Vive Il Duce!

Mussolini only declared war on France because he was certain that the war was already over. Paris had fallen, and he expected the British to accept peace as soon as the French did. This turned out to be a fairly large mistake, to put it lightly. So what might have happened if Mussolini had gotten a better perception of British determination?

Well, I see two possible paths here. The obvious one (it's been done) would be for Italy to remain a friendly neutral as the Germans go off on their ever-so-Freudian world conquering spree. This is a lot more usefull than their "supporting" campaigns of OTL. The biggest factor is probably oil. With Italy neutral, they can still ship it in and sell it to the Germans.

Mussolini still tries to invade Greece and still gets clobbered, but with luck might make it out with a nominal victory. Italian Albania extends a few extra meters up the side of a mountain somewhere. The Glory of Rome is restored!

Italian "volunteers" will probably support Barbarossa whenever it happens. Some German war industries might be moved to Italy to avoid bombing in the later years of the war, followed by refugees and war criminals. Italy probably comes out of the war as a major power, though disliked by everyone else.

I have a problem with Italy remaining neutral that long, but whatever.

The second possibility is rather different. If Italy had refused to declare war on the allies, they might have found themselves at war with the Germans instead. Hitler would be furious at such a betrayal, and would be quite willing to make the Italians a supporting ally, whether they liked it or not. This is certainly not without precedent - see, for example, Yugoslavia and Romania.

The Italians might have a slim chance of holding the Germans at the Alps, but I doubt it would happen. The German attack would come as a surprise and it would be more a matter of luck than anything else for them to be defending the right place with enough strength. The Italians would probably fight much better against the Germans than against anyone they fought in OTL - defending your country against Nazi invasion is a rather more inspiring cause than trying to steal mountains from the Greeks and sand from the British.

They will still lose, of course. Italy would probably last longer than the French did, partly because it's geographically better suited to defense, and partly because Mussolini can't give up for fear of being strung up. When Rome falls, the Italian military and government (such as they are) will be safely ensconced in Sicily, along with British support. The Germans make one big attack on Sicily, lose a huge amount of paratroopers, and give up. Italy (read: Mussolini, the islands and the colonies) never surrenders.

I'm not sure how this would affect Barbarossa and all that. The allies still win, of course (the odds were vastly in their favor). The invasion of central Italy from Sardinia at some later date would be more doable than in OTL, given the extra time to provide necessary infrastructure. Italy is probably rolled up six months to a year earlier than in OTL.

The aftermath of the war would be really interesting. The Italians keep all their colonies in Africa, Albania, and the Adriatic coast South to Fiume. Most, perhaps all, of Austria falls within the Italian occupation zone. Italy would form a third side to the Cold War, as they couldn't fit comfortably within either American or Soviet spheres. Of the victorious powers, Italy is one of only two monarchies, and the only one whose leadership does not approve of even the theory of self-determination and democratic government. I would expect them to form ties with the fascists in Spain and Portugal. The French might even go fascist at some point (Wasn't there some sort of coup attempted by French generals in the 50s or 60s?). Combined with their puppet fascists in Austria, we end up with some kind of right-wing Latin alliance.

Italy definately becomes a nuclear power in this TL. Whether they remain dirt-poor or not depends on Benito's willingness to accept Marshall Plan aid. Hmm... He might yet be able to do himself in if he tried refusing it.

With Africa still divided between countries in opposing power blocs, I suspect independence movements will be greatly slowed. The Italian and Iberian colonies might very well last into the present day.

Will Italy have a permanent seat on the UN security council? I think so, but I'm not sure whose seat they would take - either that of France or China. Either way, it would cause trouble. Maybe there would be a 6 or 7-member council to deal with this? If it was seven, who would the seventh member be?

Any ideas? Comments welcome. Critics will be derided and mocked (just kidding).
 

Redbeard

Banned
Very interesting, and if any power should swop sides it should be Italy, they did in WWI, and again in WWII in 1943.

Anyway if Italy stays out of the war until 1942 the biggest looser will be Japan. In such a scenario there will not be a Mediterranean scene in which Churchill can insist on pouring all the resources of the British war machine (outproducing all three axis powers combined in 1941!). Instead there is a fair chance of the Far East getting a reasonable share of the resources. And Malaya just needs extra 300 fighters, 50 tanks and a few regular Brigades to be defended against any Japanese onslaught. Without Malaya and Singapore any Japanese presense in SEA is doomed.

