Italy as an ally in WW2

Inspired by the post referring to a lack of a Berlin-Rome I starting thinking what would happen if Italy remained neutral for most of the war and then joined the allies. Mussolini after all did not join the war until France was basically defeated and it appeared that it was only a matter of time before Britain fell. So let's assume that Mussolini is like Franco and is neutral but friendly to the Germans while they're winning. Once it's assured that they're losing Italy throws in its lot with the allies. Below I have listed the effects of various countries or regions.


ITALY
Mussolini is anxious throughout the war but he remains on the sideline. Having exhausted resources in Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, Italy is able to rearm itself. Italy also does well economically by supplying material to both Germany as well as the allies. By late 1944 with the invasion of Normandy having taken place, Mussolini decides to make a move. He realizes that Italy must have a place among the great powers and with the allies an invasion of Austria is coordinated. Allied troops are sent to Northern Italy and Yugoslavia and invade. Though progress is slow, by January all of Austria, Czechoslovakia and most of Bavaria have been captured. Mussolini takes part at most of the major war conferences and he is seen as more important than De Gaulle and the Free French.
After the war Italy joins NATO and is given a permanent seat and veto power on the UN Security Council. I see Italy playing a very similar role to the one that France plays in the world in OTL. By that I mean that it will invest heavily in defence and try to be a global power. Italy will also be a nuclear power, using Fezzan in southern Libya as a site for nuclear tests. I actually see the Italians and French converging on many issues after the war and being allies. This is especially true once Algerian War begins in 1954. Since Germany isn’t divided in this TL there will not be as much need for the alliance between the Germans and French. Though possibly a three-way alliance will come to fruition. I see Italy being a founding member of the EEC too.
Oil is discovered in Libya in 1950 and becomes a major benefit to the economy of Southern Italy. Italian settlers are sent here and to Italian East Africa in huge numbers. Mussolini dies in 1954 of a stroke and is mourned by his people. A more moderate fascist replaces him and King Umberto II assumes more of the power for himself. The Egyptians are going to be fomenting Arab nationalism in Libya so Italy gets involved in the Suez crisis on the side of France, the United Kingdom and Israel. The Italians are at least able to secure passage rights through the canal. However, as the Arab states cut diplomatic ties with Italy in the 1960s due to their refusal to decolonize Libya and Somalia the Italians become very close to Israel. Low intensity guerilla warfare breaks in southern Ethiopia with the guerillas being based in Kenya. Sudan is turned into a puppet state of Italy. Because of this opposition to the Sudanese puppet government comes from Egypt. I believe Italy can probably contain the guerillas if it is an authoritarian state. In 1973 Italy aids the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War and is subject to an oil embargo. However, since Libya is Italian, it actually brings in billions of dollars in oil revenue for the Italians. For the rest of the 1970s the high price of oil continues and with it the economy grows and Italy will remain an authoritarian state. Perhaps in the 1980s or 1990s democracy comes to Italy.

THE BALKANS
Italy does not invade Greece, since Mussolini does not want to provoke the British. Without the invasion of Greece there is no invasion of Crete. This is significant because this was the first time the Germans attempted a mass invasion using paratroopers. Although successful there was a high casualty rate on the German side and this made the Germans wary of attempting an airborne invasion of Britain. Yugoslavia may or may not be invaded; I'm going to assume it doesn't. In this TL German troops don't need to go through Yugoslav territory to get to Greece and Yugoslavia. Also the pro-axis government may not be toppled. If Yugoslavia is not involved then neither is Bulgaria. Their main goal during the war was to annex Macedonia as well as Greek territory. Once the war is almost won, the Yugoslavs and Bulgarians throw in their lot with the allies. The Yugoslavs join shortly after the Italians once it is clear that Germany will lose the war. The Bulgarians want to keep Southern Dobruja (annexed from Romania in 1940) and have close links to the Italians. After the war I can foresee Yugoslavia breaking up if it does not have a strong authoritarian government like Tito's that respects all ethnicities equally. Only Romania goes Communist since it is the only country in the region occupied by the USSR after the war. After the war Yugoslavia joins NATO but Bulgaria does not, since it does not want to offend the USSR.

