Was there a Civil War in Italy 1943-45? TIK Q&A

Jim Land has asked - I vaguely know that after Sicily fell Italy was ready to throw in the towel and in some way switched sides. I've even heard it described as a civil war in 43-45. Can you elaborate on the details, or recommend books/lectures on the subject?
Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
- - - -
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES
The two books I'd recommend on this topic are Farrell's "Mussolini: A New Life" and Holland's "Italy's Sorrow".
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - -
SUPPORT TIK
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribes...
If you like Stalingrad, you may also enjoy historian Anton Joly's KZbin channel "Stalingrad Battle Data". Link: / @armageddon4145
- - - -
RELATED VIDEO LINKS
A Short History of Mussolini and Fascism • A Short History of Mus...
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
Long Range Desert Group Series Part 1 • Long Range Desert Grou...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The Courland Pocket 1944-45 FULL BATTLESTORM History Documentary • The Courland Pocket 19...
What Causes a Recession or Depression • What Causes a Recessio...
- - - -
ABOUT TIK
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

[@GerSanRiv]

I just want to say that as someone whose nation was just slightly involved in WII, you make great content that makes history approachable.

[@salt27dogg]

GerSanRiv Italy was the republic of Salo in the north was Mussolini tried to make a puppet state but weak.

[@francescofulminis]

Actually was a civil war. Mussolini was killed by partisans

[@taranstewart7524]

Would be funny if youre german

[@IMA_Storia_Navale]

Thank you TIK for this video. As an italian, i am happy to listen to an external point of view on a subject which is delicate also today. I'd like to add an element regarding the military importance of the resistance. Roughly 30% of German troops plus almost 100% of RSI forces were diverted to the anti guerrilla operations, plus many territories were practically out of the control of German and RSI authorities. Yes, the resistance did not win the war on its own, this is crystal clear, but its contribution on the military and political level was not negligible

[@Jin-uu5he]

comments like yours, in addition to being uninformative, should be eliminated (because they were written knowingly that you were telling a lie without sources) you cited two percentages completely at random without citing any sources. As an Italian you are simply following the bias that Farrell talks about in his book. I will begin to take your comment apart piece by piece so that others can be properly informed. Starting from the fact that the RSI army was made up of just over 500,000: of these, 72,000 were enlisted in the anti-aircraft artillery, another 50,000 were incorporated into Flak Italia for anti-aircraft defense (I don't know that the partisans had wings) and you can even find this on Wikipedia; 20,000 soldiers of the RSI attached to departments of the Whermacht fought in France: among them there were around 1,000/2,000 men of the Italian SS and 8,000 men of the 1st Atlantic Division of the RSI, many of them will in fact fight in Normandy (and this is also written on Wikipedia as well as from Congedati.Folgore. Another 5400 Italians were stationed on the Baltic organized as Nebbiogeni battalions. Returning instead to the Italian front we move on to the navy and the national republican air force which certainly were not involved in anti-guerrilla operations given that the partisans of ships and planes they did not possess any. Speaking instead of the Eastern Front of Italy (Italian-Yugoslav front) on 31 December 1945 the information office of the IX Yugoslav Army Korpus estimated the forces of the RSI on the Trieste-Udine line at 15495 men (info from Slovenian historian Stanko Petelin and from the book Bersaglieri in Venezia Giulia by Teodoro Francesconi) the figure is also incomplete due to the lack of the number of RSI forces deployed in Istria. On the Gothic line, 10,000 men of the 1st Italian division were deployed against the Anglo-American troops (February 1945/ book by Davide del Giudice - Bersaglieri on the Gothic Line), 5 battalions of the Decima Mas, 1 battalion of Bersaglieri, 1 battalion of arditi, 2 battalions of the San Marco division, 2 battalion of black shirts of the Etna Division, the Monterosa combat group, 2 autonomous artillery groups ( 13600 men approximately) 50 anti-tank companies of the 1st Etna Division with 2550 men (source from the book: Armed Forces of the RSI on the Gothic Line by Carlo Cucut). There are also all the departments involved in coastal defense which I have no idea how many there were but given the vastness of the beach surrounding Italy you can imagine. Finally, all that remains is to mention the front of the Western Alps where the entire 2nd Littorio division, the 4th Monterosa division and the Folgore regiment were deployed....Here it is enough for you to see the second battle of the Western Alps (changed to a French victory, but as you can see the Val d'Aosta was not annexed to France so sometimes even those who use wiki are treacherous and have ulterior motives). Obviously the forces I mentioned to you are not even complete and there are many others who were engaged in things opposite to guerrilla warfare. Btw the famous free zones you speak of were created in microscopic villages in the middle of steep mountains (the Germans surrounded the area until the partisans ran out of resources and were finally forced to descend with imaginable consequences). :) @TIKhistory

[@Jin-uu5he]

comments like yours, in addition to being uninformative, should be el'minated (because they were written knowingly that you were telling a lie without sources) you cited two percentages completely at random without citing any sources. As an Italian you are simply following the bias that Farrell talks about in his book. I am replying to this comment so that others can be properly informed. Starting from the fact that the RSI army was made up of just over 500,000: of these, 72,000 were enlisted in the anti-aircraft artillery, another 50,000 were incorporated into Flak Italia for anti-aircraft defense (I don't know that the partisans had wings) and you can even find this on Wikipedia; 20,000 soldiers of the RSI attached to departments of the Whermacht fought in France: among them there were around 1,000/2,000 men of the Italian waffen s and 8,000 men of the 1st Atlantic Division of the RSI, many of them will in fact fight in Normandy (and this is also written on Wikipedia as well as from Congedati.Folgore. Another 5400 Italians were stationed on the Baltic organized as Nebbiogeni battalions. Returning instead to the Italian front we move on to the navy and the national republican air force which certainly were not involved in anti-guerrilla operations given that the partisans of ships and planes they did not possess any. Speaking instead of the Eastern Front of Italy (Italian-Yugoslav front) on 31 December 1945 the information office of the IX Yugoslav Army Korpus estimated the forces of the RSI on the Trieste-Udine line at 15495 men (info from Slovenian historian Stanko Petelin and from the book Bersaglieri in Venezia Giulia by Teodoro Francesconi) the figure is also incomplete due to the lack of the number of RSI forces deployed in Istria. On the Gothic line, 10,000 men of the 1st Italian division were deployed against the Anglo-American troops (February 1945/ book by Davide del Giudice - Bersaglieri on the Gothic Line), 5 battalions of the Decima Mas, 1 battalion of Bersaglieri, 1 battalion of arditi, 2 battalions of the San Marco division, 2 battalion of black shirts of the Etna Division, the Monterosa combat group, 2 autonomous artillery groups ( 13600 men approximately) 50 anti-tank companies of the 1st Etna Division with 2550 men (source from the book: Armed Forces of the RSI on the Gothic Line by Carlo Cucut). There are also all the departments involved in coastal defense which I have no idea how many there were but given the vastness of the beach surrounding Italy you can imagine. Finally, all that remains is to mention the front of the Western Alps where the entire 2nd Littorio division, the 4th Monterosa division and the Folgore regiment were deployed....Here it is enough for you to see the second battle of the Western Alps (changed to a French victory, but as you can see the Val d'Aosta was not annexed to France so sometimes even those who use wiki are treacherous and have ulterior motives). Obviously the forces I mentioned to you are not even complete and there are many others who were engaged in things opposite to guerrilla warfare. Btw the famous free zones you speak of were created in microscopic villages in the middle of steep mountains (the Germans surrounded the area until the partisans ran out of resources and were finally forced to descend with imaginable consequences). :) @TIKhistory

[@Jin-uu5he]

comments like yours, in addition to being uninformative, should be el'minated, you cited two percentages completely at random without citing any sources. As an Italian you are simply following the bias that Farrell talks about in his book. I am replying to this comment so that others can be properly informed. Starting from the fact that the RSI army was made up of just over 500,000: of these, 72,000 were enlisted in the anti-aircraft artillery, another 50,000 were incorporated into Flak Italia for anti-aircraft defense (I don't know that the partisans had wings) and you can even find this on Wikipedia; 20,000 soldiers of the RSI attached to departments of the Whermacht fought in France: among them there were around 1,000/2,000 men of the 29th Italian division and 8,000 men of the 1st Atlantic Division of the RSI, many of them will in fact fight in Normandy (and this is also written on Wikipedia as well as from Congedati.Folgore. Another 5400 Italians were stationed on the Baltic organized as Nebbiogeni battalions. Returning instead to the Italian front we move on to the navy and the national republican air force which certainly were not involved in anti-guerrilla operations given that the partisans of ships and planes they did not possess any. Speaking instead of the Eastern Front of Italy (Italian-Yugoslav front) on 31 December 1945 the information office of the IX Yugoslav Army Korpus estimated the forces of the RSI on the Trieste-Udine line at 15495 men (info from Slovenian historian Stanko Petelin and from the book Bersaglieri in Venezia Giulia by Teodoro Francesconi) the figure is also incomplete due to the lack of the number of RSI forces deployed in Istria. On the Gothic line, 10,000 men of the 1st Italian division were deployed against the Anglo-American troops (February 1945/ book by Davide del Giudice - Bersaglieri on the Gothic Line), 5 battalions of the Decima Mas, 1 battalion of Bersaglieri, 1 battalion of arditi, 2 battalions of the San Marco division, 2 battalion of black shirts of the Etna Division, the Monterosa combat group, 2 autonomous artillery groups ( 13600 men approximately) 50 anti-tank companies of the 1st Etna Division with 2550 men (source from the book: Armed Forces of the RSI on the Gothic Line by Carlo Cucut). There are also all the departments involved in coastal defense which I have no idea how many there were but given the vastness of the beach surrounding Italy you can imagine. Finally, all that remains is to mention the front of the Western Alps where the entire 2nd Littorio division, the 4th Monterosa division and the Folgore regiment were deployed....Here it is enough for you to see the second battle of the Western Alps (changed to a French victory, but as you can see the Val d'Aosta was not annexed to France so sometimes even those who use wiki are treacherous and have ulterior motives). Obviously the forces I mentioned to you are not even complete and there are many others who were engaged in things opposite to guerrilla warfare. Btw the famous free zones you speak of were created in microscopic villages in the middle of steep mountains (the Germans surrounded the area until the partisans ran out of resources and were finally forced to descend with imaginable consequences). :) @TIKhistory

[@Jin-uu5he]

comments like yours, in addition to being un1nformative, should be el'minated, you cited two percentages completely at random without citing any sources. As an Italian you are simply following the bias that Farrell talks about in his book. I am replying to this comment so that others can be properly informed. Starting from the fact that the RSI army was made up of just over 500,000: of these, 72,000 were enlisted in the anti-aircraft artillery, another 50,000 were incorporated into Flak Italia for anti-aircraft defense (I don't know that the partisans had wings) and you can even find this on Wikipedia; 20,000 soldiers of the RSI attached to departments of the Whermacht fought in France: among them there were around 1,000/2,000 men of the 29th Italian division and 8,000 men of the 1st Atlantic Division of the RSI, many of them will in fact fight in Normandy (and this is also written on Wikipedia as well as from Congedati.Folgore. Another 5400 Italians were stationed on the Baltic organized as Nebbiogeni battalions. Returning instead to the Italian front we move on to the navy and the national republican air force which certainly were not involved in anti-guerrilla operations given that the partisans of ships and planes they did not possess any. Speaking instead of the Eastern Front of Italy (Italian-Yugoslav front) on 31 December 1945 the information office of the IX Yugoslav Army Korpus estimated the forces of the RSI on the Trieste-Udine line at 15495 men (info from Slovenian historian Stanko Petelin and from the book Bersaglieri in Venezia Giulia by Teodoro Francesconi) the figure is also incomplete due to the lack of the number of RSI forces deployed in Istria. On the Gothic line, 10,000 men of the 1st Italian division were deployed against the Anglo-American troops (February 1945/ book by Davide del Giudice - Bersaglieri on the Gothic Line), 5 battalions of the Decima Mas, 1 battalion of Bersaglieri, 1 battalion of arditi, 2 battalions of the San Marco division, 2 battalion of black shirts of the Etna Division, the Monterosa combat group, 2 autonomous artillery groups ( 13600 men approximately) 50 anti-tank companies of the 1st Etna Division with 2550 men (source from the book: Armed Forces of the RSI on the Gothic Line by Carlo Cucut). There are also all the departments involved in coastal defense which I have no idea how many there were but given the vastness of the beach surrounding Italy you can imagine. Finally, all that remains is to mention the front of the Western Alps where the entire 2nd Littorio division, the 4th Monterosa division and the Folgore regiment were deployed....Here it is enough for you to see the second battle of the Western Alps. Obviously the forces I mentioned to you are not even complete and there are many others who were engaged in things opposite to guerrilla warfare. Btw the famous free zones you speak of were created in microscopic villages in the middle of steep mountains (the Germans surrounded the area until the partisans ran out of resources and were finally forced to descend with imaginable consequences).

