• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Reply

Yes, I am American, but that is missing the point: It is called HYPERBOLE, AKA what is fit for "public comsumption" in a propaganda campaign. My previous post was in that fashion, in case you were confused.

Honestly, if you think opposition to IL Duce was not major at this point in time, you have probably not heard of several plots by various groups to do away with him in the 30's. Consider this: most Italians did indeed agree with the territorial part of the Duce's platform, but not many agreed with the Duce himself. A sizable portion of the population would probably NOT stick their heads out to catch a bullet for these guys, especially if you make it clear that Italy will not be punished but "rehabilitated."

You also forget the fact that, even if we were to suppose that the Moose was popular in the historical year, you forget the fact that this is NOT the historical year. The Italian military had trailed, like a bloodied boxer, from one savage blow to another. It has lost the Horn of Africa, it has lost Libya, it has likely lost the Aegean islands, and it has lost numerous men and their equipment. In history, the solution was to stuff German "advisors" into Italian units in increasing numbers, due to the inability of Italy to absorb her losses.

However, there is no German alliance at this point in time. Such losses would have humbled Italian industrial and manpower bases, as they would struggle to replace the losses they take in spite of the fact that they are being cut down far more quickly than they can churn them out.

However, do not take my words for it, take your own:

For Mussolini's government the relief that bomber's load was only propaganda was soon overshadowed by fear of what the population might make of the leaflets, the state controlled media was already struggling to keep a lid on the reality of the war's progress for the simple reason it didn't square with people's experiences. Too many families were not hearing from their fathers and sons, too many dock workers counting out more ships than they counted back in. While the MVSN 'Blackshirts' militias and the OVRA secret police could have undoubtedly kept a lid on the worst of any dissent it was clear that the Italian public would tire of the war far faster than the British.

In this update, you yourself show that the Italian people are growing weary of the struggle. They are becoming even more disillusioned with Mussolini than they were historically. They do not see the purpose of throwing their lives away for a war that they see as lost against a foe that is not worth fighting.

Mussolini is weak. Very weak. He knows this, and he is looking to keep his regime intact, even at the cost of the colonial holdings. Do not let him. With the Blackshirts this bad off, a hard strike might completely unseat them, if not destroy them. Once they are gone, you can declare the war over, and have Italy "rehabilitated to the community of Nations", likely skipping most of the occupation altogether.

You might very well have numerical inferiority against the Blackshirts, but even then you can hammer Greece and/or France over the head for their intervention (as Greece was never terribly keen on Mussolini's whole "New Roman Empire" drift, and France, from your posts, has been a bit fed up with standing on the sidelines.) Even not, if you can land a lot of men in one province, supported by the navy and air force (as you mentioned that the Regia Marina was pretty much KIA and the Regia Aeronautica is out of action), you should be able to hold the ground and then achieve local superiority and slice the boot in half, and begin to focus your moved to isolate and destroy one fraction of the enemy while keeping the other stalled.

It is not terribly easy, but, given the fact that the Italians will be spread out while you will be together, it is not likely to be that bad, especially given the unpopularity of the Blackshirts at this point in time, and the prospect of mass desertion in the military, if not defection!

And, secondly, you do NOT need to use foresight! USE COMMON SENSE!

Is a man who has repeatedly made angry, imperialist stances against Britain, against the Western Allies, and against many minors going to merely take it on the chin and sit down merely after being cracked in colonies? Pretty much every single intelligence report dated from this point in time (ie the time up UNTIL this point, not after) on this subject came to the conclusion that, in the case of a colonial defeat of Mussolini, he would merely wave a bloody toga, and use it to rally that mass of uncommitted Italians to his banner.

As a Prime Minister, you would have access to those documents, the pych profiles made of the Italian command and government, and thus that is NOT foresight.

The fact is that, Italy knows that it is at a weak position. Britain knows that Italy is weakening. Defection talks with the Royal family and other dissidents might have them create a "Rightful Gov't in Exile" sort of thing, in Libya (thus swapping ITA for RSI, and recreating ITA as a British ally and/or puppet in Libya).

You do not need to look ahead to know that, with Mussolini on the ropes, there is the possibility of eliminating his threat, and putting an allied government in Rome.

So, my overall analysis is: Trade your superior training and equipment, as well as concentration, against Italian numbers and dispersion, and roll up one half the boot, than the other. Try to get Greece and France in on the game, but above all USE THIS CHANCE!

A victory now will topple the regime of the Moose, and will set up a friendly government in Rome. The Italian people will, on the whole, likely accept this, and one of your major threats will either be eliminated or seek asylum in Germany or Austria.

Again, if you think I am using foresight in this, I am not.

You can tell Italy is wavering from intelligence and surrendered troops.

You can tell that Italy cannot replace her losses by both Intel and scouting.

You can tell how Mussolini will likely act from the profiling done on him in the 20's (which you would have access to, as prime minister).

