General Mung Beans
Banned
What if Mussolini decided not to get involved in World War II and join the Axis? What would a Cold War fascist Italy look like?
Italy Doesn't Join the Axis
- Thread starter General Mung Beans
- Start date
i think it is possible it is very interesting but germany with its leader adolf would have proably have invaded them just like romiania if im correct i might not be but ether that or the soviets would have came though and we would have the italians socialist repuiblic
Probably a lot like Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal. Fascist, conservative state that gradually liberalizes or is overthrown in a coup. A communist revolution becomes much more likely; in OTL Italy had the biggest communist party in Western Europe, at times receiving 33% of the vote. In OTL the leaders of the Italian Communist party respected democracy and the rights of their political opponents, but a decade or two of fascist rule would likely change that and drive more people to the Communist side.
Xen
Banned
Do you mean the Italian Social Republic that Mussolini eventually established, or are you suggesting that for some odd reason Italy will go Communist in this scenario?
There are two ways I see this playing out:
A) Italy joins the Stresa front powers, along with Britian and France, against Germany. Italy needs a big incentive to do this, however. In OTL, the alliance fell apart due to indecisiveness on the part of France and Britian. But if the Western Powers work together more, perhaps Italy could outright join the allies. Perhaps the West bribes Mussolin by promising either colonies or nonintervention in future Italian affairs.
B) Italy doesn't join the axis, but when the rest of Europe is caught up in war, attempts to carve out her own empire.
Mussolini was big on the whole New Rome thing. He wanted new territory, and he wanted to conquer. The facisit doctrine was pro-outward expanison, so I don't see this thirst going away with Mussolini in charge.
Letter 'A' would be a very interesting TL. We know France didn't fare too well against the Germany, and the Italian military wasn't very fit at all, so maybe when war breaks out, Italy would attempt to open a front in Austria, and fail. Then would Mussolini join the axis?
A) Italy joins the Stresa front powers, along with Britian and France, against Germany. Italy needs a big incentive to do this, however. In OTL, the alliance fell apart due to indecisiveness on the part of France and Britian. But if the Western Powers work together more, perhaps Italy could outright join the allies. Perhaps the West bribes Mussolin by promising either colonies or nonintervention in future Italian affairs.
B) Italy doesn't join the axis, but when the rest of Europe is caught up in war, attempts to carve out her own empire.
Mussolini was big on the whole New Rome thing. He wanted new territory, and he wanted to conquer. The facisit doctrine was pro-outward expanison, so I don't see this thirst going away with Mussolini in charge.
Letter 'A' would be a very interesting TL. We know France didn't fare too well against the Germany, and the Italian military wasn't very fit at all, so maybe when war breaks out, Italy would attempt to open a front in Austria, and fail. Then would Mussolini join the axis?
ok well the communist take over does happen which then the ussr has another client state and if mussolini did stay out hitler was very paranoid and with his imperial ambitions he would invade and counquer italy then with the eastern front closing the soviets would come and liberate italy and cantra to poular belive communism is not a bad syetem u have to go bout it the right wayt every body looks at stalin when they think of communism if ur a communist ur not brutal communsits doint supress people dictators do!
Xen
Banned
OK, why? Why do they suddenly turn communist? Do they all wake up one day and say "Comrade, I'm feeling mighty red today, I think I will go to town square and start a revolution."
Even if fascism lasts longer in Italy, it is not certain that it will decide to go communist all of a sudden. Communists might have more power, and grow louder and bolder, but why would it go Commie all of a sudden? Italy could just as well (and all the more likely) become democratic as left-wing and right-wing moderates try to keep radicals from taking the country into a Civil War.
As a matter of fact, Spain did not become communist when Franco died.
Same thing with Portugal, after the fall of Salazar.
Both countries became very mainstream democracies, with an alternance between center right and center left and no major social upheaval
In a scenario where Italy does not enter WW2 (or enters on the winning side), it is to be expected that they will enjoy an economic boom in the late 40s-early 50s, fuelled by the Lybian oil, and almost certainly some kind of dominance in the Mediterranean. My pet theory is that a booming economy will always avccellerate the downfall of a dictatorship, and this should happen also in Italy, by the end of the 50s at latest.