[@varovaro1967]

That was one of the most interesting aspects of the war: Italians against italians, italians against germans, allies against Germans, allies against italians, germans against partisans, partisans against italians....

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

Giovanni Messe formally surrendered to British and New Zealand forces. After the Italian armistice in September 1943, he was made chief of staff of the Italian Co-Belligerent Army.

[@Fullmetalljacket88]

And everyone against populace.

[@sjakierulez]

Germans against germans

[@vaclav_fejt]

"Damn Italians, they've spoiled the whole of Italy!" - the caretaker from the Simpsons.

[@sabinespeed4146]

@@jussim.konttinen4981 Makes sense to me, he was the best general Italy produced imho.

[@creatoruser736]

Farrell stating the Italian partisan movement not having liberated Italy from German occupation is a really bad way to characterize its effectiveness. Thinking an insurgency can single-handedly oust a foreign occupier is a more modern concept. In WW2 none of the resistance movements were intended to liberate their countries on their own. The same could be said about the French, Polish, Greek, and other movements (Yugoslavia and Albania don't count, the Germans left because the Soviets were advancing elsewhere, not because they were exhausted by guerrillas). They were designed to wreak havoc behind the lines to make the Allied armies' advance easier, not tire the enemy into wanting to leave. Sure, they only did a general uprising at the end, but so did the French Resistance when the Allies were close to Paris and the Polish Home Army when the Soviets were close to Warsaw. If the Italian partisan's exploits are exaggerated, it's no more than those of other similar movements at the time.

[@BigWillyG1000]

The resistance groups in WWII get lumped in like the post-war "wars of national liberation" stuff but they were more like earlier partisan movements. Asymmetric plus conventional warfare is nasty to deal with. You need a ton of troops to fight that because you different ways to fight them. It's why militia and partisans were useful in the American Revolution. Britain can fight the Continentals in conventional fighting and get their supplies ripped to shreds by the militia and partisans or go into COIN tactics and have small units wiped out by the Continentals as seen at Trenton or Bennington. Ditto the Spanish/Portugese guerillas in the Peninsular War. Certainly the Vendee and Geronden rebels on one side and the United Irishmen on the other assumed foreign support on a large scale during the Wars of the French Revolution.

[@alfredodallolio2599]

A well balanced and unbiased comment, at last. The Italian partisans were crucially supported with allied weapons, equipment and intelligence. On the other hand they made a good use of what they had: Kesselring himself admitted that the partisans kept busy fighting them at least 1/3 of the German occupation force and the totality of the Repubblica Sociale Troops. It is also important to say that the coordination between partisans of different political factions (republicans, communists, socialists, catholics) in a united front was crucial in building the new post war republic. The men who wrote the Italian Constitution and built the Republic after 1945 were active members of the CLN.

[@danielefabbro822]

Well, neither the Allies did since they stopped to Rome from 1943 to 1945.

[@LtColwtf]

Well reasoned.

[@Jamespwickstromw]

Most resistence groups were communists, and its a joke here that after the war everyone was with the resistence :)

[@martybaran5509]

My mother was from a small town about a hour southeast from Napels. I visited in early 80's. There was still bullet holes in buildings and other damage that had yet to be repaired from the war.

[@palemale2501]

There is a small bombed area in central Napoli that is not yet re built - mafia politics

[@pmcshow44]

Not Italian, but a Spanish Speaker. The most accurate term is "The Italian SOCIAL Republic" not socialist.

[@SamuelChac0n]

Parecido

[@johngreally9599]

@@SamuelChac0n Not really... community vs communism, femininity, vs feminism, sociality (social) vs socialism (an 'ism' or ideology, a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory). Precisely what a fascist would be avoiding is socialism. I know alt-right people will spin it the other way and be terribly LIBERAL in their translations. Fascists sheltering fascists.

[@SamuelChac0n]

@@johngreally9599 alright good point

[@jimtaylor294]

Fascism = the italian word for Authoritarianism. Thus Socialism can also be Fascist, and mathematically is more likely to be, as right of center regimes are seldom authoritarian, and socialists hate competition :P . Lefties will probably always try to pass off blame for National-Socialism onto their opposition, because "wasn't real socialism!" is a 2nd nature cliche thereof already.

[@pmcshow44]

@@jimtaylor294 I don't have time to correct all your political misconceptions, but I was merely correcting the terminology used.

[@clementbruera]

TIK, I'm not a fan of the Resistance movement for...various reasons. But credit should be given when it's due. The Italian Resistance Movement was a big thorn in german and RSI sides. They formed brigades and divisions, they formed little "republics", see the Republic of Valsesia. And they were equipped, a part of them were soldiers that retained their weapons when the army was disbanded ,(don't know where you found that only a little had weapons), civilians that helped them no. For the army part, it's true that they never fought between themselves, RSI did not wanted their soldiers to shoot at the soldiers from the South and vice versa. - But RSI had some well equipped divisions, that fought at Nettuno, fought the Yugoslav trying to enter in Italy and even fought french forces trying to pass through the Alps (in this case forming alliance even with the Resistance). However the most famous operation of the RSI forces was the "Battle of Garfagnana". - For the South side, they fought with the British forces against the Germans and they didi the last parachute operation of the war in the european theatre: Operation Herring. Unfortunately everything about RSI forces and operation is pretty obscure, not easy to find, same for the South.

[@thegloriouspyrocheems2277]

Summary of this episode: - Everyone formerly notable is now a puppet - There are two Italies - Germany sucks the life out of Northern Italy - Mussolini goes back to basics - TIK does a solid impression of people claiming that Italian partisans were like Rambo - Mussolini almost comically gets caught by partisans *Benny Hill theme* - A lot of morale hitting as outro

[@mikehunt3436]

you omit the part where Italian woman have to suck something out of GIs for their families to survive in Southern Italy.

[@Infernal460]

This is a subject ive been waiting for TIK to cover.

[@DaveSCameron]

#GLADIO?

[@marcolino269]

Basically nobody in Italy says that partisans won the war in the country, the significance they still have for us young italians is a moral one: we were humiliated and carried into a crazy war without the means and the slightest hope of winning, by a mad dictator, supported by a good part of the population. The partisans were heroes and they sacrificed themselves as our soldiers did in Northern Africa, but with the difference that they fought a rightful battle. They redeemed many of us that did not recognize in fascism and died for a better democratic Italy. I also understand that this is hard to understand for many foreigners and also for many military experts, from what I read through the years.

[@alfredodallolio2599]

Good comment. Also anyone talking loosely about "betrayals", "switching sides" and "cowardice" should at least investigate the food ratio in rhe Italian army during world war 2. One of the last Indy Neidell's video is about this topic, very neglected in the anglophone history. The average italian soldier in 1943 was literally STARVING in his paper boots. This explains the anger of many against Fascism and Mussolini and why many soldiers joined the Partisans to fight it.

[@MarcoBonechi]

It’s what Germans don’t have, they never rebelled to Hitler.

[@georgewilliams8448]

Thank you for another very good video about a little covered and confusing time in history. The entire history of Italy in World War 2 is usually not covered well if at all so for you to do such a good video is a real treat! Thanks again.

[@Fullmetalljacket88]

I've read that book couple of months back. Very good book. I had a depression after reading this. Highly recommend.

[@samoobrulj8289]

Doing a battlestorm monte cassino would be lovely after stalingrad!!

[@dointh4198]

Oh no, it's boring as fuck. Stalemate like Kurland. Maybe the whole campaign from Salerno to the Po river.

[@chrisherre7107]

So in one year maybe, the Stalingrad stuff will go on a long time

[@jimland4359]

@@chrisherre7107 Its like a mini Rzhev.

[@davidtuttle7556]

If Tik were to do a series on the Winter Line campaign, you would see A LOT of triggered Americans and Brits as the entire campaign was one giant SNAFU after another. And Cassino itself was completely FUBAR.

[@Raskolnikov70]

@@davidtuttle7556 I'm American and the whole Italian campaign after Sicily still triggers me. I get that the US and UK were under pressure from Stalin to open that 2nd front in Europe and that there weren't any other good options at the time for places to do it. But after taking Sicily they could have had just as much of an effect on the overall strategic situation by keeping a large garrison on Sicily, *threatening* to invade Italy but not actually doing it, and using Sicily as a bomber base to tear up southern Axis armies indefinitely. The mainland campaign was an utter waste of time and resources, which should have been clear just by looking at a topographical map of the country. Forcing the Axis to maintain a static defense would have been a lot more cost-effective.

[@_-Wade-_]

Tik your content is thoughtful and fantastic, a true breathing of fresh air. Keep up the good work!

[@360Nomad]

I'd say that the Italian resistance's greatest contribution was in Italy's post-war rehabilitation. Because they had risen up in defiance of the Nazis and Mussolini, even if they had not been effective, it was enough of a contribution that Italy was largely spared from the measures that were taken against Germany and Japan upon the war's conclusion with the complete dismantling of their previous governments, their leaders being dragged before war crimes tribunals to be publicly held to account for their actions, ideological purging, and being stripped of their sovereignty for over 40 years. Even today, Mussolini still enjoys much greater fanfare in Italy than Adolf Hitler does in Germany. In part, largely because Italy was NOT subjected to anything resembling the policy of Denazification by the Allies.

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

On the other hand, it's low-intensity Balkanization. If you’re not part of the regular military, you’re just a street thug. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

I'd say that's more because of the King overthrew Mussolini and went over to the Allies, as well as the whole navy. Those things were more significant than the partisans.

[@ktheterkuceder6825]

Shame because he was more of an ass than hitler.

[@freakyfishy1]

Hey TIK, it was called the Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana) not Italian Socialist Republic. Talking about the occupation of southern Italy by the Allies, I stumbled across the "Marocchinate", designating the rapes perpetrated by French colonial troops near Naples. Really horrifying

[@jonsouth1545]

He is deliberately wrong on many points here he is starting to sound like a broken record and less like an objective Historian and more like a political commentator we know TIK doesn't like Socialism neither do I but there is no need to deliberately mislead people hell the 1/4 of all the Allied troops in the 15th Army Group in the Battles of the Gothic line were Italian including over 20 frontline combat regiments fighting in the British V, X and XIII corps as well as the US II corps these it's acquitted themselves very well in the battles of the Gothic Line and at Garfagnana the Italian fascists defeated an American force over twice their size in December 1944

[@vandeheyeric]

In this case he's wrong because Holland is wrong. And partially because the implication of "Social" in that context was "Socialist", but you are still largely correct.

