What if Italy joined the Allies in WW2

What if Italy joined the Allies in 1939 or early 1940? [maybe the pods can be from WW1 to beginning of WW2].
Here is a possible timeline:
The pod is Mussolini not invading Ethiopia earliest and latest with land bribes or naval issues in 1939. Italy joins the Allies in 1939 or early 1940.
10 May 1940 to 22/25 July 1940: The blitzkrieg attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The result of Italy joining the Allies messes things up for Hitler and the Battle of Sedan and the British attack to cut off Rommel delays things for 7 to 10 days. On 12/15 June 1940, the Germans attack France and the French evacuate Paris. After a couple of battles, they surrender on 22/25 July 1940 when German tanks reach the Italian border.
1 August 1940: The Germans attack Italy. After a 20 to 25 days resistance, they break out into the Italian hinterland. By 12 September, they are at the Appenines and fight for about three weeks. After three weeks, they continue to Rome and take the city in late November 1940. The Germans then spend the winter at what is known as the Gustav Line otl, but lack of winter equipment forces them to stay on the defensive.
1 March 1941: When the Germans attack the line of defence, the Italians, reinforced with British troops, fight for three weeks. The Italians retreat after the line has been pierced and German troops reach the southern tip of mainland Italy on 15 April 1941. Italy surrenders on 20 April 1941, to the delight of Hitler celebrating his 52nd birthday, but Sardinia refuses.
5 May 1941: The Germans attack Sardinia. The island holds out until 20 May.
8 June 1941: The Germans launch Operation Barbarossa. The attacks goes slightly longer or shorter than otl. The Germans take Moscow, but couldn't take the last remains on time and the Soviets counterattack on 6 January 1942. In the meantime, the Germans take Leningrad in October 1941, but it couldn't help Operation Typhoon.

ghappy1000 said:

What if Italy joined the Allies in 1939 or early 1940? [maybe the pods can be from WW2 to beginning of WW2].

Click to expand...

I think this about sums it up:

At a prewar diplomatic conference, the Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop "sniffed" to Eden and Churchill that if there was another war, the Italians would be on Germany's side!
To which Churchill supposedly replied: "that seems only fair, we had them last time!"...

Click to expand...

I can think of no greater burden for the Allies than having to drag around the dead weight that is Italy.

Garrison said:

I think this about sums it up:



I can think of no greater burden for the Allies than having to drag around the dead weight that is Italy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. I assume that Italy fights on after losing Rome or Vichy France is still created in this tl and declaring war on Italy and Britain wins WW2 for the Allies. Otherwise, the Germans win in this case, I'm not sure.

We just had a thread discussing this:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=289636

Garrison said:

I can think of no greater burden for the Allies than having to drag around the dead weight that is Italy.

Click to expand...

The Germans who know have to attack a country largely made up of easily defensible terrain within range of the majority of their oil supply?

The Red said:

The Germans who know have to attack a country largely made up of easily defensible terrain within range of the majority of their oil supply?

Click to expand...

Why do the Germans have to attack? Italy is little or no threat to them and after they've polished off the French I imagine Italy will be only too willing to sue for peace.

Garrison said:

Why do the Germans have to attack? Italy is little or no threat to them and after they've polished off the French I imagine Italy will be only too willing to sue for peace.

Click to expand...

This assumes Italy does it, and the British would not insist on it. If the Germans want unconditional surrender, they'll attack Italy after France falls.

ghappy1000 said:

This assumes Italy does it, and the British would not insist on it. If the Germans want unconditional surrender, they'll attack Italy after France falls.

Click to expand...

The Germans were willing to throw the French a bone with Vichy I doubt they will be harsher with the Italians. As for the British insisting on the Italians attacking I suspect it would be a case of flogging a dead horse unless things go far better for the Allies in the Battle of France than they did OTL. Italy will sit on its hands until it sees a clear chance and if it doesn't come they will make peace as best they can.

