Hearts of Iron IV - 27th Development Diary - 2nd of October 2015

[ITA]

For the navy nuts or modders out here, I had done in the past a little work on the italianan navy:
1) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58644266/Regia Marina Tech Levels.xlsx This file contains a list of data on the tech levels (based on Hoi III tech levels) of all italian classes adjusted by my guesses and gamplay perspective.
2)https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58644266/REGIA MARINA OOB.xlsx This other file contains the Regia Marina OOB in 1939-40. The ships or "squadre" not yet built in 1936 are marked.
If you find it usefull or need historical help on some project feel free to pm me, and remember that all of these data, while accurate, are based on my research into the world of italian armament procurement in the '40, wich was "complicated" to say the least.

 

[Nicolas I]

*As the council of liberal reformer party in UK do not give orders to Queen Elizabeth or her King.
The italian King of course do not recived orders by a party council.

You are wrong on this count, under the british tradition the prime minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament (gathering a majority). Should the party change its leader, the new leader becomes prime minister, without elections and the queen, by tradition, recognize the new prime minister. So the governing party is choosing who will be the prime minister, not the people (by elections) nor the queen. That did happen a few times in recent Australian and Canadian history, who has british system.

 

[tommylotto]

For the navy nuts or modders out here, I had done in the past a little work on the italianan navy:
1) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58644266/Regia Marina Tech Levels.xlsx This file contains a list of data on the tech levels (based on Hoi III tech levels) of all italian classes adjusted by my guesses and gamplay perspective.
2)https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58644266/REGIA MARINA OOB.xlsx This other file contains the Regia Marina OOB in 1939-40. The ships or "squadre" not yet built in 1936 are marked.
If you find it usefull or need historical help on some project feel free to pm me, and remember that all of these data, while accurate, are based on my research into the world of italian armament procurement in the '40, wich was "complicated" to say the least.

I'd like to see what you have, but I think your links are broken.

 

[Montemurro]

"ferrea mole, ferreo cuore" Montemurro this is the watchword for italians tank crew?

Yes, I started reading a lot about Italy in WW2 shortly after I registered here and added it to my signature at the time even though I'm neither Italian nor have ever been near a tank.

 

[Centerbe]

You are wrong on this count... So the governing party is choosing who will be the prime minister, not the people (by elections) nor the queen.

You have read it wrong on this count. Read better what i said.

I didnt wrote the party cannot choose the prime minister, or is the Queen and King to elect prime minister.
In reference to the UK i only wrote "a party cannot give orders to Kings, Queens ecc ecc".
If in UK a party can give an order to the King please someone correct me.

Sure in Italy (1943) a party cannot order to arrest or dismiss the prime minister (Mussolini in the case).
Was not the parliament to give orders to a King, paradoxical can do that a party.
And the King was not waiting orders or ask permission by nobody.

However, even today (although is not anymore a monarchy) in Italy can not be a party to dismiss a head of government, but parliament. Moreover, only after permission of the President.
Please dont force me to copy paste the monarchical laws.

reference " In absolute monarchies the prime minister is none other than the chief minister of the monarch, not a head of government but only a primus inter pares (first among equals) than the other ministers, the latter expression hence the name of the office. When chairs the meetings of Ministers does so only by proxy of the monarch and not the prerogative; the fact remains that, in some cases, can actually acquire considerable power, thanks to his personality and the weakness of the sovereign or the indifference of this man to the affairs of state. Not different is the position of prime minister in the constitutional monarchies, since, in these, the monarch retains the role of head of government."

 

[Centerbe]

Yes, I started reading a lot about Italy in WW2 shortly after I registered here and added it to my signature at the time even though I'm neither Italian nor have ever been near a tank.

You can visit and get inside every italian tank of WW2 when you want at museum.
Or in June 2 of each year you can get inside a modern Italian tank Ariete C1.

 

[Nicolas I]

...Not different is the position of prime minister in the constitutional monarchies, since, in these, the monarch retains the role of head of government."

Don't known where this quote is from, but in british systems (UK, Canada, Australia) the Queen is the nominal (symbolic) head of state, not the head of government who is the prime minister.

Moreover, in Canada and Australia, it's the Governor General who is the head of state, representing the queen. And the Governor General is appointed by the queen but only after being chosen/designated by the prime minister. And his functions are symbolic as he always give sanction to decisions of the prime minister or parliament.

From Wikipedia: "A constitutional monarchy may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten.[4] While most monarchs may hold formal reserve powers and the government may officially take place in the monarch's name, they do not set public policy or choose political leaders.Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule".

I find it ironic that you state that the fascist party had no right to dismiss Mussolini as it is Mussolini himself that pushed for the identification of the party with the state.