As for the losses, they are always unpleasant, but, if you roll them up, they can be minimized, and, even more valuably, they will give your men and commanders a taste of modern warfare, and will make them experienced.

And, as for the mentions about Italy in WWI, they are some propaganda I would have used to showcase that Italy has fought hard to support the banner of democracy against absolutism (represented by Austria), and to ask the Italians in the military and at home what would the dead say about the Fascists in Rome (for clarification, some of them would likely support it, but many would not, and nobody said propaganda had to be 100% accurate, merely effective)?

That is my analysis, take it or leave it, but I do enjoy these discussion.

PS, could you read my AAR: Come and Take It?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Whatever the result it, Ethiopia will be given back to its rightful owners. After all, the war was nearly fought for them...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting discussion...

I see shades of Versailles in TortoiseHerder's suggestions...

If we just 'rehabilitate' Germany with a more democratic government...it will all turn out all right....ahem. Germany lost its colonies, Alsace-Lorraine, the Danzig Corridor, and its monarchy. In exchange, the entente expected to get a democratic ally against communism. Instead, they got a weak government incapabale of dealing with the debris of defeat. True, the German people did not believe they had been defeated, which allowed the NSDP a quicker acension to power than may be expected here. But how much does the Italian populace know about the war? They know that fighting has been going on in the colonies (do they know about the defeats?) and that the navy has engaged the British (but do they even expect victory in that sphere). One bombing raid may only raise patriotic ferver, not dampen it. A 'stab-in-the-back' conspiracy theory could work well for proponents of another authoritarian regime to depose the newly created British 'puppet' government.

It is definitely the crux of the issue right now. Britain is undeniably master of the war. The question is now...how far to go. I believe we had this discussion a few months back, so...good author...how does it turn out?

TheExecuter
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ok than, you seem to be taking things WWWWAAAAAYYYY out of context.

Firstoff, Italy/=Germany

Why? A number of reasons.

FIRST: After WWI, there was no serious attempt to rehabilitate Germany as a whole. Versailles was meant to PUNISH Germany, and attempt to recoup what was left. The problem with that plan is that people did NOT consider how hostile Germany was to the Allies. WWI had cost Germany much, and, on ALL sides of the political spectrum, from left to right, from Pro-Democracy to Authoritarian, there was VERY few people who were pro-Allies. WWI happened to Limit GERMANY, not to merely dispose the Kaiser and his ilk and set up a German Democracy. That did not happen due to conflicting aims between the Allies and even those relatively few Germans who actually WANTED Democracy, primarily over Nationalism. The reason moderation was impossible was because there were two poles, neither willing to budge, lest it become useless.

Italy is not like that.

Mussolini likes to play to Italian nationalism, but, under the facade, he had little support amongst much of the Italian populace. It must be remembered that Italian Nationalism in this era is NOT incompatible with friendly relations with the Allies, like German Nationalism was. Most were sympathetic to his slogans, yes. However, past Dalmatria and Ethiopia, there is relatively little that Mussolini and much of Italy can agree on, as it should be remembered that Italy fought and bled for Parliamentary Democracy against both an ideological and geopolitical nemesis, Austria-Hungary, and that the Allies and the Italians relied on each other to merely survive. Thus, while many are indeed sore over the "mutilated victory", there is still strong support for the Allies in many quarters.

SECOND: You mention that it is possible that the Italian radicals may develop a "stab-in-the-back" theory, Ala Germany, and thus provide the fuel for the fire. This is not impossible persee, but extremely unlikely for a number of reasons. And, to know those reasons, one must understand Germany in WWI.

While Germany was being bled out in Western Europe, and would eventually be defeated there, and her allies would likewise fall in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Alps, in Eastern Europe, the matter was entirely different.

From the very onset of the war, German forces struggled to make headway against Western Allied forces armed, trained, and equipped on a relatively similar level as them, and German numerical advantage could not tilt the scale decisively. In the vast expanse of the East, it was a different matter.

In the East, Germany had amazing success. Rather than being equally or (in some cases) inferiorly armed, trained, and equipped against the WA, Germany had a clear, cutting advantage over the Russians and Romanians.

From 1914, while Austria suffered several defeats, Germany shined.

Throughout the war, Germany fought and won the lion's share of the battles, from Tannenberg-Masurian Lakes campaign, to the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive, to the fall of Warsaw, to Lake Naroch, To the Romanian Campaign, to the Kerensky Offensive. This pattern of constant victories was only broken by a few incidents, the most notable of which is the Brusilov Offensive, which was indeed a Russian Victory, but a primarily Austrian defeat, and was indeed finally stopped by the Germans.

This string of victories, coupled with some in the West, would allow some, especially those in the East, to plug their ears and say "nah nah, didn't happen", as the Bulgarian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, and finally German forces collapsed towards the end of the war.