Same thing with Portugal, after the fall of Salazar.
Both countries became very mainstream democracies, with an alternance between center right and center left and no major social upheaval
In a scenario where Italy does not enter WW2 (or enters on the winning side), it is to be expected that they will enjoy an economic boom in the late 40s-early 50s, fuelled by the Lybian oil, and almost certainly some kind of dominance in the Mediterranean. My pet theory is that a booming economy will always avccellerate the downfall of a dictatorship, and this should happen also in Italy, by the end of the 50s at latest.
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, Mussolini was ready to stand up for Austrian independence when Hitler was getting ready to send his stormtroopers in. But the Western democracies were too timid to take a stand at that point, and Mussolini knew he couldn't defend Austria alone. Dollfuss was a right-winger, too, even though he opposed Hitler. He just wanted Austria to remain sovereign. Didn't Austria have its own civil war, like Spain and Portugal, in which the right crushed the left?
Whether Hitler would have invaded Italy or not is hard to say. My guess is that he would have. Gaining control of the Med was just too important to leave Mussolini alone. If that had happened, the Italian Communists might have come out of the war on top.
Whether Hitler would have invaded Italy or not is hard to say. My guess is that he would have. Gaining control of the Med was just too important to leave Mussolini alone. If that had happened, the Italian Communists might have come out of the war on top.
POD is Mussolini dies in late May of 1940.
Conflict between Badoglio and Ciano on the Facist Grand Council delays action till after the French/German armistice. No action needs to be taken to help out the Germans in the attack on France. France comes out somewhat better in the Armistice in terms of loss of territory, etc.
With no war, Italy isn't a drag on German and Romanian coal and oil supplies, the Med is not a major sink for the British and Australian armies and air forces(though there are still lots of British and South African troops, and British naval vessals keeping an eye on the Italians) and for the German army, armor, and air force. Russia is slightly more wary of Germany because they are not tied down in battle in North Africa.
1. Germany invades Russia six weeks earlier in the middle of the Rasputitza rainy season, making slower initial progress as a result.
The delays allow the Russians to mobilize, retreat, and redeploy by rail faster than Germany can advance by road. The cauldrons are smaller in terms of captured troops. There is a positive feedback from the preservation of long service, veteran, and experienced troops that results in the failure to cut off Leningrad completely, or maybe even the million Russian troops in the army at Kiev are battered rather than completely destroyed.
Germany has to fight more Russians on more even terms. Kiev is captured in late 1941 but more German troops are killed and more Russian troops survive the battle. Consequently Kiev is the location of "Stalingrad" in this OTL when the Russians counterattack.
a. Germany never gets close to Moscow or Sevastopol or Stalingrad, the factories in Leningrad and Kiev are more successfully evacuated to the interior, the factories in Stalingrad keep operating full blast, more food, livestock, and running stock is evacuated from the southern and western Ukraine before they are overrun, less starvation of population occurs, more iron from the Donbass is available, the industrial loss is radically diminished, and Russia is much stronger and more resilient after 1943.
b. Murmansk is never cut off from the rest of Russia by rail. Supplies from overseas are more plentiful and come sooner. This increases Soviet aircraft and radio production to a great degree. The initial German advance takes Odessa, but there is movement of supplies across the Black Sea despite the official closing of the Bosporus by the Turks under German pressure.
c. There is less pressure on the German economy to keep Italy supplied, and much more oil available for Germany. Economic production from the Balkans is more plentiful without Partisans pinning down German troops. More supplies from overseas leak in through Italy.