[@vandeheyeric]

@@jonsouth1545 I'm not sure he is deliberately wrong in this case (though I think he has been in others) so long as he is overly reliant on Holland's account, and Holland fucks up a bunch of things, including the transliteration of Italian Social Republic (which I think is MODERATELY understandable but still wasn't the accepted translation even at the time). But yah. I'd say this was one of the weaker ones.

[@jonsouth1545]

@@vandeheyeric The term Sociale is an Italian term deriving from the Latin Socii meaning Allied and was a very common term to describe non-Roman Italians loyal to the Roman Republic found allot of Italian literature with Mussolini's love of Italian especially Roman History he used this term a lot while it is true in English the meaning has changed but we should give Benny the benefit of the doubt in regards to the desire to use it's other meaning especially with Socii Latina being one of the 3 legal denominations of Roman Italy being Latin speakers but not from Rome. The Rebellions in this group being the Social War of 91 to 88 BC

[@vandeheyeric]

@@jonsouth1545 "The term Sociale is an Italian term deriving from the Latin Socii meaning Allied" I'm well aware, as a former Roman Re-enactor who still has a middling fluency of Latin. The problem is that Mussolini is clearly not using the term in this sense. After all, the Socii were allied Italic nations in a dependent status with Rome, something that Mussolini clearly did not want to acknowledge here. Couple this with the fact that the Socii basically vanished as an independent identity after the resolution to Rome's Social War in the age of Marius and Sulla (where the Italic Socii were granted Roman citizenship- leading to the careers of people such as Cicero), and you can see. "and was a very common term to describe non-Roman Italians loyal to the Roman Republic" Except it wasn't really used to describe non-Romans loyal to the Roman Republic per se (there was an entire vocabulary of different non-Roman allies to Rome) so much as those in a specific Kind of alliance with the Roman Republic. And this would apply even when said Italic Allae were at loggerheads with Rome or even at war with it (Hence "Social War" referring to a "War of the Socii" like those that plagued Rome periodically, and what Roman historiography called a bunch of anti-Athenian Imperialist rebellions centuries before). Besides, Mussolini was always clear that the Third Reich was not Rome. Italy was not a dependent ally of it (no matter how much reality indicated otherwise). Which is mostly why he talked about it in the more contemporary senses. Sure, he was a big Roman Wank, but he wasn't such a big one taht he ignored Rome *fell.* and so a new model would be necessary (see: the Doctrine of Fascism). "he used this term a lot while it is true in English the meaning has changed" The reason the meaning has changed in English is because the meaning changed in Latin and its descendant languages, off which English is an out-of-wedlock distant grandnephew. Again, by the time of the late Republic the Socii were *gone*, because they had already been assimilated as Romans. So the term started taking on new meanings, including the more modern ones we'd realize. "but we should give Benny the benefit of the doubt in regards to the desire to use it's other meaning especially with Socii Latina being one of the 3 legal denominations of Roman Italy being Latin speakers but not from Rome." Yes, we should give Benny the benefit of the Doubt, because he was VERY CLEAR That he was using this term for a specific reason (one of the things Holland gets right in the book). And that reason WASN'T to declare Italy a "Social Ally" of the Third Reich. The Doctrine of Fascism explicitly rejects the idea of any sub-states existing within the greater State-Community, for starters. And then we have this, which I think summarizes Mussolini's political views on socialism and self-identification as such. " For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. " - Testament of Benito Mussolini, 20th of March 1945.

[@hermocrasbreadlord9557]

There was enough Italians fighting on either side as partisans, pro allied troops, and on the other side as Italian Axis and German collaborators, and enough hot engagements to have it classified as a Civil War in My opinion. They weren't quiet or subtle during the Civil war as other partisan movements across Europe was. It was a brother shooting brother situation.

[@mirkochicco9620]

Esatto.

[@nickh-i9846]

Thanks TIK. Always glad to hear coverage of the less talked about parts of the war!

[@nickh-i9846]

Basd on the argument you present I find it pretty logical to say it wasn't a civil war. I am curious, did any contemporary sources mentioni the notion of civil war? I think to win the arguement that is the key. Did the Italians, think it was a civil. We can say whatever we want with 20/20 hindsight, political agendas and modern bias but the question that needs to be answered is this: Did the Italians think that they were fighting a war to eliminate other Italians? Did they fight "brother against brother"? Or were they fighting against foreign occupiers? Perhaps a failed regime? The only way to answer this question is to get the contemporary Italian perspective, that is real history. Which I feel that TIK does an adequate job of doing, getting to the real history.

[@IrishTechnicalThinker]

Listening after working in the garden, planting flowers. Sitting outside my back garden in the sun with a cup of tea. Thank you brother!

[@brunobacelli5389]

There are quite some errors there. I'll try to talk about some of them. First, the King had its army, they fought not as divisions but as "combat groups" and "co-belligerent forces" because the Allies didn't want the Italians slipping in as an allied power after waging war for 3 years against them. Nevertheless, they fought and died (and the air force too, and the navy too). Second: RSI Army was huge if not well armed, and it fought on the front lines in some occasions. They also deserted a lot (the german trained divisions). They mainly operated as anti-guerrilla forces. Italian situation was not like in France or Poland. Probably RSI couldn't have been born without German support (and Mussolini liberation), but it was there and it fought actively against the partisans. It was a civil war with ambushes, assassinations, arrests, torture, military sweeps in contended areas, kidnappings, bombings, reprisals, and all the stuff. After the end of the war, the partisans went on, killing thousands of RSI soldiers, politicians, and functionaries. Common bandits joined in the carnage, killing rich people to rob them or ransack their homes. Third: Ok, Italian leftists do exalt the partisan role, and they try to play down the fact that partisans were not all communists. Still, partisans were there, and they fought, and they caused Axis reprisals with a lot of dead, villages burned and so on. Partisans DID TRY insurrections in the mountains BEFORE April 1945, with the creations of small "free republics", it didn't go well and a lot of people died for that. More Italians were killed by Germans (and RSI) from 1943 to 1945 than by Allies in 1940-1943 before the armistice. Fourth: it's true a small number of germans disbanded a big Italian army (that was leaderless and uncertain about what to do because they were not given orders before the armistice) but it's worth noting that a lot of Italian divisions were garrisoning south of France, Yugoslavia, and Greece.

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

Did someone say Civil war?

[@stewartellinson8846]

No partisan movement liberated it's country. Italian partisans did what all partisans did - they fought against those that they saw as occupiers and oppressors. Crucially, Italian partisans fought against the local fascist militia. Comparisons with the actions of the long range desert group are poor here and your reporting of the moral of the Italian army in the desert is not neccessarily supported by evidence. You should read some of the italian historiography of this - local studies have shown the detail and depth of conflict in the Northern italian regons. I'll see if i can find some english translations for you to read. Finally, Italian units did come into combat on the Allies side through 1944 and 45. These were described as "co-belligerent" units. The Italians certainly see it as a civil war.

[@Jamespwickstromw]

partisans were just armed bands of bandits really, in the end they subjugated themselves to which ever army waltzed through there

[@RinoBellissimo]

"Among the great misconceptions of modern times is the assumption that Benito Mussolini was Hitler's junior partner, who made no significant contributions to the Second World War. That conclusion originated with Allied propagandists determined to boost Anglo-American morale, while undermining Axis cooperation. The Duce's failings, real or imagined, were inflated and ridiculed; his successes pointedly demeaned or ignored. Italy's bungling navy, ineffectual army - as cowardly as it was ill-equipped - and air force of antiquated biplanes were handily dealt with by the Western Allies. So effective was this disinformation campaign that it became post-war history, and is still generally taken for granted even by otherwise well-informed scholars and students of World War Two. But a closer examination of recently disclosed, and often neglected, original source materials presents an entirely different picture. They shine new light, for example, on Italy's submarine service, the world's greatest in terms of tonnage, its boats sinking nearly three-quarters of a million tons of Allied shipping in three years' time. During a single operation, Italian 'human torpedoes' sank the battleships HMS Valiant and Queen Elizabeth, plus an eight-thousand-ton tanker, at their home anchorage in Alexandria, Egypt. By mid-1942, Mussolini's navy had fought its way back from crushing defeats to become the dominant power in the Mediterranean Sea. Contrary to popular belief, his Fiat biplanes gave as good as they got in the Battle of Britain, and their monoplane replacements, such as the Macchi Greyhound, were state-of-the-art interceptors superior to the American Mustang. Savoia-Marchetti Sparrowhawk bombers accounted for seventy-two Allied warships and one hundred-ninety-six freighters before the Bagdolio armistice in 1943. On 7 June 1942, infantry of the Italian X Corps saved Rommel's XV Brigade near Gazala, in North Africa, from otherwise certain annihilation, while horse-soldiers of the Third Cavalry Division Amedeo Duca d'Aosta defeated Soviet forces on the Don River before Stalingrad the following August in history's last cavalry charge. As influential as these operations were on the course of World War Two, more potentially decisive was Mussolini's planned aggression against the United States' mainland. Postponed only at the last moment when its conventional explosives were slated for substitution by a nuclear device, New York City escaped an atomic attack by margins more narrow than previously understood. It is now known that Italian scientists led the world in nuclear research in 1939, and a four-engine Piaggio heavy bomber was modified to carry an atomic bomb five years later". Frank Joseph, Mussolini’s War, Fascists Italy’s Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935 - 1945.

[@Ninety-Nine__]

Absolute unit of a book, i recommend it to anyone.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

The biggest problem with Mussolini, in my view, is why he signed onto the Pact of Steel in the first place. Germany and Italy (in all of their various forms) had been enemies for 2000+ years. Italy was a sea power, Germany of course a land power. Mussolini was also warned by many people including Count Ciano, his own son-in-law and Foreign Minister.

[@scipioafricanus6417]

Germany and Italy had only existed for about a century at that point; draging the Roman Empire and the HRE into modern national state relations makes little sense, just look at the Entente Cordiale!

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@scipioafricanus6417 True, but also a technicality. The Italian "region" then, had been rivals/enemies of the German "region" for many centuries - in all their different political manifestations. Plus again, land power (Germany) plus sea power (Italy) - bad mix. Mussolini could have easily "pulled a Franco" and stayed out of World War II. Italy certainly was not ready. Benito might have ruled until 1975 like Frank did in Spain!

[@gumdeo]

@@TheLoyalOfficer I think he would have entered anyway, towards the end, maybe grabbing Austria before the Soviets could get it.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@gumdeo Then he would have been crushed in weeks by the triumphant titans of 1945 - the USA and the USSR. Mussolini would have been absolutely obliterated if he tried something like that.

[@gumdeo]

@@TheLoyalOfficer The Allies were encouraging new countries to join the war against Germany, thus the very late entry of Argentina and Turkey... If Italy waits until Germans forces have left France and Yugoslavia, then the only border with the Reich was with Austria. So, Italy declares war on Germany and enters Austria. The Germans, who are losing on all fronts, will not fight to the death considering that the Red Army is on their way to Berlin. The worst thing that could happen to Italy is that the Allies ask them to vacate Austria after the war is over.

[@PhillyPhanVinny]

Keep up the great work TIK. This was a interesting topic.

[@nikshmenga]

Italy's Sorrow: A Year of War, 1944-1945 - James Holland "And while the Allies and Germans were fighting it out through the mountains, the Italians were engaging in bitter battles too. Partisans were carrying out a crippling resistance campaign against the German troops but also battling the Fascists forces as well in what soon became a bloody civil war."

[@francescofontana9707]

Well that sounds pretty conclusive, lol

[@alanpennie8013]

@@francescofontana9707 There were two wars going on. The war between Germans and Allies, with both sides deploying a few Italian divisions which did not fight each other. And a nasty counter - insurgency war in The North between partisans and fascist militia.

[@wretchedfibs4306]

Thanks again. Always learn a lot watching your vids.