He also himself gave the Grand Council of Fascism the power to choose possible successors to the Prime Minister...the power to decide the rights and powers of the Prime Minister...the Grand Council at least theoretically had the power to recommend that the King of Italy remove the Prime Minister from office. Therefore, it was nominally the only check on Mussolini's power (from Wikipedia).

 

[Centerbe]

i was from italian monarchical system...... in english monarchy it is probably different.

Dont know about UK, but Italian King was sure not a symbolic entity
As i wrote in some previous posts Italian situation of the time was an historical paradox.
Becasue by the law and in fact Mussolini was not the Head of State, and was not also the Council.
Mussolini could say what he wanted but in fact and law the power was always in the hands of King.
How could Mussolini gave the power to Council when himself havent?

reference: "On the morning of Sunday, July 25, after attending regularly in his office in Palazzo Venezia to deal with current affairs, Mussolini asked the King to be able to anticipate the usual interview on Monday, and agrees to show up from these, going along with his secretary Nicola de Cesare at 17 Villa Savoia. Vittorio Emanuele III communicates to Mussolini his replacement by Pietro Badoglio, guaranteeing their safety. Mussolini was not yet aware of the real intentions of the Monarch, who had placed under guard the head of government and had made surround the building by two hundred carabinieri."

If the Grand Council would have the power that you attribute to, it would not be necessary to put pressure on the King to do depose him.
If an entity have the power to remove someone does not have to ask anyone.
This is ironic.

 

[Nicolas I]

It's because the Grand Council of Fascism dismissed Mussolini on july 24 that the king was able to remove him on july 25 and replace him by Badoglio. Not sure he would have acted if Mussolini was still supported.

It's Grandi and the Grand Council that adopted a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers, this meaning Mussolini would lose these powers he had de facto. They could have replaced him (without asking the king) by another fascist figure, but they chose to restore the king. That was a political move as well as a legal one. This was not just a change of leader (within the Fascist party) it was a change of regime (end of Fascism) as Badoglio was prime minister not Duce.

To say as you said, if the king had full constitutional powers he would not have needed the Grand council asking him to take these powers back.

 

[Stenner]

I'm loving these weekly DD's, I wasn't this hype about weather even when we got that video interview containing weather.

 

[Nicolas I]

The king was able to remove him in 1943 as in 1942 or 1941 or 1940 at the same way. And was also able to arrest all fascists in 1922 when them rose up.

I would agree that it was legally (constitutionally) the king prerogative to remove Mussolini. But being in his right does not give the power to do it. And for a long time Mussolini could tell the king the same as Bill Jones: "No, son, you lose. 'Cause this is a Smith & Wesson I'm holdin' here."

As Danton said during the French revolution, the wise man knows when he has no more the power and don't tell it, above all if he wants the be heard again someday (my translation). This seems to be exactly what the king did, thinking the monarchy would outlive Fascism, it did for only four years (1947 Italy becomes a republic after a referendum, 54,3% in favour).

I greatly doubt he would have been able to do it as long as the Fascists controlled the executive power, the police and the army. It's because they renounced to their powers the king got them back.

My guess is the Fascists preferred the return to monarchy with a conservative Badoglio as prime minister to the others alternatives of an uprising or an Allied occupation government. What happened to the Fascists in northern Italy at the hands of partisans is what they wanted to avoid for themselves.

 

[Centerbe]

It's because the Grand Council of Fascism dismissed Mussolini on july 24 that the king was able to remove him on july 25 a

I already wrote (and posted references above) the King just comunicated to Mussolini he would be deposed in 22 july, before the council votation 24 july.
The phrase "King was able.." presupposes that the King was waiting for permission from the council. He was waiting for the decision, not the permission.
The king was able to remove him in 1943 as in 1942 or 1941 or 1940 at the same way.
And was also able to arrest all fascists in 1922 when them rose up.
He did not have to ask anyone's permission.

To say as you said, if the king had full constitutional powers he would not have needed the Grand council asking him to take these powers back.

I greatly doubt he would have been able to do it as long as the Fascists controlled the executive power, the police and the army. It's because they renounced to their powers the king got them back.

In fact he did not need. He not asked back his powers and council didnt gave back to him his power, the King has never lost him powers. Grandi when met the king didnt said "My Lord i give you back you power so you can dismiss Mussolini." He asked to the King to use his power (the power he always had autonomously) for dismiss Mussolini. Ironic only think that Council in only 1 day had change the constitution for gave back the powers to the King.

Please read the Statuto Albertino....