2. The Australian troops at Singapore are reinforced and hold on as they almost did in OTL. More troops, more and better aircraft, more construction materials for fortifications, an airport out of range of Japanese artillary, etc. More British ships are available from the Med fleet, at least in rotation.
a. Commonwealth submarines out of Singapore eliminate the Japanese merchant marine tanker fleet by the end of 1942, within 18 months. Japan begins industrial collapse at much sooner than in OTL. Rubber and tin production from Sumatra and Java continue to supply the Commonwealth. Some oil production from Burma is also available. Malaya and Borneo are Japanese occupied, of course, and Thailand and Indochina and the Phllipines are also Japanese occupied and controlled.
b. Burma is attacked by land over the mountains out of Thailand but the Japanese army is unsupported and unsupplied by the navy and makes much slower progress. China is never cut off from supplies by the Burma road except for short periods of a few months at a time. China does much better as a consequence. This affects the postwar civil war, with more experienced Nationalist troops surviving the war.
c. Britain and Australia are not as desperate for American aid in the Pacific as in OTL. The Japanese concentrate more on Indonesia and less on the Southern and Central Pacific. Nauru stays in Australian hands, as does New Guinea. More rubber and phosphate is available from there, as well as luxury crops like chocolate and coffee.
The war ends in 1944. Half as many people die, half as much destruction is done. Russia and Italy have substantially more industrial capability, and Russia has substantially more population. Germany and Japan are devastated in the war, somewhat less by bombers, somewhat more by artillary. Yugoslavia is substantially undamaged and has much less population loss and much less ethnic and sectarian polarisation.
Conflict between Badoglio and Ciano on the Facist Grand Council delays action till after the French/German armistice. No action needs to be taken to help out the Germans in the attack on France. France comes out somewhat better in the Armistice in terms of loss of territory, etc.
With no war, Italy isn't a drag on German and Romanian coal and oil supplies, the Med is not a major sink for the British and Australian armies and air forces(though there are still lots of British and South African troops, and British naval vessals keeping an eye on the Italians) and for the German army, armor, and air force. Russia is slightly more wary of Germany because they are not tied down in battle in North Africa.
1. Germany invades Russia six weeks earlier in the middle of the Rasputitza rainy season, making slower initial progress as a result.
The delays allow the Russians to mobilize, retreat, and redeploy by rail faster than Germany can advance by road. The cauldrons are smaller in terms of captured troops. There is a positive feedback from the preservation of long service, veteran, and experienced troops that results in the failure to cut off Leningrad completely, or maybe even the million Russian troops in the army at Kiev are battered rather than completely destroyed.
Germany has to fight more Russians on more even terms. Kiev is captured in late 1941 but more German troops are killed and more Russian troops survive the battle. Consequently Kiev is the location of "Stalingrad" in this OTL when the Russians counterattack.
a. Germany never gets close to Moscow or Sevastopol or Stalingrad, the factories in Leningrad and Kiev are more successfully evacuated to the interior, the factories in Stalingrad keep operating full blast, more food, livestock, and running stock is evacuated from the southern and western Ukraine before they are overrun, less starvation of population occurs, more iron from the Donbass is available, the industrial loss is radically diminished, and Russia is much stronger and more resilient after 1943.
b. Murmansk is never cut off from the rest of Russia by rail. Supplies from overseas are more plentiful and come sooner. This increases Soviet aircraft and radio production to a great degree. The initial German advance takes Odessa, but there is movement of supplies across the Black Sea despite the official closing of the Bosporus by the Turks under German pressure.
c. There is less pressure on the German economy to keep Italy supplied, and much more oil available for Germany. Economic production from the Balkans is more plentiful without Partisans pinning down German troops. More supplies from overseas leak in through Italy.
2. The Australian troops at Singapore are reinforced and hold on as they almost did in OTL. More troops, more and better aircraft, more construction materials for fortifications, an airport out of range of Japanese artillary, etc. More British ships are available from the Med fleet, at least in rotation.
a. Commonwealth submarines out of Singapore eliminate the Japanese merchant marine tanker fleet by the end of 1942, within 18 months. Japan begins industrial collapse at much sooner than in OTL. Rubber and tin production from Sumatra and Java continue to supply the Commonwealth. Some oil production from Burma is also available. Malaya and Borneo are Japanese occupied, of course, and Thailand and Indochina and the Phllipines are also Japanese occupied and controlled.
