no "very technical argument". It is a simple statement of fact. Mussolini was not head of state, so high treason could not be committed against him.

Certainly Mussolini felt betrayed - he later had his son-in-law executed. But that is another matter.

It would seem that both the King and the Fascist High Council had the authority to dispense with Mussolini's services to state and party respectively, and both did so.

It is therefore arguable that it was Mussolini's activities in 1944-45 that were high treason.

Does anyone know if any legal preparations were made by the Italian Government for prosecuting Mussolini if he were captured?

Cheers,

Sid.

[waldzee]

[
Waldzee,
I fear there are a few mistakes in your message. Mussolini was an hostage, kidnapped without any legal charge and detained against his will (he wanted to be taken to his villa in the countryside of Predappio and stay there). Anyway, he didn't ask to be freed by Hitler and it's well known that he was far from happy to see the Germans "saving" him. He accepted to led the Fascist Republic only after strong pressures by Hitler, who even threatened to turn Italy into a new Poland.
About Italian losses on the Russian front, they were about 90,000, not an "half million".

Guido[/quote]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right, I was thinking of the total forces committed
Interesting read:
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/history/world-war-2.asp

[CJK1990]

I'm not using treason in a purely legalistic sense. By law the King of Britain could have dismissed Churchill too, but obviously it would have been viewed as something akin to treason giving the actual circumstances.

[CJK1990]

I am unaware of many examples in history where a government pre-emptively surrendered merely because the situation seemed hopeless. Frederick the Great did not surrender when his country was completely surrounded and outnumbered during the Seven Years war. Napoleon did not surrender until the Allies cornered him, then he returned to give it another shot in spite of massive odds. The Confederate States did not surrender until their armies had been thoroughly beaten in spite of the fact that the North had massive advantages in resources from the very beginning. The French government did not surrender in 1870 even after Napoleon III's armies had been destroyed. The Spanish government did not surrender Cuba to the U.S. in spite of the fact there was no way they could possibly defend their position there. The Boer Republics did not surrender to Britain in 1899 in spite of the sheer might of the British Empire at that stage in history. The Belgian government in 1914 refused the German government's demands for safe passage of their troops even though they could not possibly put up an adequate defense. The Ethiopian government did not surrender to Italy when Italy invaded it despite long odds. The Polish government did not surrender to Germany even when it was clear within days that resistance was futile. The Finnish government did not surrender to the Soviet Union despite the massive disparity between the two nations. The French government did not surrender until the Germans occupied their capital and the front line disintegrated. Yugoslavia did not surrender until their armies were wiped out despite intimidation and then invasion by Germany. Greece did not surrender until the Getmans had destroyed their armies even though they were battling Italy as well. The Spanish Republican government did not surrender until Nationalist troops overran most of Spain. The North Korean government did not surrender when U.N. forces crossed the 38th parallel in October 1950. The South Vietnamese government did not surrender until their armies had collapsed and the capital was under attack. The Cambodian government did not surrender when Vietnam invaded it. Argentina did not surrender the Falkland Islands when Britain sent it's forces to recover it. Grenada and Panama did not surrender when the U.S. moved against them in the 1980s. The Taliban government did not surrender in 2001 and Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not surrender in 2003.

[DrG]

Does anyone know if any legal preparations were made by the Italian Government for prosecuting Mussolini if he were captured?

Article 29 of the Long Armistice (or Malta Armistice) signed on 29 Sept. 1943 forced Italy to turn Mussolini to the Allies if he had been captured, so, as far as I know, the problem of his trial was never considered by the Italian Government.
Guido