[@francescofontana9707]

The Communist partisans were committed to the Svolta di Salerno: cooperation with the king and other democratic forces. Stalin had signed Italy away to the Western Allies, the communists wouldn't rise after the war and mostly disbanded in good order. There were a few reprisals against former fascists after the war but that came down to a couple hundred deaths. That's political infighting at the scale of 1919-1922. The partisan movement during the war had tens of thousands of casualties and inflicted significant damage to the German war machine in Italy tying down a number of German divisions that would have been useful to Kesserling in Cassino, plus basically all the fascist militias organised in the GNR and Brigate Nere. The partisans at the height of the guerrilla in 1944, when Gen. Alexander ordered them to cease activities for the winter, counted about 120k members. They couldn't and didn't free the country by themselves, but they did constitute a significant movement, with a measurable military effect and from their ranks came most of the people who would shape the First Italian Republic after the liberation: Parri, De Gasperi, Pertini, Pajetta and so forth

[@jimland4359]

I was not expecting this today. Awesome!

[@asiderealday]

I want you to know I have loved every one of your videos and hope you do this forever

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

I'm Italian and the fact that a WWII enthusiast even asks this question is kind of weird to me: this was a turning point for one of the major Axis power, and changed part of the war in Europe, still is a very little known fact outside our borders. It is nice that people want to know more, but i don't really understand why is not a more know part of history, a lot of people just believe that Italy stopped fighting altogheter in 1943. Also i would make two points: the first is that "Repubblica Sociale Italiana" does not translate into Italian Socialist Republic, that would be "Repubblica Socialista Italiana", and if you declared yourself a socialist in that period you would be shot or beaten to death by blackshirts (to be fair, happened since fascism got to power, socialists were ideological adversaries of the Partito Nazionale Fascista, and like Giacomo Matteotti, they were murdered by fascists), the RSI wanted to integrate social reforms, for sure, but in reality ended up more on the brutal repression of the folk side of things, so i don't see much socialism in that (but we know it's a really complex argument, and could be hardly debated in a youtube comment). The other point is that i would call it a Civil War because Italy actually had two governments at the same time (the Badoglio Government and the RSI), which had both an army (Esercito Cobelligerante Italiano, from the South, rather small, and Esercito Nazionale Repubblicano, which counted hundred of thousands of members) and were at war with each other, besides the partisan movements forming para-governmental entities and declaring their own war against the Nazi-Fascist occupation (as it was called by them). About the Italian Partisans, i know a lot of people really talk about them like they were the only liberators of the country, and it's clear that without the Allied support they could really operate in any effective way, but you're downplaying them a lot here. It is true that the armed general insurrection happened on the last days of the war, when the Nazifascists were on the brink of defeat, but this was a planned political move, as it granted greater autonomy from the Allied forces to the Italian people after the end of the war, (and showing that the Italian population was against the fascist regime surely helped, after all Italy judged their war criminals on it's own, for example). Still the partisans were not so small in number as you seem to think (the official number is around 700000, www.icar.beniculturali.it/index.php?id=355, this takes in account only the members of the CLN officially recognised by the Italian Republic, one third of them is still more than 200000 men!), and the low number of firearms example does not really show what the movement was about: in 1944 italian partisans created an extensive net, which found it's way into every big industrial complex and infrastructure. They were pretty successful, and they managed to severely impact the North Italian industrial output (already crippled by the bombings) and in turn more and more people became found of the partisans cause. The partisans also scored more direct success since 1943, like in the Four days of Naples, when partisans, together with Italians forces loyal to the king, liberated the city from the occupying German forces before the arrival of the Allied forces, which is a remarkable feat. In 1945 they would do the same with Genoa, Milan, and other important cities. You seem to hint that the Allied command really didn't like the partisans, this is true due to the huge communist presence in their ranks, but still they supported them with tons of supplies and weapons, and it was not uncommon to see Allied officers in partisan formations, to coordinate them with the moves of the advancing army. At 16:21 you say "Italy was not on fire", which is quite ironic, considering that from 1943 the fascists burned down villages and towns in retaliation for the widespread partisan activity. I live in a region that saw a lot of partisan history (with the biggest demo-christian formation, Divisione Cichero), near Genoa, and my own house was burned down (and rebuilt) in three different occasions, along with the village, to scare the inhabitants from helping the partisans; sometimes on the side of the streets there are crosses and monuments indicating the hundreds killed by the brutal repression of the RSI. Every town has something in its history related to the partisans, as the movement was really everywhere and widely supported by the people. (P.s: this part of history is so relevant for my hometown that 100 meters from where i'm writing there is a villa which used to be Rodolfo Graziani HQ at that time, while the regional partisan movement formed in a barn on the nearby mountain, less than 10km away, and my own grandpa published a small book on the subject in the 70s) I'll end saying that I think your videos about WWII are some with the best research behind you can find on the net, and maybe this time It's just an argument which i've personally gone into for years and even affected my family directly, but this brief analysis seems kind of lacking (one example is talking about the King of Italy and not those who actually acted on the "armistice", like Pietro Badoglio or Dino Grandi) and i hope you will look into it with more depth, as I found it an extremely fascinating and complex subject, with still a lot to uncover. Sadly i can't reccomend any good sources right now, as the one i know are in Italian, and they usually don't get translated...

[@VictorLepanto]

There was a rump of an Italian gov't in the South, basically subject to the allied western powers (the Anglo/American armies) & incapable of acting in any way independent of those two powers. In the North Mussolini was even worse off then Quisling or even Petain in France. Whatever Italian troops helped the Germans rule North Italy in Mussolini's name (really in the same position as Japan's Pu Yi in Manchuria) were nothing but tools of the Nazis. Neither groups of Italians played any major role in fighting each other, at that point I am quite there was no will to do so. People just wanted to get food in their mouths. The occasional harrassment of partisan bands doesn't amount to a civil war any more then the fighting between mafia gangs does.

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

@@VictorLepanto The extimates put the fallen italian partisans at 210.149 (from Morti e dispersi per cause belliche negli anni 1940-1945), which doesn't really compare to your example

[@VictorLepanto]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 Partisans might have died, but to take Patton's principle that the purpose of war is NOT to die for ones country but rather to make the other dumb son-of-a-bitch die for his country, one has to ask how many Gernans did they either kill or perhaps on occasion capture? How effective in the war effort were they? How much time did they actually spend fighting each other?

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

@@VictorLepanto i'm sorry, but you seem to apply the standard resistance clichès to the Italian one, without citing specific examples. You talk about fighting each other like it was a big deal in the movement, but maybe you are thinking about the french partisans

[@VictorLepanto]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 Well, this is ultimately a discussion of civil war in late wwii Italy. How much did Italians actually fight each other? The Italians surrendered on the allied side w/ the king & those being propped up under the name of Mussolini under the actual powier of the Nazis had very little occasion to fight each other. Beside the partisans in the North Italy was effectively out of the fight.

[@thomasholaday674]

Last time i was this early Italy was still in the axis powers

[@Darkthrone-qi1ic]

In some instances it was a civil war within a civil war. My grandfather was a Partisan (Garibaldi) in Friuli and not only were they fighting Germans/RSI they were fighting other resistance groups (Osoppo). The Italian northeastern front which borders Austria and the former Yugoslavia (Slovenia) was one of the most intriguing and complicated theatre of operations of the whole Second World War.

[@lorenzodimaio8449]

True, here in Italy there is such a misconception about the "civil war", as you said, if somebody should name it in this way any other country suffered a civil war in WW2, especially in the amount of damage the partisans caused to the germans, probably only the yugoslavian and soviet partisans (those especially by late 1943 when Stalin had almost full control on their actions) really managed to deal blows to the axis occupants or at least to damage the axis, thus helping the Red Army (Bagration, Lvov-Sandomierz offensive, Baltic offensive). The civil war problem really goes mainly for the guerrilla fights in northern Italy between partisans and RSI/german soldiers, but on the frontline at least not until mid-late 1944 there negligible italian units among the german or the allied ranks, and when they were on the frontline, they were deployed in different parts of Italy, for example on the Gothic Line the italian forces were deployed mainly on the western part of the line facing the US 5th Army, while the italian units fighting for the allies were deployed on the eastern part of the line with the British 8th Army. And yes, before the "great revolt" of mid april 1945 the partisans had little to no effect on the actual battles and the number of partisans really peaked during those days, before that they were far less. (Some people call them the "last minute partisans"). I'd say that probably the germans shouldn't have used the italian divisions that they trained as mainly anti-partisan units, because really many young people, who grew up during Mussolini's regime before the war, were really prone to fight the Allies, especially to redeem the italian honor. Being "forced" to kill other italian civilians convinced many to defect or even join the partisans. They acknowledged it pretty late, but due to their racist view the germans never really considered it, I think that there's an analogy with the ukrainians. But anyway, as you have mentioned, the partisans did nothing really tangible to help the western allies. Without them Italy would have never been liberated by the germans, just like any other occupied nation never really "liberated itself", even in Italy there were some "free zones from the germans" but that doesn't mean that the germans had no control of the territory. The great effect of the partisan movement was propaganded after the war maybe to "boost" the morale of the population, but there's no doubt that without the western allies the germans would have stayed. For the german withdrawal, if I'm not wrong, the partisans and the germans in late april 1945 agreed to let the germans flee even at roadblocks, but the italian fascists had to be given to the partisans or the western allies, you didn't mention that Mussolini was dressed up as a GERMAN soldier in order to not be recognized and given to the partisans.

[@edvard8449]

The Italian Resistance during the Allied campaign into Italy stopped 7 German divisions and slowed even more, they slowed the Panzergrenadier division that was going to reinforce the southern french coastline before Operation Dragoon and liberated Naples in 4 days, they cut off communication lines, they cut off retreats, supplies, ambushed the Germans in the streets continuously, they delivered information to the Allies, and as you said, diverted many Italians that were fighting for the Axis to the Allied side. Sure, they did not liberate Italy on their own, but they sure helped the Allies win faster.

[@francescofontana9707]

The partisans bogged down German units the size of an army corps in anti partisan activities in the North, Kesserling might have used those 50k German soldiers. Plus the GNR and Brigate nere

[@ECHOFOXTROT289]

Francesco Fontana yeah even if allegedly few in numbers they indeed did tie down many troops

[@alwillis5817]

Lorenzo Di Maio. Very very good. This is the true. Di Maio è strano trovare qui una persona così preparata. Complimenti.

[@riekopo7638]

It's not Italian Socialist Republic lol. It's Italian Social Republic as in the ancient Roman Social War of 91-88BC.

[@Xfire209]

@Jonathan Official names are still official names. If we let stuff like this slip then others could start to call the "United kingdoms" the "United dukedoms" with the argument that both are nobles. And so on and so on. Those are all small mistakes that will chip away at your credibility as a historian. In the best case others will say that you are lazy and do no proper research (very bad for your credentials) or in the worst case your arguments will be dismissed on the basis that you are making political pamphlets hidden behind a thin veneer of being a "professional historian".

[@jimtaylor294]

^ Assuming a random youtube commenter is a "professional historian" XD.

[@Xfire209]

@@jimtaylor294 My argument was directed against TIK and your reading comprehension is also quite lacking. Please reread my last sentence and understand what I really wrote.

[@jimtaylor294]

^ Ah belittlement & name calling; the first resort of those without an argument to begin with.

[@Xfire209]

@@jimtaylor294 Says the one who started it by being unable to read and understand one sentence correctly and then acting all high and mighty.

[@molletre9606]

With that bookshelf in the background you could survive any quarantine =)

[@Raskolnikov70]

But where's the toilet paper?

[@IndSovU]

Always great to see a TIK video of a Monday

[@thethirdman225]

_’A Civil War; A History of the Italian Resistance’,_ Claudio Pavone, Verso Books, 2013 (Italian version pub. 1991). Hard to get and expensive but probably the most exhaustive work on the subject.