Italy does not have this advantage. There is no mythical "Russian Front", land of endless victories and great honor. There is only a campaign against the Western Allies, primarily the British, that even the most zealous party members have to admit has been a calamity. Italy is loosing the war. Everybody has a sense that is what is happening. Some know it more clearly than others, but almost everybody does, from the Moose himself to that dockhand that Pip mentioned "counted the ships, and saw more leave than came back." With such a string of unbroken defeats, it is hard, if not impossible, for somebody to claim that Italian forces only were defeated by "traitors" from within, as that is CLEARLY not the case.


THIRD: Germany had no real history of democratic rule in its long history, and would remain so pretty much until Western Germany was born out of the ashes of an incinerated Reich. Forces cry for Left, cry for the right, and some even cry for the center, but next to none cry for a true democracy.

And, before anybody says otherwise, if you count the Weimar era as democratic, than you are clearly missing something. The Weimar regime was a hodge-podge of the various groups there, most openly hostile to democracy, that openly and brutally struggled for control. The number of armed conflicts between partisans of the various sides meant that true power is purchased mostly by the club rather than the ballot.

The same cannot be said for Italy. Italy has a long history of, if not democratic rule persee, at least Liberal/Reformist rule. It must be remembered that, in the Spring of Nations 1848, it was in Italy alone that a king cast his lot in with the Revolutionary Nationalists against the counter-revolution. Italy has also seen Constitutional Monarchy as late as 10+ years ago. And, while many appreciate Mussolini's nationalism and Irridentism, his Fascist teachings are not as widely popular as he would like people to believe. Couple that with the fact that defeats weaken the resolve of Italy, and you should not be too hard-pressed to find supporters in Italy.

FOURTH: The Allies of WWI were openly anti-German. Any attempts that DID exist to reform Germany took backplace to beating it over the head. While this might not have been the incorrect course of action, the execution failed to truly do either, reform Germany, or punish it to the point that it could never engage in aggression again. However, the point is that most of the Allies of WWI wanted to punish Germany bloody.

In Italy, that is not necessarily the case. Again, Italian Irredentism is not entirely incompatible with Western Allied interests, unlike the German one. There is no serious need to outright neuter Italy, only to crush the current regime, and set up a friendly one, which should not be too unrealistic due to a relatively sizable number of pro-Allied Italians.

In WWI, Germany, be it communist, Autocratic, or even democratic, was the threat due to nationalist issues and regional disputes.

In this conflict, the blackshirts are the threat, not necessarily Italy. Because they control Italy, it becomes a threat, but Italy, if shorn of its Fascists and with the Communists prevented from taking over, would be relatively benign. The primary issues many Italian ultra-nationalists have is with Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia is not a nation that is exactly a model of democracy or even one terribly supportive of the Allies, so thus the threat is not as bad as many think.

Thus, if the Allies make it clear that they are "Friends of Italy, but enemies of Mussolini's corrupt clique", and that they "mourn for Italian blood spread at the behest of tyrants," it is hard to imagine that the historical Italians would cling to Mussolini, as they certainly did not in history, and in history, the Moose had Germany to back his arse up. Here, he has no real allies.

So, no, Weimar Germany is not equal to Italy, for a number of reasons, and that means that it is not likely to see a resurgence of such tremors in Italy. Sure, some radicals may rise up in the future, but I do not see how one can see a Democratic government be terribly threatened by this, especially if one looks at what happened historically.

So, sorry for the rant.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
While it's a convincing argument I (with Austen's Prime Minister's hat on) still have four problems;

1. It's still a risky proposition. The Italian mainland is home to large numbers of Alpini, Bergasli and actual armoured division (with admitedly poor tanks, but still far more than the few brigades Britain has). While France may prefer a loyal Italian ally I think they'd be happier with a weakened Italy that doesn't cost a single French life. With the Italian navy sunk Greece is safe (for the foreseeable future anyway) so why should they send their sons to die in Italy, except for idealism?

While I did indeed state the Italian people didn't want to die for overseas colonies, I just cannot see an invasion being welcomed. Look at the actual invasion of Italy, even with Mussolini deposed, the King publicly opposed to him and clearly a German puppet leader the RSI still managed to raise over 50,000 men (all the Germans would allow them) to form new infantry division. I still think you underrate Il Duce's popularity, yes there were assassination attempts in the 30s but that proves very little. JFK, Ghandi and Perceval were all assassinated, yet I doubt the American, India or Britain of the time would have welcomed a foreign invasion.

2. Democratic Allies have been proven unreliable in this war, take France. So the idea of setting one up as it will be helpful in the future is not going to go down well in Westminster, assuming it can be even done without a long occupation. It is a large loss of life and treasure for the possibility (not certainty or even likelihood but unquantifiable chance) of an Ally being there in the future. It's a gamble where your guaranteed to lose a great deal whatever the outcome.

3. This war is only popular in Britain because it's doing well and the casualties are low. I think I stated as much in an earlier update. Invading Italy is going to be seen as disproportionate, because frankly it is. Britain's war aims were secure the Med, sink the Italian navy and protect Suez. They've been done, the country is happy, the electorate is happy and the strategic situation improved. Anything beyond that is not strategy or common sense but idealism, something that really has no place in practical politics.

