Italy stays out of WW2

Say there was a Nazi-Fascist Split in the late thirties. As a result, Italy pushed for closer relations with Spain and Portugal.

With Italy taking almost no part in WW2, besides sending volunteers to the Eastern Front, how would Germany fare? Better without having to babysit Italian troops? Worse without Italian troops to use as cannon fodder?

The first thing to occur to me is that you have just completely removed the North African campaignsfrom the mix here, which, given teh numbers the British Commonwealth had there vis a vis teh Germans, seems to greatly assist the British.

For Mussolini, I would suspect that his career would be reminiscent of Franco, but with the workd experiencing the addition of many scholarly (by academics, not Mussolini) works discussing the profound differences between fascism and nazism; probably citing several Mussolini speeches for good measure

And *everyones* trains would run on time

the mafia too would be destroyed in italy, as mussolini effectively threw everyone into concentration camps that was suspected of involvement.

I wonder what happens with Ethiopia and Albania, assuming that Mussolini still gets one or both of them?

What does Britain do with their army if there is no North African campaign? If Italy is just a Franco-esque neutral the British or going to have to keep some of their forces in North Africa as a safety measure, and I am pressed as to what Britain could do with the rest. Without Mussolini to fight I suspect that Britain might try one of the more ambitious plans they were considering for France, such as attempting to permenantly occupy the Cherbourg peninsula. Given Churchill's nature and history, there is a risk that Britain might lose a lot of good men in a somewhat ill-considered operation.

Chengar Qordath said:

I wonder what happens with Ethiopia and Albania, assuming that Mussolini still gets one or both of them?

What does Britain do with their army if there is no North African campaign? If Italy is just a Franco-esque neutral the British or going to have to keep some of their forces in North Africa as a safety measure, and I am pressed as to what Britain could do with the rest. Without Mussolini to fight I suspect that Britain might try one of the more ambitious plans they were considering for France, such as attempting to permenantly occupy the Cherbourg peninsula. Given Churchill's nature and history, there is a risk that Britain might lose a lot of good men in a somewhat ill-considered operation.

Click to expand...

Chengar

Its a danger but in the short run I don't think it was too likely. The generals realised we were too weak and Churchill himself opposed any landings in France for a long while. I was going to say you might see an easier intervention in Greece, but unless Mussolini attacks them there probably wouldn't be a war there.

Could just see less resources expanded on the army in the early part of the war. We still needed to rebuild the forces that escaped from France. Also the needs of the air force and navy. Might seen a larger bomber campaign kicking off earlier as it was seen by many British as the only way we could hurt Germany. Once Hitler attacks Russia we could send greater aid that way, although hopefully Stalin would block any British ground forces in the region.

The interesting thing might be the situation in the Far East. Once Japan starts occupying French Indo-China the Australians are going to be getting very concerned about the situation there and they committed a lot of forces initially to the ME. Coupled with the lack of the heavy losses Britain suffered in the N African campaign it would be very easy to give Malaya and other points in region more defence and it wouldn't require a lot to make things far more difficult for the Japanese, if not downright impossible.

Steve

Japan gets stopped cold at Singapore and takes heavy losses much sooner. Also, to return to the continent Churchill sends the British Army to Norway, both to get at Hitler and to assist the Soviet Union. The interesting question is whether Finland tries to bail earlier.

Pacific Consequences...

If Italy was neutral, then Japan has to consider this: The Royal Navy has one less threat to deal with--the Italian Navy is staying out of the war. It also means NO TARANTO RAID to inspire Japan to try torpedo bombing in a shallow harbor...
MAJOR butterflies here.

No Italy might mean no German attack on Yugoslavia and Greece in 1941- I think these followed Italy's bungled efforts.

Might that mean that the attack on the Soviet Union would be earlier. Would the Soviet Union survive?

I cant see a lot of differences in the Barbarossa operations, except that the Balkan operations will round up earlier perhaps allowing Barbarossa to begin some 2 weeks earlier or so, say invasion on or about 1 June. The numbers do not vary a lot from OTL and the personality of Hitler remains the same, therefore not lot about Barbarossa alters

The more you dive into this ATL the more surprised you get over the surprisingly great consequences.

Barbarossa:
If starting two weeks earlier (no Balkan intervention) means the Germans being in general two weeks ahead of OTL schedule it could be very significant. In OTL October the German posh for Moscow was stopped after one very succesful week by the autumn rain and mud (Rasputitsa). This was at a time when the Soviets had very little with which to stop the Germans and when panic was spreading in the Soviet ranks. If been given two weeks more of good weather I guess Moscow would have fallen and the risk/chance of Stalin quitting or being quitted is serious.

