At the close of WW1, how could Italy have become a relevant military power?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Getting back to the OP

....
So, what's a scenario where the Kingdom of Italy maintains military relevancy through the interwar and into ww2? How do they do it? What are they lacking in particular?

I agree with the proposals for a smaller navy & focus on aircraft development. A local or regional naval defense of submarines and mix of torpedo boats, destroyers and a few light cruisers would suffice. Italy had a skilled & capable aircraft industry, even if production capability was small.

Keeping the army focused on quality vs size could improve things fiscally as well. The final & most important point would be to sort out the command & leadership problems in all the armed forces. The corruption and politics of the Facist state crippled Italys military. Getting that set aside is a major improvement whatever else happens.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Does anyone know where I could find information on the forces Britain had in the Mediterranean?

 

[jmc247]

Italy allies with Germany in the early to mid 20s and has an officer training program with German officers coming to Italy to help them train and Germans help them build factories to make tanks and other things they are banned from having that Germany 'unofficially keeps' a certain percentage for themselves if war breaks out. When the war comes about Italy collaborates closer with Germany as well as not making its army too big.

That is how you get a more effective Italian Army by the time WW2 rolls around.

 

[Riain]

Making Italy a serious military contender is both very easy and very hard all at once.

Italy was the smallest of the great powers, but like Japan and unlike France Italy only aspired to regional rather than global power which allows her to concentrate her resources to rival almost any other power, in regional terms under most conditions. If it were me I'd focus on balanced armed forced of moderate size with the highest quality training and equipment possible. If it is not financially possible to equip and train a certain force level then Italy should decrease numbers to increase quality. Easy!

But this of course would not be in the character of Italy in the early 20th century. Italy was perhaps the most provincial and backward of the post WW1 great powers and lacked the natural resources that other great powers built their national power on. So making the Italian military a high quality force is extremely hard for social and economic reasons. Hard!

 

[Redhand]

The Moose should have never declared war, but follow what Franco did:

Be a Neutral, willing to take bribes from both Allies and Germany.

Jump on the Allied Bandwagon as soon as as Nazi Germany is in its death throes in 1944, offer the Italian Navy against Japan

Take Seat UN Security Council in 1945

Bennie is seen as the greatest Italian Leader since Garibaldi

Nazi Germany without having to send tons of men south and losing almost a half million in Africa and Italy, as well as not having to spend forces on policing and trying to hold Greece because of Mussolini's blunders, and being able to consolidate a better defense in France and have more men to fight Russia with, is going to do a lot better. Not having the Luftwaffe get grinded into dust fighting futilely in the south is also going to really help.

The US Army in particular, but also the British Army, learned many really important lessons on a doctrinal and tactical level equally about how to fight the Germans while fighting against Italian/German forces in Africa. They would have no fronts whatsoever to fight them in until D-Day really without Italy being in the war. The Vichy French might fold quicker, yes, but the manpower saved is well worth it. Also consider that the Germans can take many Italian "volunteers" just as Mussolini lent out to Franco. It would make them unpopular, but not driven to the point of war by any party involved.

I think the Germans do a lot better without Mussolini.

This might of course make the Japanese do a lot worse, with no African front to suck up Commonwealth forces in early 1942.

 

[jmc247]

Nazi Germany without having to send tons of men south and losing almost a half million in Africa and Italy, as well as not having to spend forces on policing and trying to hold Greece because of Mussolini's blunders, and being able to consolidate a better defense in France and have more men to fight Russia with, is going to do a lot better. Not having the Luftwaffe get grinded into dust fighting futilely in the south is also going to really help.

The US Army in particular, but also the British Army, learned many really important lessons on a doctrinal and tactical level equally about how to fight the Germans while fighting against Italian/German forces in Africa. They would have no fronts whatsoever to fight them in until D-Day really without Italy being in the war. The Vichy French might fold quicker, yes, but the manpower saved is well worth it. Also consider that the Germans can take many Italian "volunteers" just as Mussolini lent out to Franco. It would make them unpopular, but not driven to the point of war by any party involved.

I think the Germans do a lot better without Mussolini.