[@aleksandarmilosevic2802]

General takeaway from partisan warfare during WW2 is that it wasn't very effective. At best, it was a mild inconvenience for the German army. The only exception I can recall is Warsaw Uprising, but we all know how that ended.

[@maciejniedzielski7496]

And Yougoslav partisans.

[@aleksandarmilosevic2802]

@@maciejniedzielski7496 The only significant victory for the Partisans was the liberation of Belgrade in October 1944, with the help of the Red Army, while German army was already retreating to Hungary. Sarajevo and Zagreb, where Red Army wasn't available for help, weren't liberated until April and 9th of May respectively.

[@DonMeaker]

In the south, the volcano Vesuvius erupted, but ZERO casualties were suffered- as the US Army was able to truck people away from the zone of danger.

[@schlymfrainkestxchieftains2623]

@TIK there were Italian divisions fighting on both sides of the campaign, e.x the Battle of Garfagnana (December 1944) the Battle of Anzio (January-June 1944) and the Battle of Collecchio-Fornovo (April 1945)

[@edvard8449]

A correction: Mussolini was deposed by the Great Council of Fascism, composed by the same Blackshirts leaders that brought him to power in the fist place. Another thing, the Resistance movement was definitely not "12 vehicles", they numbered around 300.000, of course only 100.000 of them had weapons, but the Communist brigades alone numbered 50.000 men at the end of the war. The Resistance during the campaign overall kept 7 German divisions busy while the Allies were advancing through Southern and Central Italy, sure, there were Resistance movements all over the occupied countries, but none fought with such numbers. With the General Insurrection, there were around 250.000 men and women, so yeah, that was quite enough to topple Italy's weak government, but the Communists in power (the CLN) knew that the US wouldn't let them make a revolution, so alongside the moderates and conservatives they decided to form a joint government.

[@alwillis5817]

The partisans were 15 millions. A inizio aprile 45 i partigiani erano circa 20'000 quando si sparse la voce che tutti i partigiani avrebbero ottenuto una rendita a vita, assicurazione malattia gratuita ed altri vitalizi, la richieste di arruolamento tra fine aprile e maggio 1945 arrivarono a 15 milioni!

[@edvard8449]

@@alwillis5817 nice troll.

[@alwillis5817]

@@edvard8449 Nice business to be partisan

[@alwillis5817]

You wrong, Great Council had any kind of power, so war the king that deposed Mussolini.

[@64LI0479]

you forget mentioning the liberation of Sardinia e Corsica, especiallly the second by italian army, the resistence in dodecanese, and in Yugoslavia

[@Killjoy97_]

i live in Kefalonia and we still find helmets,clips,shells etc. It was a brutal massacre.

[@giuseppebellazzi2926]

I donìt want do downplay that episode, but 9000 Italian soldiers massacred is too much, The exact number is unknown and it is certainly in the thousands, but not 9000

[@cantonblue1749]

Thanks for your channel, TIK. The knowledge and views have really helped me open my eyes to what really happened in WW2. Although it might be outside your intrest, could you ever consider laying the political foundations for France, England and Germany as to how they related to each other prior to the war? Thanks

[@vandeheyeric]

Sorry TIK, but you mucked up in this case. While neither the RSI or the "Southern Kingdom" had absolutely huge conventional military assets under their own flag, they DID have them. The Royalist/Anti-Fascist ones had the Italian Co-Belligerent Army, and the RSI had a whole host of units (ultimately gathered into an "Army Group" under Graziani). Both had air forces and navies, albeit rump ones. Ironically both sides took some degree of pain to limit conventional fighting between Italian units on either side- such as the Pro-Allied Italian Air Force being limited to operating over the Balkans-, but while most of the fighting was against foreign forces on either side that doesn't mean conventional fighting didn't happen (especially on the Gustav Line and in 1945). In addition, Holland uses what I can best say "creative" translation in terms of the RSI, with the more common use being "Italian Social Republic." Sure, in this context "Social" means "Socialization"/"Socialism", but it still doesn't mean "Italian Socialist Republic" was the most common name for the regime- or even translation of its Italian name-, either now or at the time.

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

Italian is my mothertongue and Italian Social Republic is absolutely correct, Mussolini would have never called himself socialist (In italian: Socialista)

[@vandeheyeric]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 Mussolini did call himself a Socialista several times (outside of his early career, when everybody agrees he was a Socialist), particularly in his late life memoirs.He didn't do it as frequentl in public though (hence things like his "break the heads of Socialists" quotes) in part because of how it was associated with his enemies in the more "mainstream/Orthodox" socialist parties. But he also frequently referred to himself as a "Socialista", particularly in his interviews with Emil Ludwig and in his "Testament" interview in March 20th, 1945.

[@SurroundEdByFreaks]

I don't know where you got the info that "Mussolini's Italian Social Republic was not allowed to have an army"... what? It takes you few seconds on Google to find out about the National Republican Army and the National Republican Guard, several hundred thousand soldiers in Northern Italy (in almost every German division there were Italian units and in almost every Italian division there were German units), with RSI soldiers composing 3/4 of the Axis forces in the successful Operation Winter Storm against the Allies, other than the several Italian divisions in Jugoslavia and in France. Not only the Italian Social Republic was "allowed" to have an army, but there was mandatory conscription, since the Germans needed every man they could get. So, it's pretty much the opposite of what you said.

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Great video Sir, looking forward for the next ones.

[@feereel]

The italians lauched an offensive against the americans in dec of 44 called winter wind that pushed them back 30 miles

[@RangaTurk]

Exactly, it is hard to say whether the recapture of Mussolini in the San Grasso raid injected life into the Italian campaign to make it one of the most arduous theatres in World War Two or if evidence points to the contrary. This video addresses the topic in a thought provoking and professional manner.

[@heidimelendez5623]

One comment: when Hitler was younger, at the onset of his rise to power he may have indeed worshipped Mussolini but after that his view of Mussolini steadly declined.

[@vassilizaitzev1]

Cheers Tik. Hope all is well with you across the pond. Am almost done with my ACW reading, but I am going to switch back to WWII. You've read "The Taste of War" right? That's on my list. Finally caught up on your videos. Battlestorm is doing strong, so best of luck there. Am not too surprised about the 1946 depression although I didn't know about it prior to your video. Wars are expensive...I believe the US economy post 1865 was in a similar state. I can connect similar themes with the memory of the Eastern Front versus the American Civil War if you are interested. One example is how many ex-Confederates argued that the south was drowned in northern men and material and that Grant was a butcher, versus how many German generals post war have similar themes in regards to the Red Army. Some food for thought; a bit of truth but stretched out into mythmaking.

[@leonardhaddrill8842]

Enjoyed the video.. Learnt stuff I did not know!! Any day I learn something new is a good day..

[@workingguy-OU812]

My grandfather stated that he worked for something like the Italian 'secret service' during the war (most likely in the Northeast (Trieste) where he and his family were from). He was jailed at the end of the war, and kept there for about two years - at which point they gathered their things and, seemingly with the USA's help, was moved to the USA. Originally slated to go to Denver, like many Axis intelligence folks who were 'imported' were moved to, his and another guy's destinations got switched (I did meet this other guy and his wife one time). He never would tell any of us what he was jailed for, but perhaps it had to do with this quasi-civil-war?

[@damionmunro]

No talk of tanks. Very interesting and well covered tik. Keep up your good work. Learnt some stuff today that I was patchy in great 👍

[@ilpazzo1257]

Italian here, some years ago I noticed that our 25th of April (that we call liberation day) which is dedicated to the partisans makes them be more impressive than needed - the way I describe it is, look, this is 2 weeks before the end of the war, which is probably just enough to walk by foot from the Italian front to Germany, much like our own soldiers did after the defeat in the Soviet Union. We didn't kick the Germans out, they wanted to go home. However, it's worth saying that there have been Italian black shirts and the remnants of the army that were loyal to Mussolini that did help the SS in the anti-partisan operations. That is, in fact, Italians shooting Italians, and possibly even carrying out the executions. Now, of course, it doesn't sound like a civil war when there is the proper war going on. You could see it as if in occupied Poland the partisans were fighting both German troops and polish collaborators, so I'm not sure if it deserves the name "civil war", but, you had that happen. Also vaguely relevant but not really part of the discussion, fascist sympathisers "honour" the Italians that have been killed by Yugoslavian partisans in Slovenia and the Trieste area to this very day. In fact, the rhetoric of delegitimizing the partisans' cause by pointing out their atrocities is used by our extreme right-wing every other day.

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

"We didn't kick the Germans out, they wanted to go home" is only partially true. Even if the German soldiers at that point knew that the war was lost they still had orders to fight, and so they did, even if not willingly.

[@KK-ot3pt]

for clarification: there were no polish military units collaborating with Germans during ww2. there were some policemen and some administrative staff and some snitches

[@workingguy-OU812]

Thank you for writing this. My grandfather was on some questionable side out of Trieste at the end of the war where he was jailed for about two years after the war. Perhaps he was on the Yugoslavian side during the killings?

[@vandeheyeric]

I agree it is majorly overblown and more impressive than it should be, but it's worth noting that by this time the Germans by and large couldn't walk home to Germany. For starters, both the Soviets and the Western Allies were already in Austria behind them and even without factoring in the increasingly bold Partisans the Western Allied units coming up to kick them in the face generally could outrun them due to the mechanized and armored contingents. Which is one reason why most of the Axis troops in the area were among those that surrendered at Caseta: it was just likely the Germans were going to be able to "walk to Germany"/Austria, and even if they did they'd earn the "reward" of possibly being swept up by the same Western Allies or Austrian resistance...or worse, the Communist forces of the JANL and Soviet Red Army. Which was simply not worth sacrificing the guarantee of safety that Western custody did. So while you didn't kick the Germans out, you did help push them to surrender rather than letting them go home (to the extent there was a "home" to go back to by this point). And I figure it fits the term Civil War well enough, especially when one remembers the Royal Co-Belligerent Army engaged in conventional ops. As for the last bit, as much as I hate to admit it the blackshirt goons have a point about remembering the ethnic Italians slaughtered or driven out by Tito et. al. in the final months of the war, in effect enduring millenia of Italian history in Dalmatia and what is now Slovenia. Of course, these bastards don't want to talk about Mussolini's barbarism and murders against Slavs such as his sieges of several of his own Slovene cities or attempts to eradicate non-Italic languages- which played a role in stoking the ethnic hatred that led to that. So the correct answer is to recognize all the innocents slaughtered in the war. Especially those killed in the process of Ethnic cleansing.

[@giulianoilfilosofo7927]

Vorresti insinuare che le migliaia di profughi e civili massacrati e infoibati dai titini alla fine del conflitto fossero dei collaborazionisti fascisti? E' stata pulizia etnica,Niente meno che un tentato genocidio per reclamare tutta la Costa dalmata e l'Istria. Ripulisciti il cervello dall'oblio dell'ideologia prima di parlare.

[@uncletimo6059]

*tldr YES* Also, Greece had a VERY interesting civil war during WW2 and right after.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

All I've read about this was in "The Periodic Table" by Primo Levi. It seems more like a weak insurgency than a Civil War. Especially since the power in control was Germany.

[@marcusbernardi1215]

Via rasella? Fosse Ardeatine? It doesn't say anything to you? I'm curious to know where you get those "information"

[@lotus95t]

Oh dear. The Italian Fascist Grand Council were the ones who deposed Mussolini, not the king, in reality they were the only ones who could. The king's role was only to select the head of government and he could only do that if Grand Council requested him to do so. .Victor Emmanuel used the the law of the Fascist Grand Council to replace Mussolini with Badoglio. However, Victor Emmanuel couldn't replace the Council of Ministers, only Badoglio could do that once he was president. Victor Emmanuel's role was simply to rubber-stamp a decision that had already been made.

[@michelangelobuonarroti4958]

Exactly, I scratched my head when I heard him say that....