Statuto Albertino (The Charter for the Kingdom or Fundamental Statute of the monarchy of Savoy of March 1848- January 1948).
The monarchy was constitutional and hereditary according to the Salic law; King was and remained the supreme head of the state and its people remained sacred and inviolable, although this did not mean he does not respect the laws (as required by his oath Article 22), but only that him could not be subject to criminal sanctions. The king maintained a certain preeminence and exercised executive power through ministers; He summoned and dissolved the Chamber and had the power to sanction laws, because with it the King evaluating the merit of the act and could reject it if he thought the law does not meet all ' policy direction pursued by the Crown. The sovereignty does not belong to the nation (although Article 41 is specifically referred to the deputies as "representatives of the Nation"), but to the King, who, however, as absolute ruler, was transformed into a constitutional prince for his explicit will and concession."

Also after the constitutional law changes of fascism. The new rules limit the parties and the parliament in respect of prime minister. Not the king in respect of prime minister, nor King in respect of parties, parliament ecc.

from the book "Il diritto costituzionale fascista" (The fascist constitutional right)
Gerhard Leibholz , 2007 - Alfredo Guida Editore

"connecting to a legal rule is formally still in force [156] the President of the Council of Ministers, who may be appointed and dismissed only by the King, is now responsible only in respect of him, not as now, even in front of the parliament for the address general political."

[156] Cfr. innanzi tutto il R.D. del 14 novemre 1901, n 466 che determina gli oggetti da sottoporsi al Consiglio di Stato. Più in dettaglio, ROCCO, Trasformazione, pag. 196 s. (the references laws)

The author makes it clear that these amendments to the statute were designed to limit the power of parliament and political parties not the power of the king. The concept on which there is confusion is "the proxy of power", if the King delegated to another to do something for him does not mean he no longer has the power to do so. I apologize for my bad english grammar.

 

[Cardus]

Hello everyone and welcome to another entry in the Hearts of Iron development diary series. Today we’ll take a look at Italy.

Italy has 39 divisions in 1936, but while that looks strong, it is due to them moving to binary divisions earlier, so each of their divisions has less punching power. They also have about 300 fighters and 400 bombers in 1936, but it is not modern. The navy is rather strong with 2 battleships, 8 heavy cruisers & 80 smaller ships, but is not modern either.

Next week, we’ll take a look at weather and terrain.

Please note that according to this https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisioni_del_Regio_Esercito_durante_la_guerra_di_Etiopia it seems that Italy had 41 NOT binary divisions in 1936. In fact the army reform came later.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

However I hope Italy can have some anti german policy, like soviet union have more way to act like the anti capitalism one. (and this is obviously right.)

 

[Centerbe]

I greatly doubt he would have been able to do it as long as the Fascists controlled the executive power, the police and the army. It's because they renounced to their powers the king got them back.

From; King Umberto judges his father

by Luigi Cavicchioli

One more reason for try to prevent, playing all out just to wrest power out of his hands, unscrupulous constitutionality, although the risk was'nt mild.

"The king did not believe in 1939-40, to be able to impose a solution of authority without fatal consequences for the country. I repeat, I will not pass judgment. Judge for yourselves, according to your conscience, every Italian. He 'a fact, however, that my father did not see other way of salvation outside the constitutional habit: the only hope that he cultivated was a no-confidence vote of the Grand Council of Fascism. Compared to what happened then in 1943, the government crisis, if the no-confidence vote of the Grand Council was reached in spring 1940, would be set with the same practice, but would have had a different development." (from memories of King Unberto II of Savoy)

Here directly the son of King Vittorio tried to find justifications to the actions of his father. Would be better say "no actions" of his father.
Himself implicitly admitted the father could force dismission of Mussolini without Council permission and consensus, but he didnt.
Cause was not constitutional "habit" for a King do that, and cause the father feared serious consequences for the country (civil war?).

http://www.reumberto.it/cavicchioli66-4.htm

 

[Nicolas I]

From; King Umberto judges his father

by Luigi Cavicchioli

One more reason for try to prevent, playing all out just to wrest power out of his hands, unscrupulous constitutionality, although the risk was'nt mild.

"The king did not believe in 1939-40, to be able to impose a solution of authority without fatal consequences for the country. I repeat, I will not pass judgment. Judge for yourselves, according to your conscience, every Italian. He 'a fact, however, that my father did not see other way of salvation outside the constitutional habit: the only hope that he cultivated was a no-confidence vote of the Grand Council of Fascism. Compared to what happened then in 1943, the government crisis, if the no-confidence vote of the Grand Council was reached in spring 1940, would be set with the same practice, but would have had a different development." (from memories of King Unberto II of Savoy)

Here directly the son of King Vittorio tried to find justifications to the actions of his father. Would be better say "no actions" of his father.
Himself implicitly admitted the father can force dismission of Mussolini without Council permission and consensus, but he didnt.
Cause was not constitutional "habit" for a King do that, and cause the father feared serious consequences for the country (civil war?).

http://www.reumberto.it/cavicchioli66-4.htm

We finally agree ! He could do it but didn't before the Fascists ceased to support Mussolini in 1943 "cause the father feared serious consequences for the country (civil war?)".