4. Finally, and most importantly, for a man so keen on democracy consider the will of the British people. Ie the people parliament and the government are supposed to be serving. Do they honestly want to see their fathers, brothers and sons die for the benefit of Italians? Or do they instead see the war as 'Won' and want to see a victorious peace deal so the government get back to sorting out domestic problems? I'm convinced it would be option one, non-idealistic as it is and all the more plausible because of it.

Thus the most practical, popular and above all most democratic option is a negotiated peace. (At least from the point of view of the British government)

As an aside, to raise GeneralHanibals point, that's quite a difference of opinion you have of Africa vs Europe. While you're happy to condemn Ethiopians to foreign rule;
Tortoise Herder said:
Ethiopia is a small price to pay for a valuable ally capable of threatening the Southern flank of the Reich, and removing one of the "big three" is more valuable than keeping Selassie on the throne.
You want Britain to sacrifice many men and much treasure so Italians can enjoy democracy. Slight double standard there if I may say so.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Alright, for accusing me of having a double standard, my initial mentioning was purely in game terms. The reason I mentioned an Italian Ethiopia was because it would be an SOB to fit everything in with the Peace system the way it is (granted, i probably overlooked the chance of coding events, but then again, I was never good at those).

Ideally, of course, an independent Ethiopia alongside a democratic Italy would be the ideal for the British, but I was assuming that you HAD to work through the vanilla "peace" register, which is pretty inefficient.

But, again, given the fact that you are not limited by that in hindsight, I would fully support an independent Ethiopia, if possible augmented with Italian Eritrea and Somalia, which can safeguard the horn from your foes while freeing up forces for elsewhere (just keep an eye out for communist coups about thirty years from now.....)

That said, let me address your points:

1.1: The fact is that, while the Italians are numerous, they are not nearly as well trained, equipped, and led as the WA are, and the AI tends to spread itself thin defending the Boot, so if you can land in force and a single point and drive to the other beach, you can cut the Italians in half, and defeat them piecemeal.

1.2 I was prepared for you to ask this. To say this, Mextite Greece is unlikely to join on the WA bandwagon for ideological reasons, but there are other ways to coax it out of neutrality. First, appeal to their pan-Hellenic sense, and offer the Dodecanese colonial holdings to them for intervention in the boot. Secondly, point out to them one important thing: You are trying to topple the Italian Moose from power, but you fear that you cannot do it alone.

Failing the outright defeat of Mussolini, you will have to make peace with them, with the regime remaining in place. This will pose a threat to Greece in the long run, as it will give Italy time to rearm, learn from mistakes, and try to pick a softer target than the British. And, Mussolini has always been staring hungrily at Greece..... So, in other words, also pitch it as a chance to help remove an avowed enemy of Greek Independence, and offer the Italian Aegean islands as well.

1.3: The fact that JFK and the like were indeed killed does not prove much, like you said. However, the reason it proved nada is because the two situations are not comparable: All three were relatively popular and were killed off by some fringe groups.

This is why the Moose cannot be compared to them. Yes, a few attempts to blow his brains out only proves that he was not liked by some. However, several rebel groups organizing as early as 1930, coordinating their efforts to damage the regime, while increasing their membership even when the Moose was relatively stable, shows that he had far more problems than just a few fringe groups.

Sure, the US after Dallas 1963 may not have thrown the gates open and begged the Russians to come, but Italy is a different beast.

2.1 Yes, Democratic allies can indeed be irritants. However, while Le Fronsay might very well be stupid enough to prefer a weak dictatorship to a strong ally, you must sometimes think ahead: Mussolini had been making a stink about the French territories that Sardinia had ceded after the defeat of Austria in 1859, and he will likely overlook the French neutrality in this conflict to acquire it. Sometimes, one must look past temporary political gain for greater benefits down the road. Sometimes, in order to ensure a safe nation, one must throw it into the cauldron of war before it must be.

2.2 Yes, if there were only a slight chance of Italy becoming democratic at this point, I too would probably have abstained from it. However, the unrest in Italy and the fact that it is a rather thin strip of land opens up a different possiblity: Why land at Palmero when you land at Anzio, push the boot in half, and divide your foes and conquer them? It is workable because I have used that trick many times, and have been able to mop up the enemy within four months.

3-4: Yes, I do not deny that everybody in Britain is happy, eating ice cream, and watching cartoons of Roberto being kicked across the Med. However, that might have to change.

Yes, I do believe in Democracy, but not the way you seem to define it. It seems that, if, as President/Prime Minister, you heard a poll that declared that 56% of the population wanted to pass legislation forcing everybody to jump in a tank of alligators to be eaten, you would immediately introduce the bill, sign it into law, and than get your waders on.

Crunching your eyebrows yet?