b. Burma is attacked by land over the mountains out of Thailand but the Japanese army is unsupported and unsupplied by the navy and makes much slower progress. China is never cut off from supplies by the Burma road except for short periods of a few months at a time. China does much better as a consequence. This affects the postwar civil war, with more experienced Nationalist troops surviving the war.
c. Britain and Australia are not as desperate for American aid in the Pacific as in OTL. The Japanese concentrate more on Indonesia and less on the Southern and Central Pacific. Nauru stays in Australian hands, as does New Guinea. More rubber and phosphate is available from there, as well as luxury crops like chocolate and coffee.
The war ends in 1944. Half as many people die, half as much destruction is done. Russia and Italy have substantially more industrial capability, and Russia has substantially more population. Germany and Japan are devastated in the war, somewhat less by bombers, somewhat more by artillary. Yugoslavia is substantially undamaged and has much less population loss and much less ethnic and sectarian polarisation.
sl
You missed the biggest player in the war, US.
What are they doing?
If Germany doesn’t declare war on US they win the war.
You missed the biggest player in the war, US.
What are they doing?
If Germany doesn’t declare war on US they win the war.
Italy out of WW2
It's an interesting idea. The main problem I have with it is that Mussolini was an expansionist in a way Franco never was. It was that which prevented, for example, the Stresa Front being more successful.
Mussolini saw himself as a Roman-style figure and the conquest of Abyssinia and Libya and forays into Greece were all part of this. Ultimately, I think, he saw Hitler as a way of achieving his goal of an Italian-dominated Med - if not a Mare Romanum in the traditional sense then certainly an area of Italian pre-eminence.
However, let's say that fate takes a different path. Perhaps, as other threads have posited, the Italians and Austrians defeat a German invasion of Austria in July 1934 and Mussolini is feted in London and Paris as a man of peace and supporter of order. This would have also played to Mussolini's inner vanity. Adoring crowds in Paris and London, lunch with George V, a friendly chat with the Prince of Wales, perhaps a telegram of support from Roosevelt and suddenly Mussolini is the "man of the hour".
Let's play it up a little - Mussolini is able to broker a resolution to the Spanish crisis in early 1936 frustrating the Germans once again.
Now, I do think that going down this path will lead to a confrontation between the Stresa Front and Germany at some point - let's say Autumn 1938 over the future of the Sudetenland and Danzig.
However, this thread takes another route so let's follow it. Mussolini becomes tired of the vaciliation of the West and the intransigence of Hitler and opts for a more neutral stance. Italy is resolute in opposing ANY foreign intervention in Spain for example leaving the conflict to drag on. However, it will only protect its own frontiers and not anyone else's.
Austria is annexed by Germany in March 1938 and Mussolini plays no part in the Sudetenland crisis of that Autumn. The German invasion of Poland in September 1939 occurs and Britain and France go to war with Hitler.
Mussolini is not interested in the crumbs of Hitler's war against France and stays neutral as France falls. There will be no North African front as Italy refuses to allow foreign troops to cross Libya .
Italy protests the German invasion of Greece in April 1941 and fleeing Yugoslav and Greek soldiers find refuge in Italian-controlled Albania but the Germans do not cross the border.
The Germans under Rommel battle the British and Americans in Morocco, Algeria and later Tunisia while in the East, British and Commonwealth forces under Montgomery land in Greece in late 1943 and begin the slow process of liberating the Balkans.
D-Day and the relentless attrition of the Eastern Front take their toll on Hitler's war machine and by the spring of 1945, the allies have joined up in the Balkans and on the Elbe. Hitler dies and the war ends.
Though neutral throughout the conflict, Mussolini has faced a difficult period economically despite Swiss financial aid. Trade has been disrupted but the post-war period brings improvement as Italy and nationalist Spain draw closer. In the 1950s, wealthy Italians are the first to see the advantages of tourism in Spain, Greece and Egypt.