If Italy actually enters the war on allied side, and why not, Chuchill claimed that he if necessary would ally with the Devil himself to fight Hitler, then Italy could very well be invaded by the Germans (something like the Greek campaign, just bigger), but we’ll have a huge Italian fleet in allied service. They have not much to do in European waters and with short endurance they are unfit for the Pacific, but they would do fine in a British-Italian push from Singapore up the South China Sea (the original British plan in case of war with Japan). If the Italians are still wild about colonies they could be awarded Formosa or something like.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Very interesting. I, for one, do not consider the possibility of Italy joining the allies in WW2 (not right away, but maybe by 1941-42) unrealistic at all. IIRC, Mussolini and HItler did not really get along all that well and Il Duce did not support some early German actions, such as the anschluss.

I also agree that this would help the western allies immeasurably. The Italians, for all the jokes said about them, probably would give the Germans fits if the they tried to invade from the north.

A possibility to consider: If Italy went to war against Germany in 1939, the possibility exists the whole western-Soviet alliance would have never occurred. Britain and France would have a (technically) powerful ally on Germany's southern flank. This might radically effect the Germans' schedule for the western blitzkrieg and operation Barbarossa. If Hitler delayed the soviet invasion an extra year (remaining in a technical alliance with Stalin), Churchill might have been less likely to cozy up to Uncle Joe with Il Duce remaining. You might end up with two essentially different European Wars, one between the western allies (including Italy) and Germany, and one between Germany and its eastern allies and satellites against the USSR - with the USSR and western allies being somewhat hostile to each other.

I agree, the possibility for the postwar period is fascinating - with fascism not being tarred by its association with Nazism and remaining a significant ideology thru the 20th century.
 
If Italy remained neutral, Germany could have won the war (no chance of the 1941 rush to Yugoslavia, so Barbarossa gets off on time.

In the early 1930s, Italy had alliances with Austria, Hungary, and Rumania. Had Italy defied Germany at the time of the Anschluss (or had Dollfuss lived), -and- not caused a rift with the League of Nations by invading Ethiopia, WWII might have begun there.

Once the war began as it did in 1939, Italy no longer had the Austrian-Hungarian-Rumanian alliance and would have been a pinprick in the German side, probably overrunning part of Austria before France surrendered. Italy wouldn't have the strength to go farther, and Germany could crush it in a matter of months, especially with airbases in Vichy France. (The English forces not engaged in Africa could occupy Southern Italy, but they'd be facing as much of the Wehrmacht as could fit into the peninsula).

The problem here is that the Germans would throw the English into the sea, if this was 1940-41. Italy would work just like Yugoslavia did OTL. Hitler hated the USSR so much that whenever he got the chance, he'd invade it, and as long as he ruled the Continent he had the chance.
 
For what it's worth, I'm primarily thinking of an early-1941 Italian entry, which would probably leave the British in a similar situation to OTL, at least in regard to their throwing away the Empire for no good reason. I'm open to discussion of a 1940 or 1942 entry, certainly. I'm not quite sure what I'll do with this yet. It's been a while since I tried a serious timeline.

God of Belac: If Barbarossa had started on time, it would have run headfirst into the Russian Spring. By the time the mud was starting to dry all pretense of surprise would have been lost. The war ends a year early.

Mister: A very interesting question. If the pope decides the Italians are going to win, he can keep quiet, flee Rome, or find out if the Nazis are above whacking a Pope (not bloody likely). It's all together likely, however, that he will think, as so many did, that Hitler is there to stay, and play along as in OTL. If he does that, I'd guess the Italians would be rather miffed when they oust the Nazis. I suppose it's an open question what they do then, but revoking the national status of the Vatican isn't out of the question.

This is looking fun.
 
I like this idea for a TL. It would be interesting to see Italy come out of the war on the winning side.

I'd have to say that if Mussolini survives this war, then fascism, as mentioned by a previous poster, will have a strong proponent. Is it possible, though, that Italy becomes somewhat isolated, with the Cold War raging and Italy caught in the middle?
 
