Hitler and Mussolini had a close relationship as fellow fascist dictators, and co-operated in Spain, but Mussolini refused several requests by Hitler to declare war on either the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union. Apparently he was tempted to join in as France was falling, but didn't for reasons that historians still are unclear about. Admittedly this is something of another Axis wank, or would Italy allying with Germany really made that big a difference? Either going in at the fall of France or joining in against the Soviet Union later could be PODs.
DBWI Italy enters World War 2
- Thread starter Galba Otho Vitelius
- Start date
I don't see how this ends well for Italy. There have been a number of sophisticated economic studies that have made it clear Italy was a very weak country and that entering the war would have been a disaster and that Italy would have been an anchor dragging down Germany because Italy would have needed a lot of help from Germany. Instead Mussolini got to play both sides. By being a belligerent neutral Italy still got coal and food from Germany while the threat of Italy joining the war tied down British forces in the Mediterranean and at the same time Italy benefitted from favorable trade with Great Britain and the US as both countries were desperate to keep Italy neutral.
Of course after the war Mussolini becomes a staunch member of the anti-communist alliance and is generally seen as key to keeping Greece and Yugoslavia from going communist and overtime he came to be seen as something of an enlightened dictator (yeah I know a lot of propaganda from a New York City PR firm went into that - funded by the US Government no less) but the fact is when he died in 1970 the country had its act together and Italy transitioned to a functioning democracy fairly easily.
Of course after the war Mussolini becomes a staunch member of the anti-communist alliance and is generally seen as key to keeping Greece and Yugoslavia from going communist and overtime he came to be seen as something of an enlightened dictator (yeah I know a lot of propaganda from a New York City PR firm went into that - funded by the US Government no less) but the fact is when he died in 1970 the country had its act together and Italy transitioned to a functioning democracy fairly easily.
This has been discussed before many times. The concensus is it complicates things endlessly for the British & really does hurt them 1941-43. I can follow a lot of the arguments for this.
Could it possibly hurt the Germans? It's not like Italy can help that much against France, since it already fell, while all they could do against the Soviets was send a few divisions. Against Britain, it's debatable whether they'd be a drain or a help, especially as they'd have to defend Libya.
Whereas IOTL they were able to sell quite a bit to Germany when the Atlantic trade was closed to them, including very necessary foodstuffs. Maybe the war ends even earlier, in '45 or '44.
Whereas IOTL they were able to sell quite a bit to Germany when the Atlantic trade was closed to them, including very necessary foodstuffs. Maybe the war ends even earlier, in '45 or '44.
A common joke in the German High Command was this:
"Mein Fuhrer, Italy just joined the war."
"Then send 10 divisions in front of them."
"Nein mein Fuhrer, they're joining the war on our side."
"Then send 20 divisions to back them up."
I'm guessing Hitler really, truly, didn't want Italy to join just to keep the southern flank stable. He most likely planned to deal with Italy after the war, perhaps by twisting Nazi racial theory to state the Italians aren't the descendants of the Romans as they had been bastardized by Africans and Arabs.
"Mein Fuhrer, Italy just joined the war."
"Then send 10 divisions in front of them."
"Nein mein Fuhrer, they're joining the war on our side."
"Then send 20 divisions to back them up."
I'm guessing Hitler really, truly, didn't want Italy to join just to keep the southern flank stable. He most likely planned to deal with Italy after the war, perhaps by twisting Nazi racial theory to state the Italians aren't the descendants of the Romans as they had been bastardized by Africans and Arabs.
This long term view is the debate. The negative argument revolve around the quality of the Italian army. There is a small school of historians & others who argue the Facists had created a poorly led army, with severe logistics problems built it. Their arguments are compelling, but since many other experts were proved wrong about capabilities of other armies & the Italian army never tested its really difficult to judge.
It is a little easier to calculate the economic effects of the British blockade in this case. Those convincingly suggest Italy would be in economic freefall before the end of 1942. Germany proved unable to support its few allies & Italy looks like a even larger drain. So, for Italy to benefit the the Facist cause in war it must contribute to the defeat of Britain or the USSR NLT 1942.