Thanks for all the informations on this subject.

 

[Centerbe]

I repeated the same thing in all posts...

 

[Nicolas I]

I repeated the same thing in all posts...

I think its a question of the wording you used, the king was able (could actually do it) is not exactly the same as the king was entitled (had the constitutional right). He historically did it when the two conditions met, when he was both entitled and able to remove Mussolini.

 

[Sparrow]

If nobody else will, and I am an Italian-American, then *I* will come to the defense of the king.

FIRST OFF. There would not be a modern, unified Italy without HIM, or his family. He comes from one of the oldest royal lines on planet earth, and the dignity and respect he is due is greater then what ever personal, short term disagreements arise. The role of a monarch is LONG TERM STABILITY, not the trivial details that emerge within the single lifespans of flavor-of-the-time politics. The House of Savoy is not the only monarchy that rules like this... cough...(Britain)... cough..

SECOND. The king possibly avoided civil war by putting the PNF in power. He retained the power to be the ONLY check on Mussolini. Personally, I think it rather crafty on his part, that he made a possible revolutionary leader part of the existing government. Sure, the government was changed, and the Grand Fascist Council put over the "parliament" but the KING still retained his personal powers, and ultimately it was the KING who deposed him. As I read it, the day it happened, the King politely requested Mussolini to be a "guest" at one his of personal holdings, and due to the security situation, would be provided the King's personal guards as a courtesy. That is King-speak for "YOU are under arrest and going to jail". The only reason it took so long was because the ALLIES refused to acknowledge Italian feelers for peace negotiations.

THIRD. The armed forces of Italy are "royal" forces. They owe their allegiance to the king, not to Mussolini, and that was a point of contention between them. The only thoroughly fascist branch was the Regia Aeronautica. My own pet conspiracy theory on the whole Divisione Binaria debacle was because Mussolini felt that the army wasn't "fascist" enough, and this allowed him to put men of the Black Shirts inside already established divisions. By the time Italy joins the war in 1940, the Divisione Binaria is no more. The Italian infantry division is INF, INF, MIL, with the MIL being fascist black shirts! That is to help counter the effect of the King, and to put more "Mussolini" in the regular army.

FOUR. The Italian royal family lost close, HIGH RANKING family members in this war. You can't say the same of many Head of State families, especially in modern times! THIS is a true Italian leader, he lead his countrymen and refused the safety provided by privileged position, only to die in a British prisoner of war camp. His name is Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, cousin of the king, Viceroy of Abyssinia--->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Amedeo,_Duke_of_Aosta

Get a grip on the whole spouting propaganda-as-history thing. It's getting old.

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone defend the rat.

-----------------

Binary divisions and the Guerra di Corso Rapido where modern implementations. The binary division was to fight a sort of ww 1.5 of fixing the enemy front and exploiting the flank. Leaving the unit of a small enough nature to be able to hand the transition quickly. We see the British do this with the penny packet which was a disaster however it is the Italians that get the bad press for having this at an institutional level instead of ad hoc. Much like when the British navy tried to command from the shore as the Italian navy did it never ended well see operation Vigorous.

Indeed maybe the programmers need to read books such as Vincent P. O'Hara's "Struggle for the Middle Sea" and "In Passage Perilous" and Greene's book on the war in the desert because every interation we have this issue with Italy. Pretty much all the modern artillery went to the Russian front. The biggest glaring weakness should of course be tanks. However if one keeps a lean military and doesn't go crazy it is possible to go from the Alpine light tank focus to a more substantial design. We seem to have this issue every version of HoI. The Italian state should have modest resources however the men and machines should not be of complete antiquated design. Radar and Sonar where not only known but already available on Albatros(Sonar) and from university experiments.

 

[uglyduckling81]

You are wrong on this count, under the british tradition the prime minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament (gathering a majority). Should the party change its leader, the new leader becomes prime minister, without elections and the queen, by tradition, recognize the new prime minister. So the governing party is choosing who will be the prime minister, not the people (by elections) nor the queen. That did happen a few times in recent Australian and Canadian history, who has british system.

Australia is onto 4 Prime Ministers in 5 years. 1 election in that time.
Each of the major parties which has been in power have deposed their own leader for a better chance at the next election.