CENTRAL EUROPE
The allies launch an invasion of Germany (Austria) from the South once Italy joins the allies in 1944. In Hungary Miklos Horthy attempts to sue for peace with the allies and German troops are sent into the country. In this TL allied troops invade and are able to prop up Horthy. The Germans are using their troops in this region to fight off the allied invasion of Austria. The allies push up through to Czechoslovakia. At the end of the war allied troops are in Czechoslovakia and it therefore becomes a prosperous democracy and regains Ruthenia. Horthy remains leader of Hungary for a while after the war but this country too becomes a democracy. Austria does not become a neutral. This role goes to Hungary and Czechoslovakia perhaps.

GERMANY
Not having to waste resources and men in the Balkans, North Africa and Italy, the Germans are much more successful in their invasion of the Soviet Union. I assume that the Germans will invade at least one month earlier with greater resources at their disposal. I can see the Germans capturing Moscow and possibly Leningrad in 1941. I also see them thrusting further into the Caucus region. Though the Soviets don't capitulate, I think they're going to have a much harder time defeating the Germans in this TL. Their push west is going to take longer. In fact I don't see them being able to make it to Germany in this TL. With a simultaneous allied invasion from the West and South, the Germany of modern boundaries exclusively by the allies at the time of surrender in 1945. Their occupation of Germany is limited to the areas they handed over to Poland and East Prussia. This means that there is no divided Germany after the war. After the war Germany will eventually ally itself to the French and the Italians at least when it comes to the EEC

THE PACIFIC
Without so many British and Commonwealth troops being diverted to North Africa and the Balkans, the Brits reinforce Singapore and are able to hold onto Malaya and Burma. The Royal Navy is much stronger too since they took a beating in the Mediterranean. Also troops can pass through the Suez Canal to get to Asia which makes reinforcement quicker. The Australians and New Zealanders will stay in the Pacific theatre instead of being sent to North Africa and Greece. This may mean that Papua Territory is much better defended. Perhaps Thailand remains neutral, if not it becomes a battleground between the Japanese and allied troops early on in the war.

THE SOVIET UNION
Since the Germans invaded about a month earlier with more resources at their disposal they were able to penetrate deeper into the heart of the Soviet Empire. Moscow fell as did Stalingrad, though I believe that there is a possibility that Leningrad may survive, with a longer siege it too will be forced to capitulate. The Germans will eventually be pushed back, however a battle like Stalingrad does not occur until 1944. By the time the Soviets have reached Poland, I see the allies already being at the gates of Berlin. Because of this, the German occupation zone is limited to the parts of Germany they annexed for themselves (East Prussia) and gave to Poland in return for their land grab. After the war the only countries in Europe that become Communist are Poland and Romania. So the Soviet threat is there, however the Cold War will be shaped differently. Having suffered even more in this TL, the Soviets may have a more difficult task in rebuilding their economy, though by the 1950s I can see them enjoying the high economic growth rates they did in OTL during that decade.

Very good read. Here are some events that I think may happen too, according to your TL and POD.

1. I like to think that the Allies learned some of their amphibious tactics from Operation Torch (they made quite a few amatuer mistakes). So if the Americans didn't invade North Africa, perhaps Overlord may not be as successful (or end in failure). And without Torch, Overlord should of happened probably sometime in 43.

2. If the Germans were to capture Moscow in 41, there's a good chance they may have captured Stalin in the city. I read somewhere that during the winter of 41, he decided to stay in Moscow to boost the morale of his troops. So maybe that will end the war completely.

3. One thing I do disagree on, is that I don't think that the British colonies will be any better protected regardless of having to defend Egypt. In OTL, it's not that the British don't want to send troops to defend their colonies, it's that they thought they didn't need to. Their thinking was that the "little yellow incompetent Asians" won't be able to defeat a White imperial power (even though the Japanese did just that when they fought the Russians in the early 1900s). In OTL, even the troops stationed at Hong Kong thought they could defeat the Japanese. In fact, when the British troops saw the Japanese army training across the border, they just laughed at them (they stopped laughing when they decided to cross the border). No one expected they could blitz through the Pacific as easy as they did in 41-42.

If Italy was on the Allied side in WW2, the Allies would have combat frogmen from the start: see e.g. http://www.nobubblediving.com/aro.htm .

