Victor Emanuel III + Mussolini
- Nila MadhaVa
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 07:00
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Victor Emanuel III + Mussolini
I'm doing an essay for my last year of school. I am looking for information on the role Victor Emanuel III played in Mussolini's rise to power and his eventual fall.
Any and all information on this subject will be very much appreciated. Thank you.
Any and all information on this subject will be very much appreciated. Thank you.
The King & Dictator
The King had a decisive role in Mussolini’s rise to power in 1922 and his downfall in 1943. Your question is very broad and maybe should be more focused. What exactly do you want to know?
James
James
- Nila MadhaVa
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 07:00
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
- MVSNConsolegenerale
- Member
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 23 Apr 2002, 07:34
- Location: Ontario, Canada
The reasons are simple, Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party and the supporting Black Shirts stabilized a country that could have easily slipped into a Communist revolution. The King would no doubt have a problem with this, as Communists don't usually have Kings.with the circumstances and reasons for Victor Emanuel's actions...
In terms of his later treason against Mussolini, the King did not lawfully have the power to simply kick him out, again it is best to look at things cynically. In the event of a total surrender of the Royal Kingdom of Italy, it was probable that the allied high command would be interested in getting rid of the Head of State and the Head of the Government; i.e. the King and the Duce. I believe he thought that if he got rid of Mussolini with the help of some of Mussolini's own deputies, and made peace with the Allies, he would appear in good light.
History shows that the allies did look on the king with better light than mussolini, unfortunately; the Italian people did not. After the war, with Mussolini out of the picture and with nobody to blame, they turned Italy into a Republic and exiled the king. I believe his grandchildren just now are allowed back in Italy.
- MVSN
- Nila MadhaVa
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 07:00
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
- SM79Sparviero
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
- Location: Culqualber
Mussolini and the King
King Vittorio Emanuele III maybe is a little more guilty.
Mussolini's "march to Rome" in 1922 was a true GOLPE.
The Italian King in those years was a kind of "institutional referee" and the supreme commander of the army.
He could not choose: he HAD to stop the fascist revolution as a DUTY.
He didn' t.
On the contrary he accepted to give the leadership to Mussolini and to the fascist party that had only 36 deputies in parliament just because the Fascist dictatorship could be the solution that the Liberals could not find for the problems of post-war Italy and could stop the rising Socialist and sindacal movements (In Parliament agree of 306 deputies versus 116).
We all should remember that since 1922 to 1924 Mussolini had been the premier without a dictatorship, the Statuto Albertino ( =Constitution) was respected.
If Socialist and Communist deputies were not agree with Gouvernment they could express their ideas, if they didn't like Fascism they had 2 years to suggest alternative ways to the Liberal supporters of the fascist Party, that had still 36 deputies.They did not succeed in it.
Since 1922 to 1924 in Italy Fascists and Socialists had both caused social disorders and violences in Italy. I dont' know if the victory of the Fascists at the elections of 1924 was fully regular.
In 1923 the "Acerbo Law" ( it was accepted again by the majority of Parliament and by the King) increased exponentially by a majoritary system the power of the winners of the elections.
I only know that the King again in 1924 had the power and the DUTY to suspend the elections if he had a mere suspect of a mess.
Again, he didn' t.
If you ask my help and accept my price you are not better than me.
Mussolini's "march to Rome" in 1922 was a true GOLPE.
The Italian King in those years was a kind of "institutional referee" and the supreme commander of the army.
He could not choose: he HAD to stop the fascist revolution as a DUTY.
He didn' t.
On the contrary he accepted to give the leadership to Mussolini and to the fascist party that had only 36 deputies in parliament just because the Fascist dictatorship could be the solution that the Liberals could not find for the problems of post-war Italy and could stop the rising Socialist and sindacal movements (In Parliament agree of 306 deputies versus 116).
We all should remember that since 1922 to 1924 Mussolini had been the premier without a dictatorship, the Statuto Albertino ( =Constitution) was respected.
If Socialist and Communist deputies were not agree with Gouvernment they could express their ideas, if they didn't like Fascism they had 2 years to suggest alternative ways to the Liberal supporters of the fascist Party, that had still 36 deputies.They did not succeed in it.
Since 1922 to 1924 in Italy Fascists and Socialists had both caused social disorders and violences in Italy. I dont' know if the victory of the Fascists at the elections of 1924 was fully regular.