Garrison said:

The Germans were willing to throw the French a bone with Vichy I doubt they will be harsher with the Italians. As for the British insisting on the Italians attacking I suspect it would be a case of flogging a dead horse unless things go far better for the Allies in the Battle of France than they did OTL. Italy will sit on its hands until it sees a clear chance and if it doesn't come they will make peace as best they can.

Click to expand...

I mean they keep on fighting, not attacking and then, there is possibly no way they would be more lenient on them without occupying parts of Italy.

Garrison said:

Why do the Germans have to attack? Italy is little or no threat to them and after they've polished off the French I imagine Italy will be only too willing to sue for peace.

Click to expand...

That presumes the Germans still do 'polish off' the French now that they have another large stretch of border to defend, even then they need to incapacitate Italy, whose airbases can threaten Ploesti and other sources of oil.

I recall this quote

At a dinner with Churchill, Ribbentrop had said that, in a future war with Britain, Germany would have the Italians on its side. Churchill, referring to Italy’s poor record in the First World War, responded with one of his devastating verbal flashes:
“That’s only fair – we had them last time.”

1942 to 1943 Eastern Front

Eastern Front:
February 1942: Demyansk happens as per otl.
May 1942: No Kharkov attack is launched. The Germans keep the 11th army with them. The Battles of Voronezh and Rostov becomes bloodier. They reach Stalingrad 4 weeks later than otl. The fighting is slightly less bloodier.
August 1942 to January 1942: Germans launch an attack into the Caucasus as per otl. They are slightly more successful and take Grozny, but couldn't reach Baku, the key centre of oil.
July to October 1942: No offensive launched by the Soviets against captured Leningrad.
19 November 1942 : Operation Uranus launched. The complete encirclement occurs on 25 November when the Soviets link up at Kalach.
December 1942 : Operation Mars fails as per otl. The Germans relieve Stalingrad, but break out to avoid being cut off in January 1943.
April to July 1942: The Germans of 20TH Mountain Army and Finnish troops attack and take Belomorsk and Murmansk. They later take Archangel.
September/October 1942: 20th Mountain Army and 18th Army sent to Caucasus. For the Germans, the Northern Front has been neutralized.
1 January 1943: Operation Saturn launched. The Sixth Army is trapped again, but the relief column stays until 15 January when threatened with encirclement, they withdraw. The extra resistance of a German army replacing a Hungarian one [used to take over the duties of the otl Italian army on the Eastern Front] delays the inevitable by 15 days. On 2 March 1943, the Sixth Army surrenders in Stalingrad despite a counterattack by Mainstein on 18 February because it can't reach the city on time.

Pacific

7 December 1941: The Japanese attack Pearl harbour as per otl, but with dive bombers instead of torpedo planes. Losses are about the same as per otl.
Other events not sure because of butterflies. I read that Pearl might still happen even without Taranto [or a failed one] but with dive bombers instead.
Or, the Pacific War scenario might be without Pearl Harbour [more likely].

It seems that the Germans are putting a lot of wear-and-tear in on their equipment, but not seeing a lot of failure for it. Likewise with their men.

All I can see is the Allies not having to spend 1943 invading and occupying Italy and can accelerate plans for D-Day. They can also have greater access to Italian ports and air fields to make the operations necessary against Germany. All in all it may shorten the war by six months or so, not much else.

redlightning said:

All I can see is the Allies not having to spend 1943 invading and occupying Italy and can accelerate plans for D-Day. They can also have greater access to Italian ports and air fields to make the operations necessary against Germany. All in all it may shorten the war by six months or so, not much else.

Click to expand...

More like 6 months longer as it would be more of a liability. In fact, some people actually said it would win Germany WW2. I do not 100% agree with them but it actually benefits Germany more than the Allies. And, the Allies might still want to liberate Italy in this tl, but 1st reason is more important.