Well, you should, because that seems to be your definition on the subject, with people passing all the important judgments of the day to polls. Let me make this clear: there is a VERY good reason why that was not codified into the various legal systems of the nations applicable.

You are the elected representative of the people, that is true. You are the individual the people vested their trust in to take the actions you judge necessary to ensure that the British Empire remains secure, intact, and free.

I cannot promise that your government will continue to be popular, and I cannot ensure that you will remain in office, even.

However, which is worse? To be impeached and sacked due to low voter ratings, but to leave the world a safer and freer place than before? Or to leave as the man with the highest approval ratings ever, only to turn around and see a bloody, horrific war emerge from a restructured Italian war machine, killing dozens of thousands of Britishmen due to your refusal to kill them off while you could? Choose wisely.

Yes, men will have to make sacrifices in large numbers. Yes, it will cause a drain in the treasury. However, if you leave the Moose in peace, his ideology coupled with his capabilities will see him remake a war machine anew, taking into account the bloody mistakes that cost him Libya and East Africa the first time, making sure that, while he does not repeat them, he will take advantage of your weaknesses.

Remember, one of the turning points of the East Front was when Stalin & Co finished restructuring the Red military, and the boons the Germans had enjoyed became less effective, if not useless or even a liability.

So, would you rather trade 15,000 lives and 12 percent of your popularity now, or 75,000 lives and much territory in six year's time? If you are worried about the lives of brothers, sons, and husbands now, imagine the result if and when the Italians reconstruct their military after a negotiated peace.

However, you claim that Idealism has no place in politics or affairs of the state. I will disagree. The usual definition of realpolitik is that it is politics based on facts on the ground, without regards to morality. Your definition of realpolitik seems to be to avoid any and all morality and idealism like the plague, even if it means transgressing options that are good from a purely strategic POV in the process.

Secondly, are not some ideals worth fighting for, dying for, killing for? Would you rather surrender to Mussolini that face even one more man dying? Sacrifices in war are inevitable. To refuse to make those sacrifices, to absorb those costs, is to be rendered a slave to those who are willing to take those costs.

Yes, making peace with the Moose might very well be the most popular option on the table, but will it prevent Mussolini rearming, and eventually seeking vengeance against those who bested him? Will it prevent him from learning from his mistakes, thus making the trek to Rome even more bloody that it will be now? Answer me those.

You are now at a crossroads: You can, on the one had, continue your policies ,seek a peace with Mussolini, be lauded as a popular man for three years, and than be cursed on the fourth thanks to the inability to stomach the costs of total victory allowing Mussolini to rearm and cost Britain even more of her finest?

Or, will you defy the polls, risk taking hits in popularity, stomach the losses, be what they may, even face ejection from your office, but, because of doing so, eliminate on Fascist power, raise the standard of democracy in another nation, and secure, for Britain, a far stronger and truer peace in the Med and thus the world?

The choice is yours.

I am merely the ranter who yaks about it.

So, choose your choice carefully, and choose wisely.

And with that, I leave you two words for you:

HE WHO DARES WINS!

CARPE DIEM!

And, Finally, I yield the floor to another one of us "Yanks", who while having his flaws (like supporting eugenics) has managed to phase it better than me.

I realize that it contains points that both go for and against my argument, but I never want it said that I quoted the old man out of context:

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/tr1898.html
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
One might wonder, TH, if the second paragraph still holds true. Without that, the rest of the argument falls a bit flat.

Vann
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Interesting...

...and passionate debate as to the 'right thing' to do: I think that from the point of view of an inevitable confrontation with Fascist Italy in the near future, we can all agree that flattening Italy makes a lot of sense. :cool:

However, if I understand this AAR malarky which El Pip is continuing to move along, then Sir Austen shouldn't even have the option on the table, for all the reasons he has just given. Bear in mind that Britain is a cabinet democracy, which means that weighty matters like going to war are not simply decided by the PM - he has to carry the cabinet with him, and then stand up in the House and explain his decision... I do not believe it would be reasonable, without further provocation by Italy, for Britain to actually invade mainland Italy with a view to conquering it.

Besides, I think that the flap of a butterfly's wing may well have rendered the very inevitability of World War 2 as we knew it uncertain...

...So having said that now, can we put our goggles on and unleash the RAF against the remnants of the Italian forces please? :rofl:
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Have to heartily agree with RAFspeak and Sir Austen here. The war aims have been met with minimal casualties. Italy has lost her fleet and, thus, her ability to threaten Great Britain. The catastrophic losses are bound to cause internal pressures for the fascist regime (perhaps aided by the foreign office?). Why fight on?

Vann
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
While invading might make sense in game terms and in hind-sight, it is not what I would call realistic. That's the biggest problem...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is all just a massive plot by Pippy to delay his next update... :D
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Reply

Ok than, having seen the opposing arguments, I can agree that an invasion *RIGHT NOW* is not very practical. However, that does not mean it is time to reach for the peace pipe yet.