Mussolini is fading by the late 1950s and hands power to his son-in-law Ciano, who is widely considered to have been instrumental in maintaining Italian neutrality and propserity.
Benito Mussolini dies on April 28th 1958 - his funeral is a lavish occasion attended by world leaders and heads of state. He is buried in a specially-designed mausoleum at Predappio. Ciano leads the Italian national mourning and is quickly sworn in as the new Duce.
Ciano begins to make changes in Italian foreign and economic policy. In 1960, along with Spain, Italy joins France, Germany and Britain in the embroynic EEC and investment increases. British and German tourists begin to visit Italy in larger numbers. However, Italy refuses to join NATO and joins with Yugoslavia and Spain in the Mediterranean League, an integral part of the non-aligned movement.
Ciano visits Nasser in the mid-60s and urges him to seek a rapprochement with Israel. When the army takes power in 1967, Greece joins the Mediterranean League and leaves NATO.
Yet, the age of the dictators is over. Ciano falls ill in the early 70s and dies in Rome in early 1974. With the passing of Ciano, Salazar and Franco, the old Mediterranean League is fragmenting.
With Ciano's death, the Italian Fascists descend into civil war and the Army takes over promising a transition to democracy. The "wave of democracy" sweeps through Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece in the mid-1970s.
In January 1976, the first free elections for over fifty years take place in Italy. The Christian Democrats win most votes and seats in the new Parliament and Giovanni Leone becomes the Prime Minister. Aldo Moro is elected President soon after.
The path to democracy isn't smooth - there is an abortive Communist uprising in 1978 and an attempted coup in 1982 but by the mid-1980s Italy is an integral part of the EEC and is on the cusp of joining NATO.
It's an interesting idea. The main problem I have with it is that Mussolini was an expansionist in a way Franco never was. It was that which prevented, for example, the Stresa Front being more successful.
Mussolini saw himself as a Roman-style figure and the conquest of Abyssinia and Libya and forays into Greece were all part of this. Ultimately, I think, he saw Hitler as a way of achieving his goal of an Italian-dominated Med - if not a Mare Romanum in the traditional sense then certainly an area of Italian pre-eminence.
However, let's say that fate takes a different path. Perhaps, as other threads have posited, the Italians and Austrians defeat a German invasion of Austria in July 1934 and Mussolini is feted in London and Paris as a man of peace and supporter of order. This would have also played to Mussolini's inner vanity. Adoring crowds in Paris and London, lunch with George V, a friendly chat with the Prince of Wales, perhaps a telegram of support from Roosevelt and suddenly Mussolini is the "man of the hour".
Let's play it up a little - Mussolini is able to broker a resolution to the Spanish crisis in early 1936 frustrating the Germans once again.
Now, I do think that going down this path will lead to a confrontation between the Stresa Front and Germany at some point - let's say Autumn 1938 over the future of the Sudetenland and Danzig.
However, this thread takes another route so let's follow it. Mussolini becomes tired of the vaciliation of the West and the intransigence of Hitler and opts for a more neutral stance. Italy is resolute in opposing ANY foreign intervention in Spain for example leaving the conflict to drag on. However, it will only protect its own frontiers and not anyone else's.
Austria is annexed by Germany in March 1938 and Mussolini plays no part in the Sudetenland crisis of that Autumn. The German invasion of Poland in September 1939 occurs and Britain and France go to war with Hitler.
Mussolini is not interested in the crumbs of Hitler's war against France and stays neutral as France falls. There will be no North African front as Italy refuses to allow foreign troops to cross Libya .
Italy protests the German invasion of Greece in April 1941 and fleeing Yugoslav and Greek soldiers find refuge in Italian-controlled Albania but the Germans do not cross the border.
The Germans under Rommel battle the British and Americans in Morocco, Algeria and later Tunisia while in the East, British and Commonwealth forces under Montgomery land in Greece in late 1943 and begin the slow process of liberating the Balkans.
D-Day and the relentless attrition of the Eastern Front take their toll on Hitler's war machine and by the spring of 1945, the allies have joined up in the Balkans and on the Elbe. Hitler dies and the war ends.
