In a scenario where Benito Mussolini decides to adopt a stance of pro-German neutrality like Franco's Spain did historically instead of joining the Axis, what would the impact of such a decision be? How would the war be affected with Italy staying out of the war? How does the Cold War develop in such a scenario if Germany is defeated like OTL? How does Fascist Italy develop in such a scenario?
Impact of Fascist Italy remaining neutral in WW2
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
I should keep a list of all the threads on this subject.
Initially it aids Germany as this is another weak point in the blockade. During 1942 that is tightened & Germany is no better off than OTL.
Without a Mediterranean war both sides have resources for elsewhere. In the long run this favors the Allies. The Japanese are likely stuffed if they attempt to invade Maylasia. In Europe the Allies can think about establishing lodgements on the continent in 1943. Perhaps they already have a enclave in Scandinavia?
While this leaves more German ground forces to defend in Western Europe it allows a greater concentration of air power there. OTL there were some 12,000 operational combat aircraft in the UK June 1944. With no Med front another 5000+ can be added to that. Conversely Germany can boost the air defense in the west by perhaps another 1000 aircraft, for a total of 4000 vs 3000 of OTL.
Initially it aids Germany as this is another weak point in the blockade. During 1942 that is tightened & Germany is no better off than OTL.
Without a Mediterranean war both sides have resources for elsewhere. In the long run this favors the Allies. The Japanese are likely stuffed if they attempt to invade Maylasia. In Europe the Allies can think about establishing lodgements on the continent in 1943. Perhaps they already have a enclave in Scandinavia?
While this leaves more German ground forces to defend in Western Europe it allows a greater concentration of air power there. OTL there were some 12,000 operational combat aircraft in the UK June 1944. With no Med front another 5000+ can be added to that. Conversely Germany can boost the air defense in the west by perhaps another 1000 aircraft, for a total of 4000 vs 3000 of OTL.
thaddeus
Donor
that is the ratio they are confronting no matter the scenario?
wonder the effects on WWII? Germany might be forced to rely on Hungary to much greater extent? and if Italy seems a doubtful participant in any conflict, wonder the effects on German naval construction?
What 'Ratio' are you referring to. There are a lot of possibilities.
Libia is the Fourth Shore, definitely. Istria and Dalmazia are also pretty firmly Italian.
The rest eventually erupt into guerrilla rebellions like post-WWII French Africa. International opinion will be on the side of the rebels, and odds are good Italy eventually has to grant most of them independence IMO.
Well, I was also asking about "what is the foreign policy of this Italy like" and "what happens when Mussolini dies"?
Without the African Front and the german troops that were occupying Yugoslavia and Grecce. Barbarossa being launched before 22th June, the Germans would enter in Moscow before the winter meaning the Germans would win the war without the italian incompetence
thaddeus
Donor
was a joking reference to fact that longer the war continues, everything favors the Allied side. then the question becomes how much does absence of North African front aid Germany?
guess you could add absence of Balkan quagmire but that seems less certain, even absent Italy?
It is really one of these 'give Germany another chance' scenarios.
Will it benefit Germany? depends on the type of neutrality Italy adopts.
If it is the type of 'neutrality' the Swiss did, Italy's industrial capacity would be integrated into the German war efforts. That would (as with the Swiss) mean that bombing of the German industry would be far less felt as it would also be sitting in neutral Italy. The Swiss armaments industry feeding into Germany was (I need figures!) not in-substantial.
Germany of course had the chance of closing off any southern strategy and also of evading any entanglement in North Africa.
My horror-scenario is if Germany would then set France free. Make a proper alliance with France where France will be neutral as well.
LIKE A PROTO-EU!
… but then the Nazi's would not be Nazi's
Ivan
Will it benefit Germany? depends on the type of neutrality Italy adopts.
If it is the type of 'neutrality' the Swiss did, Italy's industrial capacity would be integrated into the German war efforts. That would (as with the Swiss) mean that bombing of the German industry would be far less felt as it would also be sitting in neutral Italy. The Swiss armaments industry feeding into Germany was (I need figures!) not in-substantial.
Germany of course had the chance of closing off any southern strategy and also of evading any entanglement in North Africa.
My horror-scenario is if Germany would then set France free. Make a proper alliance with France where France will be neutral as well.