[@AdamMann3D]

So you're saying this fruit doesn't know what he's talking about? Shocker.

[@lotus95t]

@@AdamMann3D Hahahaha

[@cmbbfan78]

Again, while TIK shines in military history, he falls when he tries to research political events of WW2 properly.

[@lotus95t]

@@cmbbfan78 If this was a university paper, stating at the onset that Victor Emmanuel deposed Mussolini would have gotten you a F and the professor would have read no more.

[@nobudgetcomments2742]

Thousands of Italians died on both sides in the fighting. So yes, it was a civil war. It was not just Germans Vs Allies as you said. Also the Germans didn't execute 9000 Italians in Cephalonia, the number was closer to 5000.

[@nobudgetcomments2742]

@Humanity Galatica 2 rival Italian armies fighting each other in Italy. Tell me how that isn't a civil war? Your IS comparison is not even remotely similar.

[@thecommentaryking]

@Humanity Galatica Actually they had a choice. The partisans and the Southern Kingdom whanted the Germans out of Italy and the fascists not in power. The Italian Social Republic instead wanted the Allies out of Italy and the king and the Italian generals in the south dead as the partisans

[@nicholasreid1836]

I'm glad you keep a sliver of doubt at the end about your analysis. Post-war, people of ALL occupied countries exaggerrated the size of their resistance movements. Also, in most countries there was not one single reisistance group but many, often with conflicting aims. And in all cases, Communists later tried to claim they were the stalwarts of resistance when they were hardly ever even a bare majority of the resisting groups. In France, where the Communists did no resisting at all in 1940-41 [because Stalin and Hitler were still in alliance], post-war French Communists tried to claim that they had been the only true resistance. The same was true in Italy. As for the matter of whether there was truly an Italian civil war, it should not be entirely dismissed as fiction or exaggeration. Certainly in heaviliy-industrialised cities in the north, and especially in Turin, there were armed clashes between Fascists and partisans - that is, Italian fighting Italian - so that was a sort of civil war. BTW, according to Caroline Moorehead's recent non-fiction book "A House in the Mountains", about Italian women partisans, the Americans tended to be more supportive of the partisans than the British, because the British still resented Mussolini's attempt to turn the Mediterranean into an Italian lake when the British imagined that it was their lake.

[@jonsouth1545]

Sorry TIK you are completely wrong about the lack of Italian combat units for both sides and even the most cursory of research would have proven this one of the things you might want to look into are the battles of the Gothic line highlights include Garfagnana when Italian fascist units led by the Monte Rosa and San Marco Divisions attacked American forces that were twice their size in the Lucca sector of the Gothic line defeating the American 5th Army and drove them back capturing hundreds of prisoners in what was one of the last Axis victories of the war Mark Felton does a very good video on this battle although considering this battle was concurrent with the German Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge) it is easy to see why it is overlooked as for the Kings supporters the Italian co-belligerent forces made up 1/4 of the 15th Army groups forces including 1/8th of the frontline combat troops in Italy feilding over 200,000 troops using Bitish equiment anf field dress including frontline combat units in 6 seperate combat groups consisting of over 20 regiments and also fought in the battles at the Gothic Line making their debut at the Battle of San Pietro in December 1943 although for logistical reasons several of the Italian divisions were assigned to the Polish corp other Italian frontline units were assgned to the Britsh V,X and XIII corps as well as the American II corp The Italian units acquired themselves very well in the battles of the Gothic line and there are multiple incidents where Italian units in the 15th Army Group fought against RSI units in late 1943 until early 45 who were also fighting in the Gothic line

[@lmorandini]

I am not entirely convinced by your argument: only the two mini-divisions "Cremona" and "Legnano" of the co-belligerant forces saw serious combat (the other 'Gruppi di Combattimento' were either not on the frontlines or were there only in the final weeks of the war); same for the RSI forces, which were used mainly to fight the partisans. By the way, how do you come to the 1/8th figure ("... 1/8th of the frontline combat troops")? More specifically, the 'Gruppi di Combattimento' were understrength, light-infantry units with little artillery. On paper, the RSI Monterosa and San Marco divisions were bigger (still no armour and very little artillery) but the desertion rate reduced those number rather soon -with entire units switching sides. At any rate, if you count all the army units, in both camps, that fought at the front, were are talking about 4 mini-divisions out of 60 divisions pre-armistice (I am discounting the regimental-sized units that fought at Anzio and Montelungo, and -of course- the partisans and anti-partisans units). The truth of the matter is that neither the Allied nor the Germans trusted Italians with arms in their hands, and the low morale and high desertion rates of units in _both_ camps reinforced this conviction. The biggest contribution made to the belligerent armies by the Italians was as forced labour: most of the Italians that were drafted in the South served -unarmed- handling supplies and repairing roads, many men in the North were forcibly recruited by the German "Todt Organization' to do the same.

[@jonsouth1545]

@@lmorandini the figures I got come from the records of the 15th Army Group as many Italian troops were seconded into British corps with 3 combat groups in V, X and XIII corp in V corp combat group Cremona consisted of 21st and 22nd Infantry Regiment as well as 7th Artillery and CXLIV Engineers (each infantry regiment consisted of 3 battalions of Infantry and an Artillery Battalion) commanded by Clemente Primierei X Corp had Combat group Friuli consisting of 87th and 88th Infantry 35th Artillery and CXX Engineers commanded by Arturo Scattini while XIII corp had the Falgore combat group commanded by General Morigi consisting of Nembo Parachute Regiment the Italian Navy San Marco regiment the Falgore Artillery and CLXXIV Artillery. Several over combat groups were assigned to American II Corp as well as the Free Polish Corp But the vast majority of the Italian troops were absorbed directly into existing units. There some great photos in the records of North Irish Horse of Italian troops being carried on the back of Churchill Tanks. With the vast majority of the Italian forces were directly merged with other mainly British units (as the British were supplying the equipment as well as the uniforms), they have been largely forgotten as for example when people say they British XIII corp smashed through the Gothic line most people don't ask were those troops British it is well known that the Free Polish Army did wonders in Italy however many of the troops in the Polish corp were not Polish just they had the extra logistical and command capacity to take the other units as attachments to their units

[@lmorandini]

@@jonsouth1545 when you say 'merged', do you mean at divisional level (Combati Group/'Gruppo di Combattimento'), or at smaller-unit level? By the way, 1/8th of frontline soldiers or 1/8th of divisions (the Italian ones were smaller and under-strength)?

[@jonsouth1545]

@@lmorandini The Commonwealth divisions were also under strength and the UK was wanting to divert troops to other theatres (mainly France and Burma) and the Italians lacked NCOs making their units even less combat effective many Italian troops were directly seconded to commonwealth units (plus the UK had no shortage of Italian P.O.Ws) over 50,000 frontline troops were seconded to the Allied forces (with just under 6,000 of them being killed in action one of if not the highest casualty rates of the Army Group as they often got involved in some very nasty fights) many troops were also seconded to the Polish second corp which although majority Polish included many other nationalities in total 1/8 of combat force in number of troops for the 15th Army Group with another 150000+ troops in support roles were Italian amongst the reasons for sending them to Commonwealth forces was that the UK was supplying the equipment and due to the disparate ethnic groups that make up Commonwealth forces they were significantly better equipped when it came to the language barrier hell at one point the Commonwealth forces in the North African theatre spoke over 50 separate languages and after going through that adding another bunch wasn't that much of a deal in many ways it was a wonder they ever got anything done although it should be noted that the UK have a really bad track record of crediting the existence of other nations in its armed forces while people are starting to talk about Polish pilots and Commonwealth pilots in BOB very little is mentioned about Czech French Irish Belgian or Dutch Pilots for example an unfortunately the thousands of Italian soldiers that fought in Commonwealth units have been largely forgotten

[@lmorandini]

@@jonsouth1545 thanks for your answer. But did the Kingdon of the South troops fight as divisions, or as lower-level units? As per divisional strength, a British infantry division was -on paper- about twice the size of an Italian combat group. Lastly, I suppose in those 50,000 you count all the six combat groups, although only four saw combat and very late at that (mostly 1945, in two instances as late as March of that year), which overestimates the effective contribution of the Kingdom of the South.

[@monophthalmos9633]

After the split in Italy in 1943 the North was declared a republic and the South was, officially, under the control of the king. Guess which part of the country voted to keep the monarchy in the referendum after the war and who voted for a republic. Yeah, exactly, the South voted in favour of the monarchy and the North in favour of a republic.

[@bosskanova685]

My Sicilian coworker told me a story his grandpa was in the Italian army, and when the Italians switched sides his grandpa with his division was on a train heading to help the Germans on the russian front, when the train arrived in in Prague the germans arrested the italian soldiers coming off the train and sent them to dachau. With friends like those who needs enemies?

[@Daroo180]

Hi TIK, i have a question. I can't find information about what happened after Operation Dragoon in August 1944. Did Axis and Allies established a front at Franco-Italian border after that?

[@alanpennie8013]

It appears that the Germans deployed two divisions from their occupation army in France to hold the Italian Riviera. The Littorio Division, which rallied to The RSI, was also deployed. They were opposed by a US anti - aircraft brigade, recruited mainly from Japanese - Americans. There wasn't much fighting but it was an interesting situation.

[@triumphbobberbiker]

Unfortunately very few British/American writers (if any at all) can read Italian. English editions of Italian books are few and, apparently, they are seldom read. This is a serious limit because most of the British/American books about WW2 Italy tend to rely heavily on English, American and even German(!) primary/secondary sources. As a consequence they wound up offering an incomplete depiction of the events

[@constantined9015]

I think you ll find extremely interesting the Greek resistance! As a Greek I would beg for an independent view on how this resistance affected the local war outcome as it eventually ended up to a real civil war which in Greece still pay the consequences! Please be as objective possible! Both parties still try to promote their views on any level of historical record! Thank you for your work! I think I watched ALL!!!!

[@maciejniedzielski7496]

Interesting subject. Support for Italians 🇮🇹

[@timothytbchua8717]

Tik, I noticed from previous comments, you are getting a little perturbed by the ‘harassment’ you have been receiving. As a much older guy who has read what you have been reading a lifetime ago, and some recently, I can only say, don’t be discouraged! Your point of view is extremely refreshing. In fact, I had often asked the same questions you have answered so well. Of course I disagree on certain issues. Your sense of humour may not by understood by some that you have also correctly identified as ‘elements’ of society. Please note that the more popular you become, some of your viewers and current or ex patrons may be from the same vein. You are doing an excellent job and should be on TV. In fact, you should be writing books. Good luck and don’t be afraid of criticism. It only means you are being heard. Please Ignore asinine criticism. It’s not worth the effort. You are doing a great job, keep it up!

[@KameradVonTurnip]

Interesting enough I remember hearing how these two technically hated each other. Respect or not, you do not have to like the person you respect, and their alliance was out of circumstance, and nothing more. I do not remember where I heard this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I also heard that Mussolini actually wanted to make an Alliance with the French Pre-Pact of Steel, against Hitler after they Sacked the SA and other Socialist political rivals who had different ideas of the future of Germany who were originally supporters of Hitler. From what I heard Mussolini viewed it as similar to what happened in Russia under Lenin/Stalin and believed such a regime in Europe was dangerous. Though France refused it. Supposedly this attempt of a Alliance happened some time before The Germans Reoccupied the Demilitarized Rhineland. Wish I could remember where I heard this.

[@feereel]

In 1934 italy was ready to go to war with germany and put hitler out of power over austria... Hitler backed down

[@feereel]

@Zoltanous HN .. exactly.. however in 34 when he was assasinated Mussolini sent troops to the brenner pass to let hitler know he was serious and he gave the famous speech where he warned the germans and told the people that when the roman empire was the leading light of european civilization that the germans still lived in caves

[@rubbybobinson3543]

An unknown piece of history for me Tik,. Thanks.