Though neutral throughout the conflict, Mussolini has faced a difficult period economically despite Swiss financial aid. Trade has been disrupted but the post-war period brings improvement as Italy and nationalist Spain draw closer. In the 1950s, wealthy Italians are the first to see the advantages of tourism in Spain, Greece and Egypt.
Mussolini is fading by the late 1950s and hands power to his son-in-law Ciano, who is widely considered to have been instrumental in maintaining Italian neutrality and propserity.
Benito Mussolini dies on April 28th 1958 - his funeral is a lavish occasion attended by world leaders and heads of state. He is buried in a specially-designed mausoleum at Predappio. Ciano leads the Italian national mourning and is quickly sworn in as the new Duce.
Ciano begins to make changes in Italian foreign and economic policy. In 1960, along with Spain, Italy joins France, Germany and Britain in the embroynic EEC and investment increases. British and German tourists begin to visit Italy in larger numbers. However, Italy refuses to join NATO and joins with Yugoslavia and Spain in the Mediterranean League, an integral part of the non-aligned movement.
Ciano visits Nasser in the mid-60s and urges him to seek a rapprochement with Israel. When the army takes power in 1967, Greece joins the Mediterranean League and leaves NATO.
Yet, the age of the dictators is over. Ciano falls ill in the early 70s and dies in Rome in early 1974. With the passing of Ciano, Salazar and Franco, the old Mediterranean League is fragmenting.
With Ciano's death, the Italian Fascists descend into civil war and the Army takes over promising a transition to democracy. The "wave of democracy" sweeps through Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece in the mid-1970s.
In January 1976, the first free elections for over fifty years take place in Italy. The Christian Democrats win most votes and seats in the new Parliament and Giovanni Leone becomes the Prime Minister. Aldo Moro is elected President soon after.
The path to democracy isn't smooth - there is an abortive Communist uprising in 1978 and an attempted coup in 1982 but by the mid-1980s Italy is an integral part of the EEC and is on the cusp of joining NATO.
s
What?
Germany invaded Greece because Italy was being defeated by a third rate power.
What?
Germany invaded Greece because Italy was being defeated by a third rate power.
Redbeard
Banned
Italy not joining the Axis will offer major opportunities for the allies, not at least GB.
First it will mean the Med. remaining an undisputed British “pond”. That will not only mean that a major demand on the British war effort from 40-43 is suddenly freed, but also that the route to the Far (and Middle) East is much shorter. Instead of going around the Cape you simply cross the Med. and down the Suez canal. That not only means reinforcements reaching the Far East much faster, but also means a smaller demand on cargo tonnage (which was a crucial factor for the allies all through the war).
Most of the naval forces in OTL deployed in the Med. will not be of much use in the North Atlantic, but would add significant deterrent value to an ATL Force Z.
With Italy neutral the chance of France continuing the war from the colonies increases dramatically. To the French it will be obvious that an armistice would mean the British immediately seizing the French overseas possessions and left would only be a small area in metropolitan France completely at the mercy of Germany. The French staying in the war would in itself be significant.
A major significance would arise if just a small part of the forces deployed in OTL in the Med. are sent to Malaya. That would make it extremely difficult for the Japanese to take Singapore, and without Singapore the raison d’etre for Japans entry into the war – getting access to SEA strategic resources – is down the drain.
I’m slightly scared however that Churchill in this ATL would not be able to withstand the temptation to have a go at the continent somewhere. With Italy neutral the Balkans (incl. Greece) probably are neutral too, but Norway could be an option. I’m not at all sure such an adventure would be possible to succeed with however, or even if, that it would be worth the effort (the iron ore Germany went to Norway for in April 40, they got in N. France in May same year).