LIKE A PROTO-EU!
… but then the Nazi's would not be Nazi's
Ivan
The OP states that Italian neutrality is of the type Franco adopted IOTL.
Deleted member 1487
Greece certainly wouldn't have been an issue if Italy isn't busy launching a parallel war, but Yugoslavia may well still happen due to factors outside of what Italy does, it's just that Italy isn't involved (or if it is it remains neutral in the wider war).
Missing not just the African Front, but also the Greek/Aegean situation, and the Mediterranean conflict in general helps Germany actually quite a lot, especially if Italy can then aid Germany materially and Germany doesn't need to or substantially spends less on supplying Italy. The thing is without the Mediterranean Front Britain is also aided a lot. I mean a LOT. Millions of tons of shipping saved per year, hundreds of thousands of men and material, all the losses of the Africa and Greek campaigns, etc. So it is not only possible, but probably likely that Britain is quite a bit more aggressive in 1941 and on against occupied Europe because they have no excuse to sit on their asses and do nothing as they would really have no active fronts. Even maintaining a reserve against potential Italian entry wouldn't cost them enough to justify still.
Then there is the French issue; without Italy in the war does France fight on or not? That would have major impact on the wider war one way or the other and talking about the wider war is impossible without knowing what happens with the French absent Italian entry. That could potentially force Germany into a Mediterranean campaign via Spain, which itself might be more doable in terms of promising Spain French territory and having more material to supply Spain absent Italy being a resource sinkhole ITTL.
But assuming France does what they did IOTL, then Barbarossa is a massive beneficiary of German resource savings which might well be enough to tip the balance enough in 1941 to mortally wound the USSR. British actions ITTL though might be more aggressive and divert the spared German resources to some degree. For TTL though everything hinges on whether the German resource savings would tip the balance in the East, because if it does then Germany might actually be in a position to win the war.
Autumn rains/mud actually. The decisive period in October was the nadir of Soviet strength where they should have by all rights fallen apart if not for the weather strangling the German advance, which gave the Soviets time to move reserves to the front in enough strength to check the Germans before winter really hit. So while the Red Army was able to fight the Germans to a standstill in November-December based on their strength, in October Moscow was saved by the weather's impact on German supply and operations after the enormous defeat at Vyazma-Bryansk.
BlondieBC
Banned
Depends on how you write the ATL. A lot of these things we have repeated threads on have decisions points that are basically at least 20% plausible each way, and depending on how you see this dice roll, you have a different answer. We basically end up arguing our own ATLs, each plausible but not the most likely scenario.
- The first big one is surprise on the Russians. Since Stalin was surprised by the attack and the defense were done so poorly, it is easy to have a negative impact here so we get a net German gain. I tend to lean towards surprise
- Second big one is the UK. Can the UK do something productively with the unused forces in the Med? At least in Europe. I tend to lean to the no column in 1941.
- Third. Do Germany effectively use these forces in 1941
So if you go with me on these two items, which to be fair are only probably a 15% chance of going my way, then you see a big impact. From memory, the Africa Korp is about the size of a Panzer Army but with more like an Army Group worth of Luftwaffe support. We also save at least one Panzer division worth of tanks due to a British Submarine. So to sketch one particular ATL.
- These for forces, lets keep them in Strategic Reserves so I don't have to rewrite entire initial attack plan. It is the less than optimal route, but still should let Germans win.
- Much goes like OTL, but a few weeks into the war as it becomes clear that Soviets are stronger than expected, these forces are used on easiest logistical route. i.e. towards Moscow.
- Because we don't divert forces from Army Group North and because of a lot more replacement for air losses, Leningrad will fall.
- Just for ease, start the Battle for Moscow roughly on time. Probably logistics prevent a much earlier attack anyway. I will have one extra Panzer Army and two extra infantry armies freed up from Leningrad area. Assume Finns largely leave the war in active combat and become more occupation troops for Greater Finland like Romania did around Odessa. Don't think this cause Moscow to fall, but we do a lot more fighting in Moscow. Germans lines end up better than OTL lines.
- I tend to think I have a war winner by now. If not, I will add additional UK units in Indian and Pacific Ocean cause Japan to back down and late USA entry to war.