The OTL May/early June 1941 were AFAIK quite wet however, and the question is if staring Barbarossa in early June will mean reaching Moscow two weeks earlier. I'm not sure, but OTOH just one week might be enough.

Far East:
Without the OTL Mediterranean commitment I'm much more certain that the consequences in the Far East will be significant. Even if allowing for Churchillian follies like incresed fighter sweeps over France and raids in the Balkan or Norway, there still will be abundant resources to strengthen the defences in Malaya enough to stop a Japanese onslaught. I actually doubt if the Japanese will dare attack a British Empire not committed in the Med. And as NHBL said, the absense of the Taranto inspiration is a major butterfly - how will PH be with no shallow water torpedoes like those developed after seeing Taranto?

The question of course is what on earth the Japanese shall do, not doing anything will have them suffocate. But anyway a British Empire not suffering the humilations of OTL WWII will be much more resilient. Of course not in unchanged form, but probably as an economical and political co-operation meaning that trade protection barriers are across first/third world borders and not just encircling first world entities like the EU (along with French/Dutch etc. empires). IMHO this has a fair chance of seriously reducing the OTL problems of poverty, chaos and corruption - that is indeed a PoD with consequences for billions of people...

...damned Italians!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I agree that the two weeks thing is most likely as late rains made most of the ground impassible for military ops until about june 1st. So, there are fewer areas of occupation that the germans have to worry about and no crete, so paratroops get dropped in the east. Butterflys may prevent a lot of what happened in OTL from occuring in TTL. The war in the east may be worse for the russians with moscow falling. This would be a massive propaganda coup that makes the soviet regime fall, as noone will follow stalin now. However, there would be next to no way the germans could hold it. As soon as the eastern reenforcements came up, the germans are in trouble. I see the east as quite a bit different from OTL. I would think that the americans would still get involved eventually, but the germans can still buy things from the italians and use them to import materials. Also, the oil in libya may get developed as there is no war to worry about. I don't think that it will be ready until the late 40's, but the war may still be going on, in which case the germans can buy it. Also, all of the troops and luftwaffe assets spent occupying the balkans, africa and italy can be used in russia. Major butterflys. Also, as someone stated earlier, we have an Italian volunteer force like the spanish had. Not nearly as large a contingent as OTL, but significant none the less. Remember, facsism was rabidly anticommunist. I see the russians hurting badly, but not neccessarily fatally. The allies, when they invade europe, which they will do without the experience gained in north africa will be smashed up. The americans will not have combat experience, so everything that went wrong in north africa will happen in france. Not good. Also, the brits don't have that north african experience and will suffer too. Monty hasn't gained his rep yet, so he won't be able to shine until very late in the war if at all. Overall, without the italian front, the allies lose a lot of experience for their troops which will be disasterous later. They may gain in the short term, but in the end the italians were much more of a boon to the allies than the germans. It seals off the mediterranian as a front for the allies, unless they invade vichy france/north africa, which still just sets them up for trouble when they meet the germans for the first time in france. The balkans are not a theater either, and if the brits invade there, they will experience the same guerilla warfare the germans did. Greece was pro-german and the yugoslavians plain just didn't like outsiders. They would join with the germans if the allies tried anything and the terrain is going to make the allies pay. Dearly.

maybe Churchill tries an invasion of Norway....

North Africa...if Italy stays neutral, might a British intervention in French North Africa (sort of an immediate version of TORCH) result in Algeria et al being secured for the Free French and not going with Vichy?

wiking said:

I agree that the two weeks thing is most likely as late rains made most of the ground impassible for military ops until about june 1st. So, there are fewer areas of occupation that the germans have to worry about and no crete, so paratroops get dropped in the east. Butterflys may prevent a lot of what happened in OTL from occuring in TTL. The war in the east may be worse for the russians with moscow falling. This would be a massive propaganda coup that makes the soviet regime fall, as noone will follow stalin now. However, there would be next to no way the germans could hold it. As soon as the eastern reenforcements came up, the germans are in trouble. I see the east as quite a bit different from OTL.

Click to expand...

The Germans taking Moscow in October 41 will make the OTL rebuilding of the Red Army very difficult, as all supplies, equipment and personell will need to be redirected outside the very dominant "infrastructure heart" of Moscow. There indeed were railways not going through Moscow, but with much reduced capacity: I guess much of the materiel, supplies and personel will end up in different traffic jams and never being committed.