The big dark cloud is however; if this ATL has the allies, after USA has entered the war, execute a premature invasion of France. In OTL the Americans originally suggested an invasion of France in 1942 (!) and it took considerable effort from the British to keep them away from trying in 1943. I’m worried, that short of the OTL experiences with the Germans in the Med., the ones among the allies pointing to the risks of invading in 42 or 43 will be short of arguments. For a lot of reasons I’m convinced that an invasion of France in 43, let alone 42, is practically impossible to succeed with, and a major allied defeat on the continent seriously involve a risk of the western powers agreeing to an armistice, or at least the Germans are given a long break until a new invasion force can be built.
If the PoD involves no war in the Balkans, the Germans also have the option of starting Barbarossa a month earlier (no Yugoslav/Greek intervention). In itself that could be significant for reaching Moscow before the rain starts in October, but the problem just is that in OTL May 41 it rained heavily and an attack in May 41 thus might have been slowed by the mud and the results from OTL June-July not possible. In OTL practically all the Soviet forces deployed at the border were annihilated in the first weeks of the war. Each man/tank that can escape in this ATL can be deployed in the later battles.
In 1941 the German OTL involvement in the Med. was very limited and the East Front would anyway also be short of the Italian Armycorps deployed in Russia from the start. In OTL 1942 both the German involvement in the Med. and the Italian on the east front increased dramatically (the Italians to an entire army). Although the Italians on the east front fought much better than they are usually credited for, the German effort deployed in the Med. probably had a larger “combat value”. The big question is however if the difference if committed to the east front is big enough to change things on that front significantly? It will anyway have to be well into 1942.
If controlling the Med. the western allies will however have a more practical option of not only supplying SU over Middle East/Central Asia, but also of deploying a large force on the east front. If say Stalingrad falls in 1942 I could imagine a major US/Anglo force being deployed from Iran to protect/retake the oilfields at Baku. I wonder if Turkey could be talked into the allied camp in this ATL? The Axis would appear much more distant seen from Turkey, but OTOH they had as good reasons as in OTL to be cautious and await development to see what side to side with.
What it will mean if the major US/Anglo war effort is on the eastern front – I really can’t comprehend at the moment…
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
First it will mean the Med. remaining an undisputed British “pond”. That will not only mean that a major demand on the British war effort from 40-43 is suddenly freed, but also that the route to the Far (and Middle) East is much shorter. Instead of going around the Cape you simply cross the Med. and down the Suez canal. That not only means reinforcements reaching the Far East much faster, but also means a smaller demand on cargo tonnage (which was a crucial factor for the allies all through the war).
Most of the naval forces in OTL deployed in the Med. will not be of much use in the North Atlantic, but would add significant deterrent value to an ATL Force Z.
With Italy neutral the chance of France continuing the war from the colonies increases dramatically. To the French it will be obvious that an armistice would mean the British immediately seizing the French overseas possessions and left would only be a small area in metropolitan France completely at the mercy of Germany. The French staying in the war would in itself be significant.
A major significance would arise if just a small part of the forces deployed in OTL in the Med. are sent to Malaya. That would make it extremely difficult for the Japanese to take Singapore, and without Singapore the raison d’etre for Japans entry into the war – getting access to SEA strategic resources – is down the drain.
I’m slightly scared however that Churchill in this ATL would not be able to withstand the temptation to have a go at the continent somewhere. With Italy neutral the Balkans (incl. Greece) probably are neutral too, but Norway could be an option. I’m not at all sure such an adventure would be possible to succeed with however, or even if, that it would be worth the effort (the iron ore Germany went to Norway for in April 40, they got in N. France in May same year).
The big dark cloud is however; if this ATL has the allies, after USA has entered the war, execute a premature invasion of France. In OTL the Americans originally suggested an invasion of France in 1942 (!) and it took considerable effort from the British to keep them away from trying in 1943. I’m worried, that short of the OTL experiences with the Germans in the Med., the ones among the allies pointing to the risks of invading in 42 or 43 will be short of arguments. For a lot of reasons I’m convinced that an invasion of France in 43, let alone 42, is practically impossible to succeed with, and a major allied defeat on the continent seriously involve a risk of the western powers agreeing to an armistice, or at least the Germans are given a long break until a new invasion force can be built.