Interesting time line.
From my point of view, if Mussolini does not get in in June 40, his best option is stay neutral at least until 1942, improve the status of the army and the navy, and in general get fat on commerce.
It would not be impossible that he could get some land lease aid from USA.
I would not expect that Hitler would go mad over an Italian neutrality: the Germans knew very well that Italy was not ready for the war, and could not be relied upon for another 2 years at least.
The final outcome of the war is not in doubt anyway: the only thing which could really change the long term options would be a German invasion of England. But this invasion is not really feasible, unless there is some major changes in German preparations in 38 and 39 (unlikely).
England should actually be in a better position in TTL, since there is no Mediterranean theatre, no Africa and also the position of the Free French in the North African colonies should be much better.
A possibility (very slim) would be that the stall on the Channel would put in the Germans mind the idea of going through Spain to get Gibraltar, and afterwards into Algeria (to sterilise a FF option). Could Franco be convinced to join if Hitler became really obnoxious?
I would not be really concerned about a Fascist bloc in the post-war years: there are two possibilities. One is the Latin bloc, but remember that Spain and Portugal were not quite advanced economically, and France had to be rebuilt. This scenario would be likely to preclude any access to the Marshall plan (you can never say, however: USA has been coddling a lot of unsavoury characters over the years, so...).
The other scenario (full access to Marshall Plan) would be likely to change the political scene in Italy. Not in a single blow, but over the years it is to be expected that Fascism would become more "institutionalised" and slowly allow some civil liberties. After all, there have always been two souls at least in the Fascist Movement, the socialist one and the nationalist (and many more: it was not so monolithic as it might have appeared).
Italy would have been important as an anti-Communist bulwark, to sustain Greece and Turkey. Probably, Yugoslavia too would not have become communist. It is quite likely, however, that the balkanisation of Yugoslavia would have happened quite a few years before than in OTL.
Comments?
 
Admiral Matt said:
God of Belac: If Barbarossa had started on time, it would have run headfirst into the Russian Spring. By the time the mud was starting to dry all pretense of surprise would have been lost. The war ends a year early.

So there's no way Barbarossa would have worked, ever? That's a relief OTL, but kind of annoying to a vast array of WWII ATLs.

Nevertheless, after 1938 Italy couldn't have stood up to Germany at all, since it didn't have its Balkan alliance, and after 1940 no force on the Continent could withstand Germany (except Russia, of course).

Italy's army was completely pathetic. Its air force couldn't stop Turin from being bombed in June 1940, it was beaten by France in the Alps in June 1940*, it was beaten by Greece (beaten--more troops wouldn't have helped, except to let the Italians hold onto southern Albania), couldn't pacify Slovenia and Croatia when it occupied them in 1941-44. There's no way it could beat the Wehrmacht, even with British naval support (which would itself be targeted by the pre-collapse Luftwaffe).

*Eventually, the French gave way, but that was days before the surrender.
 
On reflection, I'm not as sure how the altered Mediterranean theatre would affect the Pacific. Would anyone care to comment on how much resources Churchill would be likely to funnel into the defence of Sicily? Might he attempt an invasion of Italy, or even try to stay on the mainland, before US troops have begun to arrive?

If the British do stop the Japanese at the Malay Peninsula, it will mean big things: Dominion status for a gigantic India (Burma included?) and a host of smaller states, a Commonwealth with some real weight behind it, and a retention of the African colonies concievably to the present day. There will probably be less pressure for the Anglophones to release their colonies with real, self-admitted imperialists still stomping around.

Lord Kalvan: You raise some very good points.

"I would not expect that Hitler would go mad over an Italian neutrality: the Germans knew very well that Italy was not ready for the war, and could not be relied upon for another 2 years at least."

The Germans knew it, but Hitler accepting it is something different altogether. Hitler had started to become genuinely irrational after the fall of France. Still, the Germans aren't going to invade right away. Maybe Hitler demands Italian help later, during the blitz, and Benito flat out refuses. I think a reason can be worked out easily enough, but I'm open to discussion.

"From my point of view, if Mussolini does not get in in June 40, his best option is stay neutral at least until 1942, improve the status of the army and the navy, and in general get fat on commerce."

I'm quite certain you are right. Actually, I have my doubts whether Italy would enter the war at all before events forced it.

I certainly agree about the lend lease aid - no doubt about it. The same goes for Sealion, but moreso. :) I'm wondering about the Free French - might they take control in Corsica?