I've some difficulties in understanding how is it possible to have a major POD in the late 1910s/early 1920s and 20 year later this ATL intersects again with OTL and everything starts to go on as per OTL (with a couple of differences: one is Italy in the allied camp - which appears to be the OP deus-ex-machina who wins WW2 for the Nazis - the other is a better Nazi performance in Russia which we must accept on faith). The cherry on the cake is that the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 (there should be a smilie for a double facepalm, just is not enough).

Compared with the above, positing that the Germans can break the Alpine front in 10-15 days of fighting is just ludicrous, and does not rate more than a . Mind, I am quite sure that tanks would not climb mountains very easily.

Back to the drawing board, and do some research. The first an necessary step is to at least sketch a timeline for Europe in the 1920s and 1930s: if UK, France and Italy manage to keep the Stresa front (or better its TTL facsimile) in reasonable shape it is almost assured that there would be no Anschluss and no militarization of the Ruhr. There would be no big war (unless it is one against the USSR) and the German rearmament is not assured at all (maybe the war against USSR comes in the 1950s, or there is an early war against Japan fuelled by the invasion of China, or either France or Italy go red: the possibilities are huge).

There is another alternative too: move everything to ASB.

LordKalvan said:

I've some difficulties in understanding how is it possible to have a major POD in the late 1910s/early 1920s and 20 year later this ATL intersects again with OTL and everything starts to go on as per OTL (with a couple of differences: one is Italy in the allied camp - which appears to be the OP deus-ex-machina who wins WW2 for the Nazis - the other is a better Nazi performance in Russia which we must accept on faith). The cherry on the cake is that the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 (there should be a smilie for a double facepalm, just is not enough).

Compared with the above, positing that the Germans can break the Alpine front in 10-15 days of fighting is just ludicrous, and does not rate more than a . Mind, I am quite sure that tanks would not climb mountains very easily.

Back to the drawing board, and do some research. The first an necessary step is to at least sketch a timeline for Europe in the 1920s and 1930s: if UK, France and Italy manage to keep the Stresa front (or better its TTL facsimile) in reasonable shape it is almost assured that there would be no Anschluss and no militarization of the Ruhr. There would be no big war (unless it is one against the USSR) and the German rearmament is not assured at all (maybe the war against USSR comes in the 1950s, or there is an early war against Japan fuelled by the invasion of China, or either France or Italy go red: the possibilities are huge).

There is another alternative too: move everything to ASB.

Click to expand...

Maybe a pod in 1938 to 1939 would help? And actually I even seen on Axis History Forum even with a pod as early as 1922, WW2 could still happen in 1939. One in Italian even had a 1917 pod. Plus, it looks more realistic [when it might not].
Perhaps the pod will be after the invasion of Ethiopia. This will still ensure that the Stresa Front collapses due to League of Nations intervention, but Mussolini still retains an anti German feeling. Or another pod could be death of Mussolini shortly [at most, less than a year before WW2] before WW2 or in the beginning and replacement by another Fascist leader. Or the land bribes or naval issues mentioned, although the latter two are unlikely.

Here's the thing, not only have you eliminated the North African front, you've eliminated the invasion scare, so a lot of projects that got cancelled OTL (such as the six-pounder) now don't get cancelled, both of which are real benefits for the British, since not only are they going to get better equipment sooner, they're also going to be able to funnel troops into the Far East, which is really going to hurt the Japanese.

Garrison said:

Why do the Germans have to attack? Italy is little or no threat to them and after they've polished off the French I imagine Italy will be only too willing to sue for peace.

Click to expand...

This is the problem, in OTL the German throw everything to the French but the need to cover another front mean an enourmous wrench in their entire plan, so the Fall of France it will almost assured to not happen.

Even if German plan succeed, their can't do nothing, the alps block their vaunted blietzgrieg, the mediterrean is basically an allied lake so they can't hope to block the supply line and the RAF can use italian base to attack the south flank of Germany.

And regarding Churchill famous quote, well honestly this is an AH site, we had played the Italy neutral or CP member scenarion thousands of time...and never end well for the Entente.