To start, you say that the WA, while having superior training and equipment to the Italians, are vastly outnumbered, even if we were to pitch in reserves that cannot be moved. You also say that such an invasion would conflict with the common perception of the war aims in Britain and the Empire at large.

I think I have a solution to soften the boot up for invasion, while simultaneously buying time to recruit, refit, and upgrade your units to make the invasion successful.

You should indeed call for ceasefire under terms that you know Mussolini will break, ie. demanding the demobilization of the military, providing MA to the WA, or demanding a stop to all refitting of the Italian military.

Once that is done, enter into negotiations you have no intention of allowing to succeed. Aim your demands higher than you can probably get from Italy, and in turn reject all counter-offers from Italy that do not involve a Democratic Italy allied to the UK, a Free Ethiopia, and Herr Moose and his men in the defendant's box for crimes against peace. Naturally, if the Moose were to offer that, I would take it, but I doubt that he would do so. Keep this going until you can get irrefutable proof of Italian defiance of the ceasefire terms (which, again, are ones that you set that you KNOW the Moose will break).

While this is going on, take time to consult with cabinet, Parliament, and the Public to try to sell your case for a total war against the Moose as a necessary to lance a boil that will not accept peace in the Med, and thus cannot be reasoned with. Also point out that any second round from here on out WILL be far bloodier than anything that could be reasonably seen now.

While all this is going on, get spies into the boot any way you can, and use them. Mussolini will be using this lull to try to stir up loyalty from the Italian people, and will try to reconstruct a war machine and defenses.

Your spies are to counter all his attempts to do so. Blow up equipment depots, ammo dumps, fortifications to weaken the ability of the defenders to react to your invasion. Also, try to weaken Italian production to even further compound the Italian equipment problem.

While you are doing this, disperse anti-Fascist propaganda far and wide, setting up clandestine radio stations and the like to weaken loyalty to the regime and foster support for the British. Also, make it VERY clear that Britain does not want to be at war with the Italian people, but Mussolini's ambitions made that impossible, and that Britain has no grudge against Italy, and considers it a natural ally, and the like.

While doing this, negotiate with Italian dissident groups, and officials who are believed to be wavering in their support for the regime. Begin to talk them into defecting, or running away to Switzerland or France, and then form them into an "Italian Government in Exile" that supports the Allies. Make sure to get everybody to recognize these guys and the Legitimate government, and demand they be represented at the talks.

Those that remain die-hards to the regime (not necessarily those who are to scared to leave or those that are loyal to Italy rather than the Fascists) ought to be wiped out as frequently as one gets the chance, which will destabilize the regime and make it more vulnerable.

However, the masterstroke in this whole operation is something that I first got the idea of from you, dear Pip.

Have you ever heard of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and supply-to-demand theory, where demand rises for certain commodities, and those who can supply the demand profit?

Well, I was inspired by this both by historical uses of this type of operation by the Allies in WWII, and again in the Cold War.

What is it? What I can say is that it uses the regime's policies against it. Its strength, a strict-state run news system, will become a great liability.

To put this out, let me first show the quote that inspired this:

the state controlled media was already struggling to keep a lid on the reality of the war's progress for the simple reason it didn't square with people's experiences. Too many families were not hearing from their fathers and sons, too many dock workers counting out more ships than they counted back in.

Thus, we can ascertain that the Italian people have a demand for news on the war. Both on the progress of it, and on the fate of loved ones sent out to fight the British. In responding to this, the Regime has decided to shut down all actual news in relation to it, thus safeguarding itself against dissent, but at the cost of leaving the demand unfulfilled.

THIS is a chance that can only be described as golden.

With so many anxious people wanting, begging for news only to be turned away by the Fascists, is too good a chance to pass up.

So, have your spies set up Anti-Fascist radio stations, order the BBC to start broadcasting propaganda. In Italian-Language programs, give them news about the current state of the war, being accurate without being compromising, and not using disinformation. Do this in between sugary, heart-rending soaps about the poor Italians being forced to their deaths by a cruel, corrupt, and uncaring regime.

In addition, sweeten the pot: there are probably large numbers of Italian POWs in your camps, and many of them have family back home worrying about where they are.

Introduce a show, in which the host interviews several Italian POWs from the camps. Offer this as a reward for good behavior, the ability to send a message to Italy to inform their relations where they are. Make sure that can be trusted, every one of them being specifically ID'd with as accurate data as can be yielded. They will inform them as to what they want to say to the folks back home, how they were captured, how kindly they have been treated by the nice British, and why Mussolini and his cabal do not care if they live or die. Rinse and repeat as often as deemed effective.

This will break the regime's monopoly on news, and will cause distrust between them and the people. So, the regime can either come clean about the war's progress, and face condemnation, or they can continue hiding it, while more and more people realize that the only reliable news is from the Allies.

You can see where this is going, right?

This will allow you to weaken Italy before the invasion, and also give you time to square things at home for the invasion.