This might of course make the Japanese do a lot worse, with no African front to suck up Commonwealth forces in early 1942.

The Japanese might not even strike if the bulk of the British Army isn't tied up in North Africa. Heck, Hitler might listen to Rommel's advice in 1940 and give the French back enough to get them to side in the war with the Axis. He said he didn't want to piss of Italy which is why he said he choose not to.

Huge potential butterflies from no Italy in the war.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Nazi Germany without having to send tons of men south and losing almost a half million in Africa and Italy, as well as not having to spend forces on policing and trying to hold Greece because of Mussolini's blunders, and being able to consolidate a better defense in France and have more men to fight Russia with, is going to do a lot better. Not having the Luftwaffe get grinded into dust fighting futilely in the south is also going to really help.

The US Army in particular, but also the British Army, learned many really important lessons on a doctrinal and tactical level equally about how to fight the Germans while fighting against Italian/German forces in Africa. They would have no fronts whatsoever to fight them in until D-Day really without Italy being in the war. The Vichy French might fold quicker, yes, but the manpower saved is well worth it. Also consider that the Germans can take many Italian "volunteers" just as Mussolini lent out to Franco. It would make them unpopular, but not driven to the point of war by any party involved.

I think the Germans do a lot better without Mussolini.

This might of course make the Japanese do a lot worse, with no African front to suck up Commonwealth forces in early 1942.

Germany doing a lot better is unlikely. Russia's a lost cause, and while it means that Germany has more men to throw it's just delaying the inevitable. It also means the British and Americans have more men for Barbarossa and an earlier Invasion of Europe.

 

[marathag]

Germany doing a lot better is unlikely. Russia's a lost cause, and while it means that Germany has more men to throw it's just delaying the inevitable.

More men and tanks could even make the logistics situation worse.

Rommel ran his two panzer divisions and two motorized infantry divisions on transports captured from the British, and confiscated from the Italians.

Having Rommel around won't get the railroads regauged any faster, and he won't shine there as the 'Plains Fox', just another Corps commander, maybe a Group commander in time.

Thats a big PR loss to the Nazis in itself.

He would be no more known than Hermann Hoth.

 

[jmc247]

More men and tanks could even make the logistics situation worse.

Rommel ran his two panzer divisions and two motorized infantry divisions on transports captured from the British, and confiscated from the Italians.

Having Rommel around won't get the railroads regauged any faster, and he won't shine there as the 'Plains Fox', just another Corps commander, maybe a Group commander in time.

Thats a big PR loss to the Nazis in itself.

He would be no more known than Hermann Hoth.

With the extra troops, planes and trucks from no North Africa adventure they could carve out a mini AG for him for the attack on Leningrad. On that score it would be a positive for Hitler as no one moved his troops faster even with major logistical bottlenecks.

Here is the problem for Hitler... Rommel would go apeshit to have SS killing hundreds of thousands of people behind his lines. There was a reason why Hitler never sent him to fight in the East.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Nazi Germany without having to send tons of men south and losing almost a half million in Africa and Italy, as well as not having to spend forces on policing and trying to hold Greece because of Mussolini's blunders, and being able to consolidate a better defense in France and have more men to fight Russia with, is going to do a lot better. Not having the Luftwaffe get grinded into dust fighting futilely in the south is also going to really help.

The US Army in particular, but also the British Army, learned many really important lessons on a doctrinal and tactical level equally about how to fight the Germans while fighting against Italian/German forces in Africa. They would have no fronts whatsoever to fight them in until D-Day really without Italy being in the war. The Vichy French might fold quicker, yes, but the manpower saved is well worth it. Also consider that the Germans can take many Italian "volunteers" just as Mussolini lent out to Franco. It would make them unpopular, but not driven to the point of war by any party involved.

I think the Germans do a lot better without Mussolini.

This might of course make the Japanese do a lot worse, with no African front to suck up Commonwealth forces in early 1942.

Now that I think about it, the effects of a neutral Italy on the German war effort isn't what this thread was about. But I'll just say this. People forget that the Africa Corps was a Corps. The bulk of the forces in Africa and the Mediterranean were Italian.