[@TheAngelobarker]

@TIK Ok tik a few things. The Italian royal units in the south became the italian cobelligerent army air force and navy.they fought at san pietro operation herring,the navy in the Atlantic off africa, and the air Force over the balkans etc. The rsi did have units on the front and had a few units of air power. I do agree that partisans weren't that important but naples rebellion was quite successful. The allies even avoided arming the partisans because they supported the monarchy. The king WAS a puppet but less so to the allies and more to his son umberto who had control of the monarchy at that time. He served as a frontline commander in the civil war if you look up operation herring and their operations in the southern front I think you will agree that it wasn't insignificant.

[@michaelpalmer8629]

As many as 350,000 Italians fought on the Allied side (though most were support troops). Partisans captured 14,000 German troops in Genoa in late April 1945 (though their morale was probably low at that point).

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

The Germans in Genoa fought hard before surrendering, but they were encircled by the partisans, which managed to stop any german reinforcement

[@michaelpalmer8629]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 I didn't come across much online about it. I read Italy's Sorrow which was reasonably in-depth, but it did seem to gloss over certain battles (e.g. the Axis "Christmas Offensive" in December 1944 was only mentioned in passing; the Wikipedia article about it contradicted the book's claim that it was mainly a German effort). It barely mentioned the partisan uprisings after covering the guerrilla war in reasonable depth. It said the Allies were reluctant to arm the partisans too well as they feared a Greek-style civil war, so it was hard for them to challenge German troops

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

@@michaelpalmer8629 I was only pointing out a less known detail, i'm from Genoa, so i've a lot of sources available about partisan activity in the region (sadly, only in italian)

[@michaelpalmer8629]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 that's interesting. Shame not in English

[@michaelkovacic2608]

Hey TIK, in a recent video you stated that Germans living within Germany's 1937 borders looked down upon ethnic Germans. However, it appears to me that ethnic Germans were at least as enthusiastic about German nationalism, if not even more. For example, in the Sudetenland over 17% of the population joined the Nazi party, while the average Nazi party participation in Nazi Germany was less than 8%. Being Austrian myself, I know that while German generals initially considered Austrians to be bad soldiers, Austrian units such as the 44th Infantry division fought with distinction in WW2 (5 Divisions were raised from Austria in 1938 and more later on). East Prussia, while being part of Germany since 1871, had the most diverse ancestry of all German territories, and was the first part of Germany where the Nazi party achieved a relative majority. I read a lot about the battle of the Atlantic, and many successful uboat commanders came from either lands outside of Germany prior to 1938 or from Prussia. Do you have any book recommendations on the relationship between Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche for me, I would really appreciate it. Keep up the good work!

[@GrimFaceHunter]

It's possible that Thomas Sowell wrote something about that. Although, he might have dealt with earlier periods.

[@kondwanimututa2302]

Its because many of these people were seen as racial unpure. You have to understand that these germans would have lived in these country for many generations so would have interacted and married with the natives. So when they returned to germany, many were classified as unpure and were discriminated against or murdered

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@kondwanimututa2302 that is actually not entirely true, I don't know about other regions but in Siebenbürgen (Transylvania, today in Romania) interacting with natives was a no-go, you could get expelled from the community for that. Many Germans from Transylvania actually went to university in Austria, which is why certain cities like Hermannstadt in Romania look exactly like German and Austrian cities (as does Prague for example)

[@kondwanimututa2302]

@@michaelkovacic2608 I was implying germans who loved in none aryan countries such as poland, russia and the baltics.

[@markaxworthy2281]

Of course there was civil war in Italy. Some 54,000 named men died in the uniform of the RSI. The overwhelming number died at the hands of fellow Italians.

[@korbell1089]

So Italy having a civil war is like describing a Punch and Judy show as a civil war, because the rulers of both halves of Italy were nothing but puppets controlled by by the occupying powers.

[@matteospeciale5913]

Ok, I'm finding some ignorance here around: most of the fights were carried out by the Allies and Axis (Germany + Italian SOCIAL Republic, later represented in Italian Social Movement until 1990s), which comprehended italian divisions too (around 300.000/500.000 for each side). But partisans still had their importance: many cities revolted against nazi/fascist troops or were freed by partisans, and later they got "medaglie al valore" (honour medals) for this

[@albertoamoruso7711]

While both Mussolini and Vittorio Emanuele III were just proxies of the Allies and the Axis, there was definitely a civil war going on in Italy between 1943-45. Why it was different from France in WW2? Because France didn't chose to be fascist, it was military occupied by the Germans, while Italy became fascist without external influences. There were large parts of the population, especially in the industrial Northern Italy, which were strongly loyal to Mussolini - and remained like that even after the war. Afaik I don't know any attempted fascist coup d'etat in post-war France, while there were at least two attempts in Italy (both failed) and a number of right-wing terrorist acts. Even today World War 2 in Italy is felt as a civil war and it's cause of debates. Italians are certainly still strongly divided between fascists and pro-partisans (royalists mostly disappeared with the economic boom of the 1960s). Partisans certainly did play a big role in WW2 in italy: Naples was liberated before the Allies arrived, field battles were fought against the German army and the RSI, German officers were forced to surrender to CLN which had the same military structure and hierarchy of an army. Kesselring himself later wrote that some 35% of the Germans forces in Italy were used to counter resistance actions. That's a third of the entire German army in Italy not fighting the Allies. About Communist partisans wanting the revolution, you should check what's called "Salerno turn": the Italian Communist Party which controlled most of the resistance in Northern Italy agreed to abandon armed struggle and cooperate with the Southern Italian army and the Allies to liberate Italy from the Germans. Also the king couldn't actually get rid of Mussolini, the Great Council of Fascism could (and did) it. Mussolini actually attempted to stay in power using Vittorio Emanuele III's formal status (still failing tho).

[@romeforeverr]

I come from basilicata, Matera province, inspired by their former rulers in naples there were small protests in Basilicata which we not very documented, eventually all the protestors in Matera and potenza were destroyed and in some cases were executed. This lead to the silencing of the area and in southern fashion they were mostly worked very hard and starved as that’s just how Italy worked and in some form still does work but anyway, the allies rolled up in the region and captured my families village which was easy as most divisions were placed further east thinking the allies would be unable to storm the harsh mountains however they maneuvered onto the coast and trailed through the roads where they eventually reached the village in a few minutes which they seized. The axis don’t bother to retake the village and decide they will take it closer to the end as it was not a key component in Italy’s function which led to the village being held onto and the next couple of months were pretty silent as allied and axis troops kept out of the village. During the partisan uprising of Italy Americans rested in the village before pushing further north due to Mussolini’s execution and entering Milan at all sides to calm down the mess erupting. The communist partisans requested power as they had killed mussolini however did not get it as the Americans are Americans and they installed a capitalist government and the punishment was not as harsh as Germany’s as Italy was allowed to function as a unified state so the occupied south united with the liberated north.

[@mikehunt3436]

Considering the Italian Co-Belligerent Force made up 1/4 of all manpower of the US 15th Army Group and 1/8 of the Fighting Force of the 1th Army Group, and the RSI Army was the core of Army Group Liguria, it was a bit of a civil war.

[@hrgiyzueghe]

In the South there was starvation, the peasants in Sicily were so desperate they revolted many times, and were repressed in blood. Lots of Sicilian blood was spilled in the period 1943-1950, one of the darkest periods of Sicilian history.

[@scipioafricanus6417]

You're forgetting the first punic war.

[@zexal4217]

@@scipioafricanus6417 one of he said

[@gnomo4]

Sorry TIK But this you have totally wrong...you think by reading a book written by a Brit gives you all the information on the war in Italy from 43 to 45,you really need to research your material better...for one northern Italy was not renamed la repubblica socialista Italiana....it was called La Repubblica di Salo after the city of Salo where Mussolini established the new capital...second,comparing the Italian resistance to the French or polish resistance is dumb...there is no comparison since those groups fought exclusively against the Germans...the Italian partisans fought against the Italian fascists as well and considered the Italian fascists their enemy just as much as the Germans...in fact every liberation day there is controversy in Italy over who they should remember,just the partisans or the fascists as well...I know,I lived there for over 10 years....Italians fought Italians,you need to research this subject better and read up some Italian historians to get a more accurate picture.

[@mrjonnylowes]

The effect of the partisans was not asymmetrical; they may have been a pain to deal with every now and then, but they were not a force multiplier, such as the LRDG as you give in your example. They did not have a disproportional affect in tying down a Nazi response.

[@petrosros]

The Wehrmacht & SS ; also carried out massacers of Italian soldiers in the Eastern Agean. In fact along with British soldiers after a failed push to take the region , non fascist Italian units Greek Partisans and civlians were evacuated to the Turkish mainland (1944/5) and repatriated further North. Italian Fascist, Wehrmacht and SS maintained control of this region (Deodecanesse) untill the armistice : Kos , Leros (huge anti navy fortress) , Kalymno, Rhodos and a large number of smaller islands. This entire region remained under the control of some very effective principally Italian Fascist units.

[@alexhayden2303]

What effect did the diversion an extra 8 divisions to Italy, have on the German war effort?

[@pd4165]

I think the mistake is to be binary about a civil war (it's a classic British view - we're raised to view situations as black or white). There was definitely a civil war going on in Italy, but it wasn't as obvious as the English and American civil wars - WW2 was going on around them getting in the way. Politically the country was split between the fascists, and their allies (the established church, landowners/aristocracy, big business) and everyone else. Everyone else was a disparate group and there was a war going on, so there was a lot of 'Popular Front of Judea' style factionalism, which continues to this day. Even the police were split - obviously the police attracts candidates of a more right wing/authoritarian bias, so would be prone to fall in with the fascists, but there was also a right wing bias towards the monarchy. And policing in Italy was also managed by so many differing authorities that there is no overarching bureaucracy overseeing them - each city has its own police, there are road police, there is the Carabinieri (which is part of the armed forces) - even the equivalent of HMRC was uniformed, armed and mobile - I'll have missed some, but it's confusing as hell. So, like everywhere else, moderates would be trying to hold it together and not starve, leaving the more extreme to get on persecuting each other. Like the Judean People's Front, et al, the National and Marxist socialists were the most vehemently opposed to each other meaning that the partisans were effectively organised by communist/socialists (non national), and with not much in the way of firepower to make themselves felt. With the country in economic freefall, and a lot of people confused about the difference between the monarchy (trad right) and the fascists (national socialists with support from the hard right) I got the impression (I lived in Italy in the 70's - the war was barely over!) that anything was OK as long as water still came out of the tap and there were tinned tomatoes and pasta in the shops. Conclusion - it's hard to have a traditional civil war when you're starving and a seriously hardcore war is raging around you, which you're not really involved in. What is a civil war if not a political split? Brexit is a great example, with the two extremes against the middle and no proper organisation.

[@rhythmicmusicswap4173]

irinically my gradnma,italian,told me about horrific stories about italia partisan to innocent citizen,normal people had partisan,allies,nazi and fascist to worry about

[@michaelleblanc7283]

Don't know about the Italian civil war but do know about a side action in the war between the sexes. Have my late RCAE uncle's relics, including his progress through Sicily-Italy-France album and some letters, from his 'amante', which make my translator cry when she read them. The war between the sexes was a hard one and collaboration & fraternaization was hard to suppress.

[@fascistnationalistmovement8055]

Tik, would you consider doing a segment on the Romanian & Bulgarian armies fighting alongside the Russians in late 1944?

[@ShamanKish]

Many Italians have joined partisans in Yugoslavia.

[@shakalpb1164]

Many Italians died of lack of water or starvation because germans locked them up, as my Yugoslav grandfather remembers

[@jonathangriffiths2499]

According to Fitzroy McLean they just wanted to go home to Mama. They had the misfortune to be marooned in a sea of Partizans.

[@ShamanKish]

@@jonathangriffiths2499 Who didn't?