OTL sport spearfishing started on the south coast of France in the 1920's or 1930's, and encoraged mask and fins and snorkel to develop. It spread to Italy. Then some Italian sport spearfisher likely brought an industrial oxygen rebreather home. and became the first scuba diver several years before Cousteau started scuba diving. Others imitated. Pirelli started selling oxygen rebreathers for diving. The Italian navy noticed and had an idea.

knightyknight said:

3. One thing I do disagree on, is that I don't think that the British colonies will be any better protected regardless of having to defend Egypt. In OTL, it's not that the British don't want to send troops to defend their colonies, it's that they thought they didn't need to. Their thinking was that the "little yellow incompetent Asians" won't be able to defeat a White imperial power (even though the Japanese did just that when they fought the Russians in the early 1900s). In OTL, even the troops stationed at Hong Kong thought they could defeat the Japanese. In fact, when the British troops saw the Japanese army training across the border, they just laughed at them (they stopped laughing when they decided to cross the border). No one expected they could blitz through the Pacific as easy as they did in 41-42.

Click to expand...

Your view isn't supported by actual events and major sources. The British had no illusions about the colonies being defendable with the forces allocated in OTL, but mainly Churchill gave priority to other operations (in the Med. and NA) and explicitly said that in case trouble showed up with the Japanese "something always could be send". That first of all shows how little Churchill had understood of basic logistics, but in this scenario, where the the Med is open, it might actually be possible to "send something". In OTL the IGS suggested that mainly Malaya was reinforced in mid 1941 (up to Plan Matador standard) but was overridden by Churchill - that was before Alanbrooke took over as CIGS. Recommended reading might be Operation Matador by Ong Chit Chung and Alanbrookes wardiaries (unedited version).

Next the British plans for a war against Japan said that even if UK wasn't heavily committed in Europe Hong Kong probably couldn't be saved in the first instance, and one of the first steps would be retaking Hong Kong. But apart from that the British warplans mainly focussed on blockading Japan (i.e. requiring that the RN wouldn't be heavily committed in Europe).

Churchill believing that a half hearted deterrent force like Force Z could prevent the Japanese from entering a war they had to undertake in order not to dry out was a mjaor mistake, but probably came more from wishful thinking than from any racist prejudism (which both sides had plenty of). In order to find resources for all his "toy-offensives" in the Med. Churchill simply had to think that it all could be done by sending Force Z - and at that time he didn't have an Alanbrooke to look him deep in the eyes and say "BS!". The Japanese operation against Malaya and Singapore probably could have been defeated by some 300 fighters, 40 tanks and a couple of trained brigades extra. The force in OTL deployed against Vichy French and Iraq in 1941 would be more than enough.

There more that is revealed about how Churchill worked and thought the more it becomes clear how frightfully impulsive he was, and how important for the allied war effort fearless staff officers like Alanbrooke were.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

If Italy Didn't enter the War in 1940, there by losing Libya /Ethopia, the whole post war north africa would be Different. The Paskistani Preachers would running around Italian Africa, instead of French Algerieia. [Remember the Algerians pre WW2 were are extremly secular]

...Only one thing is sure: it's better to have Italy as an enemy than as an ally
Unless your name is Austria-Hungary, obviously

Redbeard, point taken. So are you agreeing that Churchill will be too arrogant to send more troops to combat the Japanese, or are you disagreeing and saying that the British would of send more of their troops from Africa to Malay to deter the Japanese?

knightyknight said:

Redbeard, point taken. So are you agreeing that Churchill will be too arrogant to send more troops to combat the Japanese, or are you disagreeing and saying that the British would of send more of their troops from Africa to Malay to deter the Japanese?

Click to expand...

Two factors will be important:

1. Where do Churchill see any potential toy-campaign. If it isn't in the Med. where can it be then? Is it possible by 1941 to pour ressources down the drain any where else in NA campaign dimensions?

2. Who are Churchill's advisers? Is there an Alanbrooke among them?

Churchill will always looks for places where he can "seize the initiative" and will always be given a certain "allowance", but the difference of an Alanbrooke or not is whether those shows will be allowed to compromise the main effort or not, or perhaps even be included in it.

We often ridicule the Italians, but in reality they from 40-42/43 tied up a major part of the British war effort, and the British in those years actually matched the combined axis in produced planes, tanks and guns. So without the Italians to round up, collossal ressources are freed, not at least the resources put into the failed NA offensives are enormous. So plenty of opportunity can be given to Churchill to play around with different operations, in the Balkans, raids whatever, and still leave more than enough for defending the colonies. If the Med is open to British traffic a major logistical problem is also solved, simply reducing the demand on tonnage, and making it even harder for the Germans to starve out UK.