 

[marathag]

With the extra troops, planes and trucks from no North Africa adventure they could carve out a mini AG for him for the attack on Leningrad. On that score it would be a positive for Hitler as no one moved his troops faster even with major logistical bottlenecks.

In a way, he was like Patton.

Stealing from the Italians slowed what they could do. Rob Peter to pay Paul

Are you going to have Rommel hijack trucks and fuel from the rest of Panzergruppe 4? Soviets were doing scorched Earth

He has Corp of his own, not an Armygroup.

Four more divisions are not enough to take Leningrad, and even if they do take it, the Germans then have to make some effort in feeding the Million+ Civilians in the area, something they really didn't want to do in OTL

September 22: Hitler issues Directive No. 1601 ordering "St. Petersburg must be erased from the face of the Earth" and "we have no interest in saving lives of civilian population"

 

[Germaniac]

Four more divisions are not enough to take Leningrad, and even if they do take it, the Germans then have to make some effort in feeding the Million+ Civilians in the area, something they really didn't want to do in OTL

I'm not sure feeding the inhabitants was a real top priority for the Germans had they taken the city.

 

[marathag]

Now that I think about it, the effects of a neutral Italy on the German war effort isn't what this thread was about.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

How much Hitler trusts Italy to stay neutral, is something to consider

Hitler historically backstabbed every other neutral except for Switzerland.

How much will each side fortify the Dolomites, even while trading?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

How much Hitler trusts Italy to stay neutral, is something to consider

Hitler historically backstabbed every other neutral except for Switzerland.

How much will each side fortify the Dolomites, even while trading?

Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey. Anyways, I don't think an Italy with a stronger military necessarily should stay neutral.

 

[marathag]

Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey. Anyways, I don't think an Italy with a stronger military necessarily should stay neutral.

Neutrals that were close to greater Germany.

Invading Spain would never happen, as with Turkey.

I'm just not seeing a way to get an Italy with a Military that would be of much use against Germany after 1938

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Neutrals that were close to greater Germany.

Invading Spain would never happen, as with Turkey.

I'm just not seeing a way to get an Italy with a Military that would be of much use against Germany after 1938

Spain has a border with France. Invading it wasn't completely unlikey. Even Turkey was whithin range as the Germans were in the Balkans.

The Italians were trained for alpine warfare, and a blitzkriegs going to be hell through the alps, but why would they go to war with Germany in the first place?

 

[lukedalton]

.

How much will each side fortify the Dolomites, even while trading?

Italy already fortified his border with Germany...just to be sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Wall

 

[Mario Rossi]

Neutrals that were close to greater Germany.

Invading Spain would never happen, as with Turkey.

I'm just not seeing a way to get an Italy with a Military that would be of much use against Germany after 1938

The main issue is that both sides are going to find huge problems in mounting a successful offensive. Germany, unless they manage somehow to gain access from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, lacks a suitable terrain for its blitzkrieg war and the medium highness/extension of the Italian Alps combined with the lack of any kind of beach for marines force (makes any Norway-style approach suicide; they may try to attack with traditional infantry, but, again, mountains always favor defenders. The RE is technologically inferior to the Heer, has poor logistics and Austrian Alps are not going to be an easier environment to lead offensives.

 

[Mr.brightside]

What Italy needs is a large force of twin engine torpedo bombers and more importantly a long range escort fighter. With such a force the idea isn't to combat the British. Its to get the best deal for staying neutral.

 

[Mr.brightside]

Neutrals that were close to greater Germany.

Invading Spain would never happen, as with Turkey.

I'm just not seeing a way to get an Italy with a Military that would be of much use against Germany after 1938

Really? Even say in 1943? That's when the Italian military would finish its modernization program. Thing will have turned on the Axis by then. Japan will fall much faster and re the biggest losers in this TL. Germany will be under allied bombing and struggling with the Soviets. Stalin will still be demanding a second front be opened up against Germany. The Wallies aren't ready for Normandy. That leaves Norway or maybe southern France. Not too appealing. In short who ever is leading Italy in this TL has some good bargaining chips.