[@giuseppebellazzi2926]

an entire Italian partisan division was formed in Montenegro (the partisan division Garibaldi, still part of the Italian Regio Esercito, but under the command of JPLA)

[@shakalpb1164]

Giuseppe Bellazzi i did not know that thank you

[@cnppreactorno.4965]

While the partisan movement wasn't huge, no resistance movement is ever that huge, especially in an area not in immediate danger of extermination, however, popular uprisings, such as the Four Days of Naples, may not have been huge movements, the heroism the people, weather those in partisan groups or just people during popular uprisings, should not be understated. Ik this wasn't really elaboration on weather or not it was a civil war, but just thought I should add that, as I can see afew people could come away from your video swinging to far into the direction of "partisans did absolutely nothing"

[@henrikg1388]

Like I said before, Göring actually had his moments of fun statements. In one of his interrogations in Nürnberg he was asked about the decisive factor to why they lost the war, to which he responded: "We should have had the Italians as enemies instead of allies.". :D

[@Alvi410]

TIK loved the vid but i have some observations. Its Social Republic. Not Socialist Republic. That's a biiig difference a non Italian scholar might not notice or dismiss. In italian it would be Republica "Sociale" Italiana not the Republica "Socialista" Italiana. The two terms are not completelty nterchangeable and the small difference is done on porpouse. The difference is how socialization is achieved. This is way is in presecution of a Third Way. Not Capitalist. Not Socialist. Something Different. Not going back to the roots of the Socialist identity of mussolini but the Social identity of Fascism that was basically put in the back after taking power compromising with the ruling class. Its a bit more complex. Also the South was allowed military units. Italian Army units fight alongside allied forces since 1943. The problem they face is that of material, not troops. So much so that the Navy and the Air Force have to give up the shoes to the army in order to give them fighting capabilities. While theese units are under Allied operational control their loyalty is to the Italian Crown, not the Allies. They have a Co-Belligerant status. later on they form like 4 binary divisions and have a fully fledged Liberation Army, providing even close air support to forces in the Balkans as its air force was later integrated in the Balkan Air Force. There were proposals to transfer the Italian Navy in the Pacific. They were something more of a foreign legion. The only limit they have is how to arm the damn units since they have no factories to produce weapons to speak of. Unlike the Armed Forces fo the RSI, that do exist and are allowed to be and were englarging, even going as far as to redesign their uniforms in 1944. But in their case the problem was desertion rates and morale. Also the Italian Resistance is different from what you find elsewhere because they are not fighting a german occupation strictly speaking. As you say Mussolini has been tasked with creating a new state. With extreme limitations. But that is not a concern for the average partisan that is fighting against the flag of the RSI. And not usually against the Germans.. We all perfectly know how strained was the german military in 1944. The ones the partisans fight are the Italians. The GNR are the main opponents of the partisans. And the ones responsable for most war crimes in northern italy between 1943-1945. James Holland is pretty damn right. Most Scholars in Italy have this point of view. The Insurrection was on the 25th of April 1945. And is symbolic in value but then again symbolism in that situation, defining the politics of post war Italy, it was all that mattered. Partisans were not a couple of bands. Some partisans units were later formed into brigades, integrated in the command structure of the Liberation Army. Other groups created Partisans Republics. In particular the republic of the Valsesia lasted from June 1944 to April 1945. The Argument is interesting TIK. And veeery complex. I am not complaining. I Like seeing someone talking about this. Problem is that it would require its own video with a fair bit more of research. Take this as a Suggestion. And an Encouragment to go beyond answering a Q&A. It deserves more. Cheers. Keep up the good work.

[@8bitorgy]

Well considering the social republic was a puppet state under a socialist regime, the distinction is lost.

[@Alvi410]

​@@8bitorgyIf you don't forget that is Symbolic is not lost at all. They had little hope of Implementing anything. Its a final expression of an Ideal to differentiate itself from Socialism. Not to accomunate itself with it. From a practical standpoint they had no hope of doing anything anyway.

[@-seik-368]

It's very interesting to see someone speaking about the Italian situation post armistice of the '43 considering that not much is covered about the country political and military situation expect for the classic battles that everyone knows (Montecassino or Anzio). I agree with you yellow 13, the Q&A is a very limited format for this topic that deserve more research... Maybe in the future you can throw out a bigger video on the argument TIK. Anyway keep up with the good work and stay safe

[@dreamcrusher112]

An interesting comment. I was put off a bit when I noticed he had read only two books on the topic, and his bungling of Italian continued over from the last Mussolini video lol

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

Thanks for writing this, i agree 100% with everything you wrote! (and i don't have the energy to explain it myself)

[@adoramus]

thank you. Very interesting.

[@goodman4966]

I always feel bad for Italian people in ww2 specialty after Armistice in 1943 and it you understand after war they want to end monarchy.

[@CatroiOz]

you do realize the referendum to end the monarchy was rigged right ?

[@ece5925]

Monarchy? What does that have to do with Mussolini

[@TheAngelobarker]

Yeah that referredum was voted along civil war lines and was rigged with the north proclaiming a republic before voting started. The former rsi north believed nazi anti monarchist propoganda and rigged it. The king abdicated to avoid another civilwar.

[@brainyskeletonofdoom7824]

@@ece5925 Everything? Without the king Mussolini probably wouldn't have risen to power, and without the king fleeing in 1943 the country wouldn't have fallen into chaos

[@CatroiOz]

@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 dude, the king avoided a freaking civil war by naming Mussolini. Do you even know the context of the March on Rome ? Without the king the country would have been a spain 2.0 (or more like a beta spain considering it happened before, you get what I'm saying) and considering how anti-communist the rest of europe was it would have been a bloodbath with every neighbour supporting mussolini and helping him kills anyone he designated as a communist

[@robertolugo1470]

The reason why its considered a civil war, is because the allies made a co belligerent army and they fought the fascist Italians but you could honestly could call the co belligerent army as a more official resistance movement but yeah that's why its considered a civil war Btw if I'm wrong about anything please feel free to tell me just dont make a huge deal about how I got wrong please and thank you

[@thecommentaryking]

Non solo quello, bisogna contare che il CLN (che comandava la gran parte dei gruppi partigiani) era praticamente un'altro governo italiano

[@Leonard-td5rn]

Properly disposed of sounds like mass murder

[@khanarchiloco2043]

Oh my god. Your historiographical analysis contains a series of very serious errors. First of all, there were more insurrectional attempts before April 1945, with also some failures. First of all, there were more insurrectional attempts before April 1945, with some failures as well. I refer to the summer campaign of 1944, to the birth of the partisan republics and liberated areas, which suffered a Nazi-Fascist counter-offensive in the autumn and winter of 1944-1945, given the failure of the Allies to break into northern Italy. The goal of the Italian guerrillas was not to liberate Italy on their own, but to disrupt the Nazis and Fascists by aiding and supporting the Allied forces, with whom they collaborated. It really seems to me that the concept of guerrilla and partisan warfare escapes you. Perhaps it is best to catch up on some texts on guerrilla warfare, both historical and conceptual, such as Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan. But also read Mao's writings on guerrilla warfare (for example he divided guerrilla warfare into various steps, criticizing those who were convinced to conduct a conventional war, with static defenses or invasions and battle lines, while everything was more fluid, in a first phase without even many partisan strongholds because direct confrontation is to be avoided). What does it mean to say they were being supplied by the Allies? Because who were the French getting their weapons from? The Soviets themselves? It's stupid what you say, honestly. Weapons were taken by fighting and through allied supplies. The Italian Resistance (as well as the French one) was placed in a wide war scenario that saw two alliances fighting, the Italian partisans gave their contribution fighting alone against Nazis and Fascists. Moreover, no, the Italian Communist Party did not want to make a revolution, it had long since agreed to collaborate with other anti-fascist forces and had entered the second Badoglio government (Svolta di Salerno, 1944), so much so that Togliatti's choices were criticized by several intransigent communists and socialists. So much so that in Italy people will continue to talk about the "Resistance betrayed" for a long time and also you say another wrong thing: the weapons were never delivered. The PCI hid them waiting for a future revolution. In addition to having demonstrated an excellent military capacity, the Italian Resistance anticipated the theorization of urban guerrilla warfare, a phenomenon that concerned only the PCI with its Patriotic Action Groups (or GAP). A film like the Battle of Algiers is still studied by counter-insurgency departments today. It's about the Algerian war of liberation, but it's an Italian film and the director (a communist) was a partisan. It was precisely the experience of Italian urban guerrilla warfare (itself derived from French guerrilla warfare, as many Italian communists fought in the French Resistance and in the city-based partisan units, FTP) that allowed such a film to be made and so important.

[@Larkinchance]

To see a dramatic depiction of this period, filmed during the German retreat, view Robert Rossellini's, Rome Open City (Roma città aperta)and Paisan.. .I found it for free on youtube

[@rubbybobinson3543]

Good analysis TIK.

[@robfl100]

You should do a video on the Greek Civil war, and how many of the Communists were former resistance members/how many of the anti-communists were former Nazi collaborators

[@ECHOFOXTROT289]

Actually there where italian military units in the north, even if few in number the RSI infantry divisions were supplemented by german-trained bersaglieri and alpini divisions. Not even mentioning the X MAS... Also in the south was created, if i recall, something like an“italian liberation corp”. In the north italians definitely were in frontline combat, even if the majority of RSI infantry and militia were used in anti partisan operations.

[@thecommentaryking]

@Lovecraft And he is incorrect about that. Most of the anti-partizan operations were made by blackshirts and other RSI units. Also there were fights between the Southern Kingdom and RSI troops. The hardest episode for example was when the 1st Battalion of the Cremona Combat Group, clashed with the remains of the retreating Barbarigodella Battalion of the Decima MAS, in Santa Maria in Punta in the Polesine

[@thecommentaryking]

@Lovecraft This is hardly nitpickery, but even then it is history and proves that, unlike what you say, there actually was an Italian Civil War from 1943 to 1945. Also 20 people who, and brought up what? You ignorants always argue like that, no facts but mere assumptions. Your arguments don't stand, while mine do because they are backed by numerous history sources, be them historians or people that lived at the time and saw it first hand. If you don't believe history is not my fault. It was a civil war case closed

[@ECHOFOXTROT289]

Lovecraft, talking about knitpicking... i just guess you can go your own way calling this whatever you want. Still I’m pretty sure that it can be affirmed that there was definitely a civil war in Italy, subordinate to the fighting between the axis and the allies, but still a civil war. I hate to even talk about this but are you even a history student or just a fake lol? “Italian fighting never threatened of changing the course of events” what about the battered divisions that held the gothic line? Or the counterattacks in the Garfagnana area?... You came here acting all though about you opinions, but you are not presenting a single fact-backed opinion.

[@thecommentaryking]

@Lovecraft It is a youtube comment section, it nearly is the same thing. And no I remember pretty well what we were arguing about, it is you that changed the argument because with your ignorance you had no factual arguments to bring to the table. I brought examples for the fact that there were fights between the Italians of the RSI and the Italians of the co-belligerent army and the partizans, you merely dismissed them changing the argument. And I even doubt who you state to be, on the internet is easy to claim everything. And if you feel insulted by your own ignorance is not my fault

[@ECHOFOXTROT289]

Oh and i guess you going to call for mom when that happens..? As @TheCommentaryKing already rightly said you are the one not contributing anything to the conversation. I’m basing my comments on actual facts, you on the fact that you are an history student (self proclaimed?)( and does this mean you are automatically right? Lol). Cut the bs pls

[@stevebohlin7245]

Not a lovely story. Left out of most English language accounts. Localized low intensity conflict between Communist and anti-communist factions. Intermittent harassment of German units north of the Po River. Communist resistance received no material assistance from USSR. Starvation became a nettlesome problem for occupation commanders in 45-46.