Just my 2 cents.

And PS Duritz: believe it or not, Pip did not have to make a ploy for this. If he had to for the other times, well..... :rolleyes:
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
sorry TH, have to disagree with you there. the British have achieved their war aims, ie; securing the suez canal, and gaining control of the Med, so invading Italy would be for 'moral' and 'idealistic' reasons only and to be honest, screw the italians.

why would British soldiers fight FOR the democratic right of people that, a few weeks earlier, they were trying to kill?

later, caff
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can't see where TH is going with the invasion of Italy plan.

Ethiopia is safe (league of nations mandate administered by UK most likely), Libya is occupied (ditto - or possibly by Egypt), the Italian fleet is trashed - there are no reasons for the British not to declare the war won. After all - what happens in mainland Italy is not anything for the British Government to be overtly worried about. They tolerated the rise of Fascism in Italy and they've slapped it down when it dared to contest the med with the UK.

Job done.

May make the rearmament cause less likely to gather any more momentum in Parliament as the Fascists (in general) may be percieved as being weak with Britain overrating its military performance.

Mussolini is a lame duck - it wouldn't suprise me to see an alternate leader arise from the Army to depose il Duce in return for a monarchist "democratic" regime.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Dictatorships of the world have now clearly seen that Britain is willing to use force when her vital interests are challenged, Mussolini can´t really prolong the conflict due the internal dissent in Italy and his chances to cause trouble again without the Regia Marina are severely reduced as well...It´s time for a negotiated peace.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If, off the top of my head, the Cabinet was an unholy time spanning monstrosity headed by combination of Pitt the Younger and Palmerston with Curzon at foreign secretary, Fisher at the Admiralty and Prince Frederick at the War Office there would be enough jingoism, invention, raw ambition and mad cap scheming for the invasion of Italy to go ahead. That or they'd decide to invade the Moon with a flying dreadnought/Zeppelin hybrid full of elite infantry, one or the other anyway.

However as it's not we must contend with grubby reality. And so for the vast array of reasons outlined by too many people to list Britannia will leave Il Duce's fate in the hands of the Italian people, once she has extracted a fair and just peace of course. Besides the world has not been sitting ideal while the war is on, we cannot focus on Italy in isolation as the next update will reveal this very afternoon!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Chapter XXXVIII: Redemption and Opportunism.
Chapter XXXVIII: Redemption and Opportunism.

It is a sad truth that the only area in which King Edward VIII truly succeeded was in exceeding his father's worst fears for him. Faced with the ultimatum of Wallace or the Crown he showed neither the devotion to duty to give up his love and serve his country, nor the personal strength to forego his destiny and pursue his own personal happiness. Instead he desperately scrabbled for an alternative that was not there, attempting to bypass conventional constitution and centuries of tradition merely to avoid making a decision. While such a selfish and, ultimately, cowardly refusal to accept one's fate and duty was not an edifying sight, it would not have mattered where it not for Barry Hertzog's actions in South Africa. As it was Chamberlain felt compelled to force the issue of Edward's abdication, hoping to pull the rug from under Hertzog and restore peace. The abdication address of King Edward VIII was, in a telling detail, pre-recorded for fear the King would not stick to the agreed form if transmitted live. The recording was broadcast across Britain, the Dominions and the Empire on the morning of the 19th of April, with later repeats in those time zones where few would of heard the first simultaneous broadcast.

In Westminster the necessary act of parliament was prepared and hurriedly past, Australia and New Zealand giving permission for the British Act to apply in their realms while Canada took the opportunity for some constitutional housekeeping, passing the Succession to the Throne Act synchronising it's own, slightly different, line of succession with that in the rest of the Empire. In the Irish Free State, however, the Premier Eamon de Valera attempted to delay the process, the entire affair had left him badly wrong footed; having been plotting the systematic removal of the monarchy from all aspects of the state the crisis came too early for him to unveil his changes yet forced constitutional change on him. His preferred solution, of delaying on the matter until he could introduce his grand reforms, was so fundamentally unacceptable to both Westminster and the other loyal Dominions that intense pressure, bordering on outright threats, were applied to de Valera until he caved in. While de Valera was unquestionably foolish to pick a fight with Westminster over an issue of such little practical importance to him or most of his country there can be little doubt the matter was not handled well. With relations only just recovering from the outbreak Anglo-Irish trade war over land annuities all the good work done over the 'Coal-Cattle' pact to lower certain tariffs and normalise trade relations was undone almost instantly. De Valera, shamed at being publicly forced to change position on a matter of such symbolic importance, was piqued into withdrawing from the Pacts and re-implementing the tariffs. While undoubtedly initially popular with the public, the 1933 slogan "Burn everything English except their coal" once again coming to the fore, the tariffs once again devastated the Irish economy while having negligible impact on British coal mines already struggling to fulfil domestic orders let alone think about exports. While there would be long term consequences for Britain and Ireland the pressure achieved it's short term objective of diplomatically isolating Hertzog and ratcheting up the pressure on him.