Franco's not moving, not until England's knocked out, anyway. Both the Spanish and Germans were well aware of Iberia's vulnerable coastline. The Wehrmacht wasn't interested in starting a new front on overlong supply-lines and even Hitler was against it, based on Spain's resistance against Napoleon.

I think it is fairly likely that Italy will accept the Marshall Plan. And it will be offered to the Italians - heck, it was even offered to the Russians! I know it wasn't offered to Franco, but after all Spain hadn't gotten involved in the war and was the last of the openly fascist states. You're certainly right to some extent about the calming down of Fascism, though there will eventually be a reaction against American influence. Remember, for years after the end of WWII the "Iron Curtain" was largely a figure of speech. The sides of the Cold War took a while to form up and this Latin alliance would be no different.

I'm beginning to think that Italy in this timeline will behave similarly to the way France did in our timeline. They accepted the Marshall Plan and subordination to the USA initially, but increasingly tried to maintain their position as an independent nation and world power. Hence their development of nuclear weapons, withdrawal from NATO, attempts to keep hold of the colonies, etc.

In this TL, Italy may be able to apply enough pressure to get aid sent to Spain. Initially there will be no formal connection between Italy and the others, except that the Iberians may defer to Italy in some political positions. DeGaulle may be acting a bit more authoritarian, but nothing too shocking at this point. Italy would get along just fine with the Americans at first. They regain prestige fighting communists in neighboring countries, and the Americans largely foot the bill. I'm not sure about Yugoslavia, the war needs to be fleshed out before we can be sure who ends up in control of what.

In 1949 the Italians will probably hop on the NATO bandwagon enthusiastically. It is, after all, an anti-communist alliance. I imagine Spain might join then as well. I can't say for sure how soon the Italians could afford to produce nuclear arms, but I'd guess they would push for it even more than the French did, so sometime in the late 50s might work. After that, the Italians will start wondering why they should be a junior partner in NATO. Pressure will have been building against authoritarianism in the general populace, and the leadership will want to justify Fascism as something distinct from both the established sides of the Cold War.

So, sometime in the 60s, Italy withdraws from NATO, probably either with France or followed quickly by France. Together with Italian Austria (and Yugoslavia?), they construct a military alliance designed to limit the spread of communism and maintain a firm hold on the colonies. Unlike NATO or the Warsaw Pact, this alliance is perforce one of relative equals. Italy is much stronger in this timeline (though with a slightly weaker economy), but it is still half the size of France. The new alliance then begins maneuvering Spain and Portugal into joining.

Could Latin American states be convinced to join? Would anyone bother asking them? Most importantly, how would the US respond? For the latter, I'd say the admission of an American country into a nuclear-armed military alliance would be crossing a line, big-time. Something like that could threaten to make the NATO-Latin split permanent.

That's it for now. I have to go see when Libya's oil fields were discovered.
 
"So there's no way Barbarossa would have worked, ever? That's a relief OTL, but kind of annoying to a vast array of WWII ATLs."

Well, it was pretty much impossible by 1941, anyway. Germany's military peaked relative to its neighbors about 1939. If Russia had been invaded then, I would expect the Nazis to win. Barbarossa might have even worked if Hitler had it started right after the fall of France, instead of wasting time on the British.

After 1940 though, the only plausible way the Germans could beat Russia would be to get peace with Britain first. Even then it's dicey.

As to the patheticness of the Italian military, you're pretty much right. They did have a decent navy and a few surprisingly good elite units, but all-in-all they performed very, very badly. Circumstances had a lot to do with that, however. The Italians had a huge, unwieldly, and poorly equipped conscript army. Many Italians had very little faith in their government, and most of those who did lost it when Mussolini got them into a war that was out of their depth. Italy did not have any legitimate claims or grievances left for people to rally around. Many felt more sympathy for the allies than for the Nazis, who were conquering the world and occasionally throwing Italy a bone in return. Plus they had cardboard boots.

Some of these factors will be mitigated in this TL. Being part of the crusade against Nazi world domination would make for a decent causus belli, and national pride will be given a hefty boost by the fact that Italy fought on where France surrendered. Lend-lease also means decent equipment will be available. Probably most important - the Italians are fighting for their homes instead of struggling to add to Mussolini's glory.