The impact of the Siberian Divisions in December 41 was not so much their number, but them arriving at the worst possible time for the Germans. they were fatigued, undersupplied and demoralised from the unsuccesful campaign in October and November and the weather a hell. With Moscow on their hands they have a much better chance of keeping their units in good condition and it will to a larger degree be the Russians now suffering from supplies etc. not reaching the front units.

But even if Stalin is displaced and the new rulers seek peace I doubt if Hitler will agree, certainly not if experiencing success at Moscow. This opens up for attrocities having most of the OTL ones appear like kindergarten!!!

Apparently Hitler had decreed that Moscow and Leningrad when taken should simply be deleted from the surface - incl. inhabitants! Even considering how willingly Germans and others took part in/accepted the KZ extermination industry I actually doubt if the German Army/people/elite will be up to this extra job involving many millions of new victims - most of them even looking aryan (like it should matter but I fear it did). I imagine Hitler suddenly dying and of course given a hero's funeral etc, but the new rulers being more moderately genocidal. Still sickening though

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

wiking said:

the mafia too would be destroyed in italy, as mussolini effectively threw everyone into concentration camps that was suspected of involvement.

Click to expand...

That's hearsay, not truth. Prefect Mori fought mafia with any means, including torture, than was recalled in Rome when he was near to the higher levels, and a "modus vivendi" was found. Nevertheless mafia was America's first ally when they invaded.

also germany will still have a very good parachute arm because no crete to make hitler think that they are to exspenive

Oil to Italy, then Germany--won't happen

Even if Italy is neutral, I don't think Germany will be able to buy oil in quantity from Italy via the Libyan oil fields. Britian can and does play fast and loose with the rules of neutrality, (or just ignore them) and would, IMHO, simply stop the Italian tankers from sailing if diplomatic efforts failed. The fact that the tankers are Italian ships sailing from one Italian port to another, absolutely within their rights under any interpretation of the rules, would in the end make no difference. Once the oil is in Italy, private concerns can sell what they want, to whoever they want, under the rules of war (with certain limits, such as warships)
Once oil was discovered, plans would me made to interdict this supply--if necessary by destroying the Italian Navy, Copenhagen style, seizing the ports, or destroying the wells.
Additionally, there would be some tensions at times, even before this, over American trade with Italy, and Britain's interpretation of the rules of contraband--and just like in 1914-1917, Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare would ultimately lead to the USA's ignoring Britain's unlawful regulation of American trade with Italy, or at least only making minor protests.
Once the US is in the war, these complaints end, of course.

hmm... Hitler will still have control over some of the Balkans... but will he still invade Yugoslavia? Obviously, with Italy out of the war, there is no need to go storming into Greece, Crete, and N. Africa will be a sideshow... if there is any fighting at all. With Italy neutral, the Brits can't really get to the French colonies directly (they'd have to go by sea). If Britain does any monkey business at all in the Med, wouldn't Hitler likely occupy Vichy France to keep them from France's southern shore? Fewer British troops in N. Africa, Crete, Malta... what will they do with the extras?
And Rommel will be on the Eastern Front...

Hitler liked Mussolini he thought Italy would be a good ally, and with Mussolini out of favor with him, maybe he would still try to get Italy on his side. The more radical Facists wan to join in and fight for their Roman Empire. So say around 1943 when the Soviets start fighting back, after pushing the final Germans from the outskirts of Moscow. The Germans reached the city, but intense street fighting made them only get nine blocks in.

While giving a speech, listening to some music, or any of the things Mussolini enjoyed someone tries to kill him. Of course being El Duce he escapes, and a the more radical parts of his Fascism is up rooted and "dealt" with. The allies see this as the perfect chance for Italy to joint he allies. Yet Italy remains neutral for Germany is still strong, and many Generals still remebering the fighting that occured trying to break through the eastern alps.

I cannot see Mussolini with his Empire building dreams of sitting on the sidelines for very long. After the Normandy landing, Italy jumps into bed with the allies defending the north but making quick invasions of Yugoslovia. In effect the Italians are liberators, even more so when Churchill makes Mussolini leave but lets him keep some of the better port cities. In 1945 the Italians push up into Austria with little resistance and link with the Americans.

So in effect Mussolini stills makes Fascism a good idea, it is different from Nazism, for Mussolini only wants to improve his nation, while Hitler is mad. When the war is over he starts shifting to the Western camp. Communism never really has a foothold in Italy, and when Mussolini dies in 1964 he is proud to pass the title of El Duce to one of his Generals. His son becomes a famous muscian, based on talent, and also being Mussolini's son.

I could see Mussolini still invading Greece, but Germany will have no reason to intervene.