In 1923 the "Acerbo Law" ( it was accepted again by the majority of Parliament and by the King) increased exponentially by a majoritary system the power of the winners of the elections.
I only know that the King again in 1924 had the power and the DUTY to suspend the elections if he had a mere suspect of a mess.
Again, he didn' t.
If you ask my help and accept my price you are not better than me.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
I am not as sweet as Sparviero was towards the King. The Empire, or the conquest of Ethyopia was the contrary of what Mussolini had in program during '20s but the king wanted the war and Mussolini had the charge to do it. Internationally the charge of the King (mini king, he was very short) was higher than Mussolini's but Sept 8 1943 obliged Allies to "forget" those evidencies. All the internal fascist politics were far from the war (Mussolini promoted the "ruralisation" or return of citizen to the countries, he promoted the "golden parity" a fixed exchange rate 100 lit=1 USD by "autarchy" a greek work meaning "excellence thru ourselves"was meaning was a drastical cut in importations) All these premises (..CLOSER AS POSSIBLE TO THE PROGRAM OF ANY ACTUAL EUROPEAN GREEN PARTY...WHAT A PARADOX!) were exactly the contrary of what a militarized ever-fighting colonialist country as "Regno d'Italia" was as per will of his own King and Emperor V.E.III In fact a country facing war needs costant and ever-lasting feeding of raw materials and fresh technologies- the contrary of autarchy- to be payed with controlled inflating currency- the contrary of fixed exchange rate- to be provided to expanding iperactive industries -the contrary of ruralization-.
The incredible alliance with the Natural Enemy of Italy from 105 b.C. and all the consequences are nasty results of this imperfect diarchy.
The incredible alliance with the Natural Enemy of Italy from 105 b.C. and all the consequences are nasty results of this imperfect diarchy.
- Nila MadhaVa
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 07:00
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Nila,
I'm not sure of any good web sites, but one of my favorite WWII books deals with the entire history of Fascism in Italy. The book also does an excellent job showing the strange relationship between Mussolini and V.E. III. The book is titled:
The Brutal Friendship Mussolini, Hitler and the fall of Italian Fascism
Author: F.W. Deakin
Good Luck on your paper,
Chadwick
I'm not sure of any good web sites, but one of my favorite WWII books deals with the entire history of Fascism in Italy. The book also does an excellent job showing the strange relationship between Mussolini and V.E. III. The book is titled:
The Brutal Friendship Mussolini, Hitler and the fall of Italian Fascism
Author: F.W. Deakin
Good Luck on your paper,
Chadwick
Nila,
I'm not sure of any good web sites, but one of my favorite WWII books deals with the entire history of Fascism in Italy. The book also does an excellent job showing the strange relationship between Mussolini and V.E. III. The book is titled:
The Brutal Friendship Mussolini, Hitler and the fall of Italian Fascism
Author: F.W. Deakin
Good Luck on your paper,
Chadwick
I'm not sure of any good web sites, but one of my favorite WWII books deals with the entire history of Fascism in Italy. The book also does an excellent job showing the strange relationship between Mussolini and V.E. III. The book is titled:
The Brutal Friendship Mussolini, Hitler and the fall of Italian Fascism
Author: F.W. Deakin
Good Luck on your paper,
Chadwick
- Nila MadhaVa
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 07:00
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
MVSNConsolegenerale wrote:The reasons are simple, Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party and the supporting Black Shirts stabilized a country that could have easily slipped into a Communist revolution. The King would no doubt have a problem with this, as Communists don't usually have Kings.with the circumstances and reasons for Victor Emanuel's actions...
In terms of his later treason against Mussolini, the King did not lawfully have the power to simply kick him out, again it is best to look at things cynically. In the event of a total surrender of the Royal Kingdom of Italy, it was probable that the allied high command would be interested in getting rid of the Head of State and the Head of the Government; i.e. the King and the Duce. I believe he thought that if he got rid of Mussolini with the help of some of Mussolini's own deputies, and made peace with the Allies, he would appear in good light.
History shows that the allies did look on the king with better light than mussolini, unfortunately; the Italian people did not. After the war, with Mussolini out of the picture and with nobody to blame, they turned Italy into a Republic and exiled the king. I believe his grandchildren just now are allowed back in Italy.
- MVSN
Excellent, concise explanation. Thank you!