If the PoD involves no war in the Balkans, the Germans also have the option of starting Barbarossa a month earlier (no Yugoslav/Greek intervention). In itself that could be significant for reaching Moscow before the rain starts in October, but the problem just is that in OTL May 41 it rained heavily and an attack in May 41 thus might have been slowed by the mud and the results from OTL June-July not possible. In OTL practically all the Soviet forces deployed at the border were annihilated in the first weeks of the war. Each man/tank that can escape in this ATL can be deployed in the later battles.
In 1941 the German OTL involvement in the Med. was very limited and the East Front would anyway also be short of the Italian Armycorps deployed in Russia from the start. In OTL 1942 both the German involvement in the Med. and the Italian on the east front increased dramatically (the Italians to an entire army). Although the Italians on the east front fought much better than they are usually credited for, the German effort deployed in the Med. probably had a larger “combat value”. The big question is however if the difference if committed to the east front is big enough to change things on that front significantly? It will anyway have to be well into 1942.
If controlling the Med. the western allies will however have a more practical option of not only supplying SU over Middle East/Central Asia, but also of deploying a large force on the east front. If say Stalingrad falls in 1942 I could imagine a major US/Anglo force being deployed from Iran to protect/retake the oilfields at Baku. I wonder if Turkey could be talked into the allied camp in this ATL? The Axis would appear much more distant seen from Turkey, but OTOH they had as good reasons as in OTL to be cautious and await development to see what side to side with.
What it will mean if the major US/Anglo war effort is on the eastern front – I really can’t comprehend at the moment…
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
The why and how Mussolini decide to stay neutral are very important. If the Stresa front remains strong, you have probably a war in 1938 over Austria or, maybe, the Sudetenland. Besides, if Italy doesn't join the Axis, the racial laws won't be enacted, so Fermi will stay in Italy and the Manhattan project will be delayed (I can't say how long, though).
If Mussolini simply decide to ignore Hitler and not join the war, Italy is going to attack Yugoslavia or Greece to keep up "italian honour". I would say that Yugoslavia is the most probable candidate, since controlling Adriatic sea was an old italian issue. Italy could win that war, even if it would take at least a couple of years (italian army was largely based on infantry and didn't have good officers).
As for Germany, Hitler is not going to attack Italy at all. You can invade the peninsula from the Alps, but you can control it only with a fleet. Regarding operation Barbarossa, OTL it wasn't ever delayed for the invasion of Greece, but only due to the Rasputitza. So I don't see any significant change from OTL.
Without a mediterrean theatre, I think that Churchill would try an invasion of Norway in 1942 or 1943 backed by american troops, though.
This could only work however if Greece did not respond to a Yugoslav call for help.
What if Greece decides to join in, envisioning the recapture of Albania?
While the Italian Army is busy attacking the Yugoslavian Army out of Albania, the Greeks decide to kick the door and grab Albania. The Italians in Albania are surrounded and probably lose big-time?
This not entirely certain.
Furthermore the paratroopers were decimated in Greece. Thus the Germans have the paratroopers to use and may indeed use them in this ATL to make some faster advances.
Furthermore if the North African Front never materialises, you have a couple of more German Army divisions available to the Germans for operations in Russia, plus more aircraft+uboats and most importantly a lot of trucks.
The aircraft and uboats could be very handy in attacking Russian-bound convoys in 1942+1943. A lot of the Luftwaffe ship-killing aircraft and Kriegsmarine u-boats were lost in the Med in OTL, deploy them out of Norway in this ATL and the Russian convoy system may collapse.
It is often overlooked that a lot of the German truck production was shipped to North Africa and lost there. With all those trucks available in the Eastern Front, the Germans may have a much bigger freedom of movement and truly mechanised (and not horse supported) formations, allowing them deeper penetrations in 1942+1943.
Am I the only that thinks that such an operation could turn into a huge fiasco for the Allies?
The U-boat threat was very much alive in 1942+1943. And the Luftwaffe was not beaten yet.
Do the Allies even have enough aircraft with a range long enough to cover the invasion fleet in Norway (other than P38s)?