And anyway, as I said before, they lose until the Brits show up. :)
 

Redbeard

Banned
Admiral Matt said:
On reflection, I'm not as sure how the altered Mediterranean theatre would affect the Pacific. Would anyone care to comment on how much resources Churchill would be likely to funnel into the defence of Sicily? Might he attempt an invasion of Italy, or even try to stay on the mainland, before US troops have begun to arrive?

If the British do stop the Japanese at the Malay Peninsula, it will mean big things: Dominion status for a gigantic India (Burma included?) and a host of smaller states, a Commonwealth with some real weight behind it, and a retention of the African colonies concievably to the present day. There will probably be less pressure for the Anglophones to release their colonies with real, self-admitted imperialists still stomping around.

If or when Italy becomes involved on allied side I’m sure Churchill will be obsessed about pouring everything he has into any possible and a lot more impossible adventures involving Italy. So if Italy enters the allied cause before spring 41 I think Malaya is likely to be lost as in OTL as Chuchill now has time to withdraw reinforcements sent to the Far East before the Japanese attack in December 1941, and Brooke is still not CIGS. If Italy enters the allied cause after that I think intelligence reports on Japanese intentions will very soon give even Dill (CIGS until Dec. 41) ammunition to stop Churchill. Besides the Germans will need much more time to take Italy against Italy and UK combined and with UK not committed in NA than they needed to roll up Yugoslavia and Greece. I actually think the British Army will do quite well in a defensive campaign going down the difficult terrain of the Italian peninsula. I even think the Italians will give a show now they have something to fight for. After crossing the Alps (from France and Austria) the Germans will quickly occupy Northern Italy, but I could very well imagine them not at Naples yet after a year. Italy is roughly 100 miles wide which means that 15 Divisions in that terrain will make up a very strong defensive line that is impossible to outflank (the Germans have no landing capacity in the Med.). 15 Divisions (mixed Italian/British) are not a problem to equip and supply for the British, especially if they don’t have to go around the Cape.

And as long as the allies cling on to Southern Italy and Sicily the Mediterranean is still open to shipping, which will drastically improve the chances of reinforcing Malaya/Singapore in time and the British logistic situation in general (not going around the Cape means less demand on shipping).

Such a scenario indeed do increase German motivation for including Spain to close the entrance to the Med. But I doubt if the Spaniards are any more motivated and anyway there is a limit on how many places the Germans can be engaged at any one time. If this is going on in mid 1941, I could very well imagine Stalin unleashing a major attack on Germany – that would be a PoD.

After 1st of December 1941 when Brooke became CIGS the “Churchill wild card effect†is basically eliminated, and the allies will steadily deploy their growing superiority and win in the end no matter what!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
:D
Admiral Matt said:
On reflection, I'm not as sure how the altered Mediterranean theatre would affect the Pacific. Would anyone care to comment on how much resources Churchill would be likely to funnel into the defence of Sicily? Might he attempt an invasion of Italy, or even try to stay on the mainland, before US troops have begun to arrive?

If the British do stop the Japanese at the Malay Peninsula, it will mean big things: Dominion status for a gigantic India (Burma included?) and a host of smaller states, a Commonwealth with some real weight behind it, and a retention of the African colonies concievably to the present day. There will probably be less pressure for the Anglophones to release their colonies with real, self-admitted imperialists still stomping around.

Lord Kalvan: You raise some very good points.

"I would not expect that Hitler would go mad over an Italian neutrality: the Germans knew very well that Italy was not ready for the war, and could not be relied upon for another 2 years at least."

The Germans knew it, but Hitler accepting it is something different altogether. Hitler had started to become genuinely irrational after the fall of France. Still, the Germans aren't going to invade right away. Maybe Hitler demands Italian help later, during the blitz, and Benito flat out refuses. I think a reason can be worked out easily enough, but I'm open to discussion.

"From my point of view, if Mussolini does not get in in June 40, his best option is stay neutral at least until 1942, improve the status of the army and the navy, and in general get fat on commerce."

I'm quite certain you are right. Actually, I have my doubts whether Italy would enter the war at all before events forced it.

That is quite likely. Once the emotional impact of the blitz in France is over, and Britain is still a viable proposition, there is no reason for Italy to enter the war. At least before there is a clear winning side. So Italy intervention is likely to happen not before 1943-44 after an Allied landing. Keep in mind that Mussolini was no Hitler, from many points of view. He had not even the power Hitler had to decide. The Great Council was often divided on many issues, and I expect that there would be strong supporters for sitting out and waiting

I certainly agree about the lend lease aid - no doubt about it. The same goes for Sealion, but moreso. :) I'm wondering about the Free French - might they take control in Corsica?

The FF could take control of Corsica, but then what happens? Either Italy openly supports them (very unlikely in this moment in time) or the germans mop up everything with a mini-Crete

Franco's not moving, not until England's knocked out, anyway. Both the Spanish and Germans were well aware of Iberia's vulnerable coastline. The Wehrmacht wasn't interested in starting a new front on overlong supply-lines and even Hitler was against it, based on Spain's resistance against Napoleon.

In OTL he stayed out of the war, and the Germans did not insist, even if it would have made a lot of sense to go for Gibraltar and bottle up the Mediterranean. So I agree he would do the same in TTL

I think it is fairly likely that Italy will accept the Marshall Plan. And it will be offered to the Italians - heck, it was even offered to the Russians! I know it wasn't offered to Franco, but after all Spain hadn't gotten involved in the war and was the last of the openly fascist states. You're certainly right to some extent about the calming down of Fascism, though there will eventually be a reaction against American influence. Remember, for years after the end of WWII the "Iron Curtain" was largely a figure of speech. The sides of the Cold War took a while to form up and this Latin alliance would be no different.

I'm beginning to think that Italy in this timeline will behave similarly to the way France did in our timeline. They accepted the Marshall Plan and subordination to the USA initially, but increasingly tried to maintain their position as an independent nation and world power. Hence their development of nuclear weapons, withdrawal from NATO, attempts to keep hold of the colonies, etc.

I like that: in effect we have 2 countries here behaving like France in OTL, and reinforcing each other (on the colonial side too, in North Africa in particular)

In this TL, Italy may be able to apply enough pressure to get aid sent to Spain. Initially there will be no formal connection between Italy and the others, except that the Iberians may defer to Italy in some political positions. DeGaulle may be acting a bit more authoritarian, but nothing too shocking at this point. Italy would get along just fine with the Americans at first. They regain prestige fighting communists in neighboring countries, and the Americans largely foot the bill. I'm not sure about Yugoslavia, the war needs to be fleshed out before we can be sure who ends up in control of what.

In 1949 the Italians will probably hop on the NATO bandwagon enthusiastically. It is, after all, an anti-communist alliance. I imagine Spain might join then as well. I can't say for sure how soon the Italians could afford to produce nuclear arms, but I'd guess they would push for it even more than the French did, so sometime in the late 50s might work. After that, the Italians will start wondering why they should be a junior partner in NATO. Pressure will have been building against authoritarianism in the general populace, and the leadership will want to justify Fascism as something distinct from both the established sides of the Cold War.

This time I have to disagree: once the money starts to get rolling in (and besides the Marshall aid there will be also Lybia oil, from mid 50s) the pro-American party will stay stronger. A lot depends on whether Mussolini dies in this decade or not, obviously. However, I am still convinced that Fascism will be gradually modified in a liberal sense (from the inside).

So, sometime in the 60s, Italy withdraws from NATO, probably either with France or followed quickly by France. Together with Italian Austria (and Yugoslavia?), they construct a military alliance designed to limit the spread of communism and maintain a firm hold on the colonies. Unlike NATO or the Warsaw Pact, this alliance is perforce one of relative equals. Italy is much stronger in this timeline (though with a slightly weaker economy), but it is still half the size of France. The new alliance then begins maneuvering Spain and Portugal into joining.

I am mostly thinking of Argentina. Peron was sympathetic toward Franco. It would not be out of the world if there were at least talks of a Latin Alliance. Maybe USA would not have objected too strongly.


Could Latin American states be convinced to join? Would anyone bother asking them? Most importantly, how would the US respond? For the latter, I'd say the admission of an American country into a nuclear-armed military alliance would be crossing a line, big-time. Something like that could threaten to make the NATO-Latin split permanent.

While there is a big bad USSR, I think the Latin Alliance will not really go on its own. They will make a lot of noise, maybe pick up separate positions on some issues, but in the end will stay reasonably cozy with US.

That's it for now. I have to go see when Libya's oil fields were discovered.

The first perforations in Lybia were in the 30s (looking for water, not oil btw). It appears that they found something in the late 30s, but the war made it impossible to go forward. With Italy staying out of the war, the oil exploitation coul really start early (mid 40s??). This would change a lot of things for Italy.

With a strong Latin alliance in the Mediterranean (and less problems in north Africa) I think that also Egypt may stay more stable. So Farouk could stay in power. No Suez canal intervention in 1956.
The other point comes earlier: what abt Israel? Italy (and in lesser measure France) had always a pro-Arab policy in ME. I would think that there would not be a separate state of Israel in TTL. Maybe a federation in Palestine?
In the end France will let Syria go, but will keep a stronger direct presence in Lebanon: why not, the Mediterranean is well wrapped up, and there are less problems in Algeria. Overall, the whole of ME could stay more stable.

I would also have a look at the German situation: the occupation zones would be quite different. Given the incentive for the Latin alliance to show a separate policy, why not envisage 3 Germanies? A French/Italian occupation zone in Bavaria and Austria; UK/USA in the NW, and Russians in the East?
After all deGaulle said that he loved so much Germany that he wanted a lot of them

The European Community could start from Italy and France (and South Germany/Austria). Spain and Portugal would be in for sure. Yugoslavia maybe (I still believe Yugoslavia will be balkanised early). Any idea abt Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg? Maybe the USA will promote a Northern common market, to counterbalance the latin market
 
If Italy stays out longer what happens to Erithia/Ethiopia, & Somalia,

When Hitler invades Yugoslavia, & Greece, ?Could whe have Italy as a Greece Ally? Together Spliting Yugo after the war.

Given that most of the post war Muslim Fundimentisn was due to Pakistani Pheacher moving into the political Vacumm, ?could whe have most less Fundimentism, in North Africa?.
 
DuQuense said:
If Italy stays out longer what happens to Erithia/Ethiopia, & Somalia,

Nothing special at the beginning. There would be more money for colonisation, and no one interested in creating trouble (except the locals, I mean). Later on, it might become interesting. Erythrea has a very strategic position in the Red Sea, and might control the navigation in the Canal. I think it would depend on the relations with USA/UK. My view is that in TTL France and Italy will be much more reluctant to let colonies go.

When Hitler invades Yugoslavia, & Greece, ?Could whe have Italy as a Greece Ally? Together Spliting Yugo after the war.

My guess is that there would be no German involvment in Yugoslavia, so much less for Greece. Germany goal was Russia, why get distracted? I could see a repetition of OTL invasion, possibly supported by Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Greece and Italy had some friction points (Northern Epyrus, Dodecannese, Corcyra). I would expect that greece would stay out of the war, either. In the post-war settlement, I could envisage 3 possibilities: (1) UK gets out too weak to promote a Mediterranean policy opposed to the Latin Union. Greece is co-opted in the Latin Union Defense Organization (2) as (1), but Greece goes Communist (unlikely) (3) UK stays in the Mediterranean, and gives a guarantee to Greece. This could create tensions with Turkey: in OTL, there was no choice: NATO or Communism. In TTL there would be a third way: a slightly more revanchist Turkey (Cyprus, Mosul) might decide to go with the Latin Union (which would certainly include Syria and Lebanon. Palestine is a big question mark)

Given that most of the post war Muslim Fundimentisn was due to Pakistani Pheacher moving into the political Vacumm, ?could whe have most less Fundimentism, in North Africa?.

Likely to have much less fundamentalism in North Africa. There are two reasons: the interests of France and Italy in keeping the lid on Lybia and Algeria (and Tunisia, which is sandwiched between), and the likely situation in Palestine (at best a Federal State) which should decrease tensions in the area. At a guess, Pakistani preachers could be diverted toward the Moslem belly of USSR: an Afghanistan and Chechenia ante litteram

Note: as of now, I am assuming the Italy and France make a lot of good decisions, and everything goes reasonably well for them. There should be some bad scenario, sooner or later. Another thing we have not looked into is SE Asia: are the italians likely to send troops to support the French? I do not think that France can keep SE Asia for too long in any case, but there would be uite a difference between a Dien Bien Phu and a political decision to grant indipendence
 
Faeelin said:
I don't know. Why wouldn't Italy be a US ally? Franco's spain was, after all.

The more aggressive the USSR the more the Latin Alliance will be close to US, that's a given fact. On the other side, they will be always willing to mark some differences, and to show they are not completely aligned (something like France has been doing in OTL). It will be an Alliance with still substantial colonial holdings, at least in North Africa (Indochina cannot be held, and it is likely that French West Africa, Equatorial Africa and Italian East Africa are not worth the cost, even if they will probably hold Djibouti and Erythrea for strategic value). So I expect it will be a two-face decolonisation: soft approach and establishment of puppet friendly regimes in sub-saharian Africa, but very tough rule in North Africa, which will be considered metropolitan area (there is too much oil and gas in Algeria and Lybia to let it go).
The Latin Alliance will also give a boost to Spanish and Portuguese colonies (Angola and West Sahara have both good mineral resources). Overall, we should see a lot less wars and disturbances in Africa, which will remain under a much tighter European control. The USA will agree to keep out the Russians.

Belgium could eventually gravitate toward the Latin Alliance to hold the Congo (and also because the francophone majority will feel isolated in a North Europe, mainly Protestant alliance system).

The strong post-colonial presence will also be a boon for white South Africa. It could in the end become a part of the Alliance, at least to support the white supremacy system.

Argentina is a big question mark. I see them gravitating toward the Latin Alliance, even if the USA will be unhappy. However, OTL Argentina has a history of not being really pro-USA, so in the end i expect that a lot will depend on the strength of American governments, and on their priorities (if the fight against Communism is more important than Monroe doctrine).

The significant oil production could also induce Venezuela to show some indipendence. There will be no OPEC, btw. Probably, just a concertated policy between the main producers, but without a real political alignment.
 
"I don't know. Why wouldn't Italy be a US ally? Franco's spain was, after all."

Well, yes. I thought Italy would have more in common with our timeline's France than with Spain. They'd have a fairly strong economy, boosted by the Marshall Plan. What's more, their major colonial holdings, status as a victorious Power, and a possible permanent seat on the Security Council would leave the continuing prospect of regaining lost national power and prestige. The Brits were the only SC member to stick with the US down the years. I'm pretty sure the Italians would act more like the French than the British.

On the other hand, I do know that a whole lot of South Italians had immediate relatives in the United States, so there will certainly be some impetus to stick close to the US. Oh well, time enough to argue about this when the war's over. :)

The historical perspective on this alternate World War will be somewhat different. In our TL it became a war between ideologies. The major countries that were at least nominally in favor of democracy ended up on the same side in their struggle against a collection of Fascist states and far-right monarchies. In this world, with Mussolini a valuable ally in the fight against Nazi Germany, World War Two is deprived of a lot of its crusading subtext. Dictatorship has not been discredited. A side effect of this will be a divergent way of interpreting the war. Rather than justifying it as a struggle for democracy, a lot of the focus will be on the Holocaust and on Japanese atrocities. The winners will attempt to define themselves by emphasizing the monstrous behavior of their enemies.

In a way this is a good thing. The Allies will likely pay more attention to the various war-crimes trials, which hopefully means more of the especially nasty folks are caught and convicted. There may be less willingness to make use of ex-Nazis as spies (which would stop quite a few Russian moles). And the same goes for captured German scientists, though that is arguably a bad thing.

All this does have a downside, however. Fascist-style governments will not have the same negative connotations they acquired in OTL. That means a lot more strongmen in power, and a poorer, more violent world. In Europe the difference will be more limited, but also easier to recognize. There will be a shift towards stronger executives and promoting nationalism will not bring on comparisons to the Nazis. There may also be less of a basis in compromise and mulilateralism for something like the European Union.

Anyway, I'm curious to see what people think: If Italy and Germany had been at war in 1940, would Hitler have turned first on Italy or on Britain? Britain is the larger threat, obviously, and with her removed Italy would be easily dealt with. The problem there (though Hitler may not accept it) is that the Germans simply can not invade Britain. The alternative would be to strike at Italy, as the weaker target.

My guess is that the majority of the German High Command would want to head for Italy as they would have some idea of the futility of Sea Lion. Hitler is really the big question then. It might appeal to his sense of aesthetics to run his war towards a climax, and Italy would then be first. But he could just as well decide to strike Britain - his armies would be nearby and it would certainly be quite dramatic (until it proved impossible, of course). One thing to factor in is that Hitler considered both countries "natural allies" so he might strike at one hoping the other would then give up and play along.
 
Top