While Italian army performance in Ethiopia was less than stellar, there's the sheer weight of numbers which would have brought Italian Army to the Suez Canal without doubt. Add that they would have had taken or neutralized Malta from the outset. There's also the possibility that with reinforced by Italian subs after neutralization of the Mediterranean the German U-Boat campaign would have been very effective.
After all, much of the Italian gear wasn't so bad when used by the Dutch and British against the Japanese in 1942. L6/40 equipped tank brigades gutted the Japanese in Malay while Italian built torpedo planes and fighters proved effective in Dutch hands. Italian volunteer troops, "Eastern Legion" fought fairly well against USSR, although equipped by Germans for logistics reasons.
The contrarians point to the botched Italian intervention in Spain. The deployment of the ground force was botched at every turn, & it was defeated soundly by the Spainish. Th reasons for that went into the foundations of Facist policy and administration of the Italian military. The same core problems could be seen in the Ethiopian war. "Hollow Legions' Cervis examination of the Italian Army in the Mussolini era identifies many core weaknesses. There is also the infamous 1943 Brit/US joint report on the Italians as a possible ally. It identified the ground forces as a liability to the
Allies. Since it was written by several Allied officers who had spent months working directly with the Italians their observations on Logistics non preparation, mobilization problems, and weak officer selection/training seem valid.
As I pointed out before, since the Italian army was never tested in combat during WWII we will never know.
Allies. Since it was written by several Allied officers who had spent months working directly with the Italians their observations on Logistics non preparation, mobilization problems, and weak officer selection/training seem valid.
As I pointed out before, since the Italian army was never tested in combat during WWII we will never know.
Seperate from the military issues were the economic. Facist coorporate state economics proved not all that efficient as the 1930s & 40s progressed. While a lot of cash flowed into Italy during the war there were a number of failings. Oddly it became difficult to pay for food imports from the west and coal imports from Germany. In the final two years the Allies were effectively subsidizing the Facist government. Germany was doing the same in view that it was taking IOUs for coal imports. The post war economic crisis and turmoil had a lot to do with the end of these defacto subsidies, the reduction of industrial exports, and the exportation of the wartime profits rather than recapitolization of the industrial base. Even in the 1950s Italy had to hand over its Lybian oil to foreign companies because the ability of the Facist government to finance development was effectively zero.
Point here is the stress of war involvement on either side would have trashed the economy so much faster. As a German ally Italy would have turned into a resource sink in a few years.
Point here is the stress of war involvement on either side would have trashed the economy so much faster. As a German ally Italy would have turned into a resource sink in a few years.
CaliGuy
Banned
Italy's democratic transition was significantly helped by the fact that King Umberto II of Italy was a staunch democrat himself, though.
Which means the Italian economy is screwed, because it took every ounce of his skill to unf### the Italian economy during the great recession. Speaking of that you also advoid the forced Italianization, forced conversions, forced steralizations and other uglyness of the 1950 and 60s. The Italians were freaking ruthless about making sure that they kept their third coast at any cost.
Another thing would probally be a lower Italian birthrate, they still havent gotten rid of Mussolini's pronatalist policies. It would still be above replacment level because italys italy but they woulden't have the worries about over population that Italy has now.
Well if the Italians were as bad off at the time as all evidence suggest having them join Germany would run the risk of giving the Allies a backdoor into Europe. Italy would in effect become a third front for the Axis to defend as the Allies moved in from France and the Soviets moved in from the East.
The colonies are debatable, but Italian mainland is a virtual fortress. For starters, one cannot simply handwave the might of the Italian navy and airforce away. Even if they were grinded down through a costly campaign to create conditions where the Allies could even attempt a landing, any serious effort to invade and conquer Italy would be doomed to be a bloody and inconclusive grind northwards. And this campaign would have to be conducted through terrain where mountains, hills, small villages and river lines strongly favour the defender. Attempting something like this would make First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill's WW1-era obsession with Gallipoli look strategically brilliant in comparison.