LVvECO2.jpg

Premier Eamon de Valera, an almost pathologically proud man with an unfortunate habit of cutting of his nose to spite his face. His rash reintroductions of trade tariffs would have negligible affect on Britain while triggering an economic crisis in Ireland.

Under such pressure many would have accepted defeat, not Hertzog however who throughout the crisis showed the depths of his determination and convictions. Reacting to Edward's abdication, from all his titles, Hertzog choose to raise the stakes once again rather than back down, instead of just having a different monarch from Britain he declared South Africa would have no monarch and instead become a Republic. Naturally this was a profound shock to the country; what had been mainly peaceful, if ill-tempered, protests turned violent as the crowds sought out the nearest government symbol, the Active Citizen's Force militia sent to police them. It is a credit to the force of Hertzog's personality that he almost single handedly held the hardcore Boer community together, the senior National Party caucus presented a united front until the bitter end, never wavering from the party line or showing dismay or even concern at the escalating protest or scale of opposition. Externally, what was clearly a self serving attempt to rig the political system was presented as a matter of principle; the right of South Africa to decide it's own constitutional affairs. Given that Earl Clarendon was still refusing to give Royal Assent to any act the rump parliament passed the change would clearly be illegal both under South African law and the Statute of Westminster, which required agreement from Britain and the all Dominion parliaments on such changes regardless of who initiated them. For all that it was nevertheless a potent idea to republicans and independence minded politicians throughout the Empire, solid gestures of support however were still not forthcoming. As at the start of the crisis even those who agreed with the ideals and dreamed of doing so in their own country could not bring themselves to support the practical reality of such a naked and underhand power grab. The final nail in the coffin of Hertzog's claim to the moral high ground came when the South African People's Party, transformed from notional coalition partners in the United Party to de facto opposition, attempted a legal challenge through the courts to both what Hertzog was doing and how he was doing it. Instead of fighting the case government lawyers resorted to delaying tactics, responding as slowly as possible while raising arcane points of procedure to further clog up the process and prevent the case reaching open court, a tacit admission by the government that it knew it was breaking the law and needed time to solidify it's position.

VMaIyId.jpg

The Vickers Valentina, an unlikely place to look for salvation but it was on the wings of this venerable biplane that South Africa's hopes for peace rested.

In the end however it wasn't legal challenges or the increasing street violence that led to Hertzog's downfall, it was the unexpected return of General Jan Smuts from East Africa. With such a vast distance to cover the fastest way to return was by air, as such ACF militias had closed all commercial airports in the country using illegally invoked emergency powers. With the commercial Imperial Airways air routes into the country severed and all military bases under control of troops loyal to Hertzog it was calculated Smuts would either return by air, and then be arrested at the airport, or forced to travel by sea, thus delaying his return until it was too late. Such calculations, however, had not included the RAF's contribution to the matter. Under direct orders from Chamberlain the Desert Airforce diverted several Vickers Valentias from No.216 Squadron to the personal use of Smuts and his military mission. Although far from comfortable the long ranged Valentias had pioneered the trans-Africa mail routes and could land on rough bush airstrips that would wreck regular aircraft. Staging through a myriad of isolated airstrips across British Africa the squadron delivered it's precious payload to the Rustenburg Platinum Company's private airstrip, barely 50 miles from Johannesburg, where the returning General met up with his fellow SAPP MPs and the Governor General.

The British owners of RPC had arranged for a convoy of company trucks to carry the Governor General and Smut's party back to Johannesburg, the arrival of which surprised Hertzog and decisively tilted the balance of power against him. Smuts' standing within the army was such Hertzog had been forced to send his most loyal troops to watch the airports, fearing regulars may support Smuts rather than arrest him. The remainder of the army had been scattered across the country to prevent any possible military coup from officers loyal to Smuts, this left only the Active Citizen's Force militias in the capital to preventing the daily protests becoming full blown riots. With die hard government forces thinly spread Smut's convoy was able to travel unhindered straight to parliament, catching the rump National Party administration voting on it's illegal "Government of South Africa (Republic) Act", Hertzog's attempt to retain some form of legitimacy. Outnumbered in the reconstituted parliament, who's first act was to call for an election which the governor instantly granted, the last shred of Hertzog's desperately sought legitimacy was gone, his only choice was to admit defeat or the final escalation; Civil War. Whether it was memories of the bitter Second Boer War or some previously hidden decency and sense of responsibility to the country that motivated him is unknown, what is certain is that he accepted defeat and joined Smuts in a SABC broadcast to the nation, ending the emergency, recalling the troops and announcing fresh elections.

In Westminster the news was all but ignored, not through complacency or disinterest, but because it had been overtaken by events elsewhere. While Smut's flight had been making it's way across Northern Rhodesia, governments across Europe had woken up to the news that German troops had crossed the border into the demilitarised Rhineland.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions: