Victor Emmanuel III

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote yes, He is hands down my pick. He made Chamberlain look like someone with balls of steel.

[dazzleman]

You mean the King of Italy while Mussolini's dictatorship was in power?

If I'm right, he was the one who assumed de facto power after Mussolini was overthrown, cast his lot with the allies, but then got occupied by the Germans, so the allies had to fight their way through Italy.

He was pretty ineffectual I guess.  I don't know whether his was supposed to be a ceremonial monarchy, like the current British one, or whether it was supposed to have any real power.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I’d argue that King Zog was the worst 20^th century European monarch.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You mean the King of Italy while Mussolini's dictatorship was in power?

If I'm right, he was the one who assumed de facto power after Mussolini was overthrown, cast his lot with the allies, but then got occupied by the Germans, so the allies had to fight their way through Italy.

He was pretty ineffectual I guess.  I don't know whether his was supposed to be a ceremonial monarchy, like the current British one, or whether it was supposed to have any real power.

well what I consider the worst thing about him is that in the 20s Mussolini's movement was trying to seize power and was terrorizing "communists" throughout the country while he sat back and did nothing. Then when they held a massive demonstration on Rome and forced the Prime Minister to resign, he decided the best thing to do was simply cave and appointed Mussolini Prime Minister. He directly let Mussolini come to power and then whenever was told by him to jump, meekly replied "how high?"

[Bono]

no. Charles I of Portugal was the worst european monarch of modern times. He basically destroyed the credibility capital left by his father and ultimetely led t the establishment of the republic, which in turn brought fascism. He was even spared having to watch it crumble down because a few republicans murdered him and the heir apparent.

[Keystone Phil]

All I know is that the Victor Emmanuel II Memorial in Rome is beautiful.

[J. J.]

You mean the King of Italy while Mussolini's dictatorship was in power?

If I'm right, he was the one who assumed de facto power after Mussolini was overthrown, cast his lot with the allies, but then got occupied by the Germans, so the allies had to fight their way through Italy.

He was pretty ineffectual I guess.  I don't know whether his was supposed to be a ceremonial monarchy, like the current British one, or whether it was supposed to have any real power.

It was Victor Emmanuel III and I would point out that he was an active participant in the overthrow of Mussolini.  Auguable, his actions helped shorten the war, by draining German resources.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He only overthrew Mussolini once it became obvious that his government was doomed anyway, a "which way the wind is blowing". Prior to that he bowed to his every command and even assumed the titles Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Albania after Mussolini invaded those nations. And of course he's the reason Mussolini came to power in the first place. Overall he incredibly spineless and just went with however the wind was blowing.

[J. J.]

He only overthrew Mussolini once it became obvious that his government was doomed anyway, a "which way the wind is blowing". Prior to that he bowed to his every command and even assumed the titles Emperor of Ethiopia and King of Albania after Mussolini invaded those nations. And of course he's the reason Mussolini came to power in the first place. Overall he incredibly spineless and just went with however the wind was blowing.

Well, others didn't.  Mussolini still had a large following and solid political infrastructure.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But there is no way he could've withstood the Allied invasion.

[J. J.]

But there is no way he could've withstood the Allied invasion.

I'm not entirely sure of that.  Add the Italian forces to the Nazi ones and it becomes more problematic.

[dazzleman]

But there is no way he could've withstood the Allied invasion.

I'm not entirely sure of that.  Add the Italian forces to the Nazi ones and it becomes more problematic.

The Italians never wanted to fight.  Their "empire" was made of cardboard.

Mussolini initially opted out of the war, and so informed Hitler in 1939 prior to the invasion of Poland.  When it appeared that Hitler was going to win, Italy rushed to get into the war so that it could share in the spoils on the cheap.  Italy waited until June 10, 1940 to declare war on a prostrate France (some things never change).

Things didn't go as planned.  In every theater, Italian troops were being beaten.  They were not a plus as an ally for the Germans.  Their invasion of Greece in October 1940 was not going well, and Hitler had to finish the job of destroying Greece in April 1941.  They performed poorly in North Africa.

The Italian people never really wanted war; they just wanted cheap victories over helpless people.  Unlike the Germans, they did not believe in their cause sufficiently to stand up to the type of punishment that was so justly administered to the German people, such as horrific bombing.

After the Torch operation of late 1942 swept the Axis out of north Africa and gave the allies control there, Italy knew it was doomed.  At that point, the political winds shifted against Mussolini, and the King finally agreed to depose him and make peace with the allies.

Of course, he was too weak to pull it off, and Mussolini escaped, and set up a puppet government in German-occupied sections of Italy.  The war came home to Italy and the country ended up being a bystander to a fight between the Americans/British and the Germans.

[J. J.]

You are missing a number of factors:

1.  While the Italians were far from the best military in the world at the time, they still had successes.  The British regarded some fighting in North Africa as the best they ever faced; there was also the success in Albania.  Granted that could not be said about the entire Italian Army, but there was still an army that could have taken defensive operations.

2.  The Italian Army did have troops on different fronts, including the USSR (the numbers I've seen were between 60,000 and 200,000); they were also involved in Yougoslavian antipartizen operations.  These troops still had to be replaced when they surrended.  That hurt German manpower.

3.  The Italians had to be interned by the Germans; the extra troops needed to guard (and transport) them drained additional manpower.

4.  Had the Italians fought, there would have needed to be either less than the number of Germans in Italy or had the same number with better results.  Naples may not have been a battle rather than an unopposed landing.

5.  Largely due to the German occuptation, partizen activity in the north grew.  That tied up more German troops.

[dazzleman]

You are missing a number of factors:

1.  While the Italians were far from the best military in the world at the time, they still had successes.  The British regarded some fighting in North Africa as the best they ever faced; there was also the success in Albania.  Granted that could not be said about the entire Italian Army, but there was still an army that could have taken defensive operations.

2.  The Italian Army did have troops on different fronts, including the USSR (the numbers I've seen were between 60,000 and 200,000); they were also involved in Yougoslavian antipartizen operations.  These troops still had to be replaced when they surrended.  That hurt German manpower.

3.  The Italians had to be interned by the Germans; the extra troops needed to guard (and transport) them drained additional manpower.

4.  Had the Italians fought, there would have needed to be either less than the number of Germans in Italy or had the same number with better results.  Naples may not have been a battle rather than an unopposed landing.

5.  Largely due to the German occuptation, partizen activity in the north grew.  That tied up more German troops.

Oh, I definitely agree that it was better that the Italians didn't resist the American invasion ultimately.  We were certainly better off without their active resistance, even though we had to fight the Germans.

I was more expresssing scepticism about how useful they were as an ally, since they didn't end up being a great ally for the Germans.  I think the Germans would have been better off, in sum, had the Italians remained neutral.  That is essentially where they were after they surrendered in 1943.

[dazzleman]

Actually, the Italian military peaked about 1935 and was in serious need of updating its armaments. Much of what was wrong with the Italian forces had to do with outdated technology. They had a decent Navy but no radar. I am not saying they were valiant fighters but given their equipment they were at least acceptable garrison forces which freed up Germans to go elsewhere and conquer others.

If the Italians had really been warlike, they would have never allowed their military to peak in 1935, just as Hitler's rearmament was hitting its stride.

Mussolini wanted an empire on the cheap, and he ended up getting eaten by the monster he helped to create.  The Italian people, cynically, were willing to go along as long as it didn't really cost them anything.  Once it did, they demanded Mussolini's head.  As stupid and misguided as the German people were, they sure were steadfast (one might say stubborn) - refusing to surrender until the last second, even when virtually the whole world was arrayed against them, and blowing their beloved fatherland to smithereens.  Not that I admire their stupidity and cruelty, but it sure made them a dangerous enemy, in a way the Italians never really were.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem with talking about how Hitler would have been better off had Mussolini not joined the war is that one could reverse the question and talk about he would have better off had Franco and Inönü joined the war on the Axis side.

[dazzleman]

The problem with talking about how Hitler would have been better off had Mussolini not joined the war is that one could reverse the question and talk about he would have better off had Franco and Inönü joined the war on the Axis side.

Franco would probably been more valuable than Mussolini because he would have delivered control of the Straits of Gibraltar to the Axis.  Having just fought a brutal civil war, he also may have been more effective militarily.  Franco was essentially a smarter version of Mussolini.  He resisted the temptation for cheap victories when the Germans were on the march, but not yet victorious, and his country was spared the trauma that the Italians went through.

[J. J.]

I was more expresssing scepticism about how useful they were as an ally, since they didn't end up being a great ally for the Germans.  I think the Germans would have been better off, in sum, had the Italians remained neutral.  That is essentially where they were after they surrendered in 1943.

The Germans would have been much better of if the Italians had not invaded Greece in 1941.  On the balance, the Nazi's probably benefited, overall, from having Italy as an ally from 1940-43.  The defection of Italy hurt the Nazi cause.

[dazzleman]

I was more expresssing scepticism about how useful they were as an ally, since they didn't end up being a great ally for the Germans.  I think the Germans would have been better off, in sum, had the Italians remained neutral.  That is essentially where they were after they surrendered in 1943.

The Germans would have been much better of if the Italians had not invaded Greece in 1941.  On the balance, the Nazi's probably benefited, overall, from having Italy as an ally from 1940-43.  The defection of Italy hurt the Nazi cause.

One could argue that the buffoonish and incompetent Italian invasion of Greece in October 1940 cost Germany the war.

In order to invade Yugoslavia and Greece, which was made necessary in part by the Italians' bungling of their invasion, Hitler had to push the invasion of the Soviet Union back by 6 weeks. 

This meant that Barbarossa did not start until June 22, the beginning of the summer, and didn't leave enough time to advance to Moscow before the extreme cold set in and made offensive operations impossible.  Hitler's only chance of beating the Russians, who had much greater POTENTIAL power than he did, was to take advantage of surprise and deliver a knock-out blow before they could recover from the shock of the invasion and grind the Germans down.

As it turns out, because the Germans started so late in 1941, they didn't make it to Moscow in time, and the Russians got a chance to catch their breath, get over the surprise, and mobilize their resources.  After that, the inexorable realities of Russia's huge size and potential resources eventually ground down the Germans and defeated them.

So I think the Italian invasion of Greece did unwittingly have a huge negative effect on the Germans, thank God.