- Go to 1942. My infantry armies have largely been busted up as replacements along the lines. But I still have second Panzer Army to use in South. Easier to use OTL plan than to go for more likely second attack on Moscow. Just easier to write. We now can keep this unit in reserve. Rommel secures the defensive lines people always say the Germans should have. Stalingrad is occupied before heavily reinforce. This should be enough to run Soviets out of manpower if I can hold this defensive line through mid-1943 plus other areas around Leningrad and Moscow.
Moscow was not that critical. Nor would a few months earlier start help change the basic odds of the situation. You'd do better to argue the Germans can get better supplies with Italy as middleman in trade, but the British are going to bring that to a head soon enough.
No, I don't think you can blame Hitler's defeat on Italy.
elkarlo
Banned
Also way less drain on the luftwaffe. No Tunis disaster. Paratroopers used to close encircled troops in 41 and maybe 42 . Think that'd take the USSR to the brink imho
That's a rotten analogy though, the cases were very very different.
If Mussolini is "pro-German," there's little reason--given the poor foresight of the Axis leaders (except maybe Franco, if we count him as Axis at all) for the long term prospects of war with the liberal powers and Soviet Union--for him not to go all in with Hitler and hope to ride his coattails, plus of course Mussolini had a far more sanguine view of Italian capabilities than seems justified in retrospect.
A better scenario would be Mussolini is really pretty hostile both to Hitler and Allies, and decides Hitler is the lesser evil but will not risk getting entangled with him either. Entirely plausible IMHO! Mussolini did resent Hitler's snatching Austria from his hegemony (via his patronage of Dolfuss) into the Reich. Assuming that is going to happen, all it takes is less Hitler kissing up to Mussolini. That's the way it worked initially; Hitler admired Mussolini for inventing Fascism and succeeding in the 1920s when he failed then. Nation to nation, the alliance was poison for Italy but it apparently tasted good going down. Dictator to dictator, Hitler could have left Mussolini out to dry but did not.
Just sour Hitler on Mussolini, let admiration turn to envy before Hitler has a chance to prove himself, and hostility on that border is offset by the hostility of Britain and France to Mussolini's East African ambitions.
Being caught between the two sides, Mussolini decides to be coldly neutral to both and pursue as much as he can get away with without annoying either side into intervening in southeast Europe.
No, I don't think Hitler focusing on taking Russia from north to south instead of advancing on the broader front will enable him to deliver a knockout punch to the Soviets either. Even assuming Hitler can muster the same resources, he still will want to enlist Romania as ally if he can, and the Romanians might risk annoying the Italians to do it anyway. If perforce, due to a neutral Romania playing off all three sides (German, Italian, Soviet) successfully, Hitler must concentrate forces on the Polish and Baltic fronts exclusively, I still think any multiplication of success in the north is offset by not taking the south, and many of the German targets they most desired were in the south of the USSR anyway.
Basically either Mussolini can persuade the Western Allies to rupture with Stalin before Hitler is completely sorted out and becomes a big player in a right-tilted NATO like force with him having a freer hand in southeast Europe (those parts the Soviets don't take, which might leave him practically nothing there) and retains all African holdings (until the Africans throw them out eventually anyway) or if not, the Soviets take most of SE Europe with Allied blessing re spheres of influence and Italy is crowded out of Europe outside Italy itself. Postwar Fascist Italy becomes an anti-Soviet ally.
Tbh I don't think Mussolini could resist the urge to declare war on Germany once it starts losing, just to be a winner.
I'd imagine he might try and occupy Austria and enough of Southern Germany he can reach/others allow him to have, and declare it the reformed Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
I'd imagine he might try and occupy Austria and enough of Southern Germany he can reach/others allow him to have, and declare it the reformed Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
Deleted member 1487
Moscow was that critical. It's not a headshot knockout, but it is the core of the Soviet regime and losing it will initiate the slow bleed that will ultimately kill the Soviets if they can't take it back. Besides the population, it is the rail hub of the nation, same with the land line phone network, is THE major industrial city of the country, is the symbol of Stalin's power, was the hub of organizing partisan resistance, sat at the center of a major coal/iron/industrial oblast, provides the best air bases in the country with access to the major industrial cities in the Upper Volga region that house the core automotive industry and synthetic rubber production, and so on.