The primary cornerstone here is Malaya and prewar the British had evaluated that some 45-50 batalions, one or two tank regiments, some AA guns and 500 fighters would make Malaya secure. That plan didn't build on racist prejudism, but on occupying the narrow Isthmus of Kra (Thai territory) on the first indication of Japanese aggression and from here block the access to the dense roadnet on the western coast of Malaya. In 1940's the East coast was quite deserted and without good road connection to the West coast. It is quite remakable that the plan did not count on massive RN presense, they were apparently expected to be engaged mainly in Europe. You could also say that if the RN was present in force in the Far East army plans in Malaya would be more or less irrelevant. If the only job of the RN in Europe is containing the Kriegsmarine, then a force af say 10 BB's and 3-4 CV's would be possible for the Far East, leaving 5 BB's and app. 2 CV's for the Home Fleet. I doubt if the IJN can handle that alongside the USN. If the Italians are allied we have the possibility of a major allied offensive, and the Italian ships would actually not be impossible in the relatively constricted waters in SEA (opposed to the open distances of the Pacific requiring good endurance).

The OTL force in Malaya comprised some 30-35 batalions and app. 150 fighters of not first class value, but was void af any tanks or AA guns. The most serious deficiency was the lack of trained troops counting for max 1/3 of the total. A few days before the Japanese attack authority had been given to local command to initiate Matador, but although intelligence on Japanese movements had been received, nerves failed the commander (forgotten his name, not Percival). If Matador had been initiated I think it would have had a fair chance of defeating the Japanese offensive, even with the OTL force, but if the defending force had been according to Matador not the entire Imperial Army had been able to dislocate the British. It must be remembered that the operation involved serious logistic problems for the Japanese and they were not capable of deloying more troops.

But in short, I can't see a scenario where Churchill as easily can send troops and materiel as easyly down the drain as in OTL NA, and therefore even a no Alanbrooke situation is unlikely to repeat the dried out Malaya scenario. The OTL scenario wasn't the situation set on tracks beforehand, but the result of most peculiar circumstances, a lot of them involving irrational factors concerning Churchill's personality. I guess a lot of opertions/raids will still be initiated by Churchill, but a Greece, Norway or Dieppe here and there really isn't the problem. The ressource drain is from mounting major offensive after major offensive in NA and even sailing all the supplies around the Cape.

Any scenario making Italy a neutral or allied is bound to have the British not forget their primary policy - that of defending the Empire. They never really cared about obscure European countries, but about containing threats to the Empire. Churchill was in OTL allowed to forget that in a few months in 1941, but it's difficult to have butterflies reenact presicely enough to have a repeat.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Redbeard, I just wanted say, that I have learned a lot from your post. It's quite unexpected. I was actually expecting a two three sentence answer, but you have enlighten me, thank you.

When I first created this ATL I was thinking that since there would be no fighting for British troops to partake in Europe from Dunkerque until Normandy, they would naturally use the men and arms that in OTL they used in the Balkans, North Africa and Italy against the Japanese. From my understanding fighting in Europe was a priority in OTL however, with nowhere to fight in Europe they'll naturally fight in Asia. The same goes with the Americans after they enter the war in late 1941. Perhaps the British and Americans will want to invade the continent earlier. However I think they'll concentrate on fighting in the Pacific especially with their navies.


I also just thought of something with regards to the Soviet Union. With more troops and material at their disposal, the Germans will likely advance further into the Soviet Union. Is there any chance that a repeat of 1917 would occur where the government collapses and some interim government attempts to sue for peace? Or could the Soviets be badly defeated and not be able to launch much of an offensive against the Germans. So what would happen if by 1945 the allies have defeated Germany what happens with the Soviet territory? Could a civil war ensue?

knightyknight said:

Redbeard, point taken. So are you agreeing that Churchill will be too arrogant to send more troops to combat the Japanese, or are you disagreeing and saying that the British would of send more of their troops from Africa to Malay to deter the Japanese?

Click to expand...

Thanks Knightyknight. You see my problem is, that I really can't stop on this and a few other subjects, but thanks for listening

Regards

Steffen Redbeard