Italy remains neutral in World War II. What happens to its territories and colonies?

[Ricardolindo]

Say, that, Italy remained neutral in World War II. What would happen to its territories and colonies in post-war? I think, that, Italy's territories and colonies, Albania, Libya, the Dodecanese, Eritrea, Somalia and, especially, Ethiopia, would be a very big problem in its foreign relations in the post-war. While the regime would be tolerated by the West for its anti-communism, I believe, that, the decolonization issue would be a very problem. I suspect that the Fascist regime would be unwilling to give up those territories and colonies and the international community, including the West, obviously, wouldn't accept that. So, what would happen? Is there a chance of an Italian Colonial War, akin to the Portuguese Colonial War? Would the Soviet Union and the USA support independence movements in the Italian territories and colonies or would they diplomatically pressure Italy to give them up? Libya could, doubtless, become Italian majority in a couple of decades due to its small/low population and its oil. How would the interntional community, including the West, respond to such an Italian settlement in Libya? And, would the Dodecanese ever have become part of Greece?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Something akin to the Portuguese Colonial War as you say.

The West makes token protests about the worst excesses and turns a blind eye to pretty much everything else, whilst making conciliatory noises about decolonisation but essentially doing nothing as the regime is stridently anti-communist.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Something akin to the Portuguese Colonial War as you say.

The West makes token protests about the worst excesses and turns a blind eye to pretty much everything else, whilst making conciliatory noises about decolonisation but essentially doing nothing as the regime is stridently anti-communist.

Actually, in our timeline, the USA supported independence movements against its anti-communist ally Portugal and pressured other anti-communist allies to give up their colonies. Why wouldn't the USA do the same to Italy? The USA pretty much forced decolonization, in our timeline.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Actually, in our timeline, the USA supported independence movements against its anti-communist ally Portugal and pressured other anti-communist allies to give up their colonies. Why wouldn't the USA do the same to Italy? The USA pretty much forced decolonization, in our timeline.

Oh they would. It just wouldn’t be overt anti-Portuguese support or public statements.

The Americans did it against every colonial Power whilst publicly hedging their bets or staying quiet when challenged in the UN for example.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Oh they would. It just wouldn’t be overt anti-Portuguese support or public statements.

The Americans did it against every colonial Power whilst publicly hedging their bets or staying quiet when challenged in the UN for example.

I suppose you meant "anti-Italian", not "anti-Portuguese".
Regardless, there were anti-Portuguese sanctions by the UN during the Colonial War that must have been approved by the USA or, otherwise, they wouldn't have passed, so the anti-colonial actions were partly public.

 

[ennobee]

Historically there were two big waves of decolonization. The first one around 1946-1949, in the aftermath of WWII and the second one around 1960-1962. A victorious or neutral Italy could probably get through the first wave unharmed. But seeing that even France and England either lost or released most their territories in the early 1960's, it would be hard-pressed to hold on to theirs. Especially as though Italy still being 'fascist' in name Mussolini would now be an old token statesman, a symbolic figurehead with no real power (if he hasn't died of old age already). So the final decisions will have to be made by a bunch of younger carreer politicians, who might well prefer independent colonies to full Italian citizen rights for all it's inhabitants, even the ones 'of color'. Third, even with NATO membership, the Italian military of 1960 will be a third rate force at best and I doubt it will be able to take on any serious rebel force for a sustained period.

 

[marathag]

I think Italy would be able to hold on to Libya and Albania, no problem, but Ethiopia would be a running sore after WWII, as it was before.

As far as being third rate, that was enough to crush those Colonies in the first place. Large amounts of Soviet and WP aid to Rebels would get US aid in return

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I suppose you meant "anti-Italian", not "anti-Portuguese".

Yes, my mistake

 

[Ricardolindo]

Historically there were two big waves of decolonization. The first one around 1946-1949, in the aftermath of WWII and the second one around 1960-1962. A victorious or neutral Italy could probably get through the first wave unharmed. But seeing that even France and England either lost or released most their territories in the early 1960's, it would be hard-pressed to hold on to theirs. Especially as though Italy still being 'fascist' in name Mussolini would now be an old token statesman, a symbolic figurehead with no real power (if he hasn't died of old age already). So the final decisions will have to be made by a bunch of younger carreer politicians, who might well prefer independent colonies to full Italian citizen rights for all it's inhabitants, even the ones 'of color'. Third, even with NATO membership, the Italian military of 1960 will be a third rate force at best and I doubt it will be able to take on any serious rebel force for a sustained period.

Portugal was able to take on the rebel forces in Angola and, to a lesser extent, Mozambique. Why wouldn't Italy manage to do so?

I think Italy would be able to hold on to Libya and Albania, no problem, but Ethiopia would be a running sore after WWII, as it was before.

As far as being third rate, that was enough to crush those Colonies in the first place. Large amounts of Soviet and WP aid to Rebels would get US aid in return

I can understand Italy keeping Libya but are you sure, that, Italy could keep Albania? I think, that, eventually, the Albanians will demand independence.
Also, I am sure that, as in the Portuguese Colonial War, the USA and the Soviet Union would support different independence movements.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I can understand Italy keeping Libya but are you sure, that, Italy could keep Albania? I think, that, eventually, the Albanians will demand independence.
Also, I am sure that, as in the Portuguese Colonial War, the USA and the Soviet Union would support different independence movements.

Maybe a puppet regime in Albania? A friendly government allowing basing rights in Tirana?

 

[ennobee]

Portugal was able to take on the rebel forces in Angola and, to a lesser extent, Mozambique. Why wouldn't Italy manage to do so?

Portugal only had fascist Spain as its neighbor, so it could affort to send every young man it had to 'service' in the colonies. OTL the Portuguese revolution of 74 broke out after even with all of the national army fighting in Angola, they still had to prolong the obligatory military service from two to five and possibly even seven years. So many of their youth reckoned that if they had to fight a civil war for seven years, they could just as well do it at home....

Depending on how WWII turns out without an Italian front in Greece and the Balkans, Italy would find the Russian army waiting for them right across the Adriatic sea, so even being more populous then Portugal it could never commit so many troops for such extended time. Hell, even France could not with their involvement in Algeria.

Still, I think Albania will become independent at about the same time as French Indochina to say 1946-1949. not with a Communist Yugoslavia at its borders

 

[SwampTiger]

Does Italy make the Greek error in TTL?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Does Italy make the Greek error in TTL?

I highly doubt so, why would a neutral Italy embark in such a campaign, especially if it wanted to remain neutral?

 

[skarosianlifeform]

I highly doubt so, why would a neutral Italy embark in such a campaign, especially if it wanted to remain neutral?

Technically the Italians might invade Greece while Britain is busy with the BoB. Then, London would grumble but not do anything more as they prefer a neutral Italy rather than another front in Egypt.

An invasion of Greece might actually succeed, as this Italy would be focused on that goal.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Neutral Italy is bound to be a major player of ATL United Nations, with veto power and all, so it's unlikely the international community would be able to do much.

Settlement in the Dodecanese and Libya ends up successful, especially in the case of a successful attack on Greece. That is likely to be Italy's eventual hotbed of long-lasting rebellion, as is Ethiopia. Other than that, it depends on ATL developments.

 

[Dominic]

It's hard to see Italy successfully getting away with invading Greece. Even if this does not provoke the Wallies, post-war Italy is going to face enormous pressure to cease its imperialist ways. I could certainly see both the US and USSR putting pressure on the Italians to evacuate Greece post-war. As for its other colonies, Italy is likely able to swamp Libya and perhaps Albania, but as already stated is going to struggle to hold on to Ethiopia. When Fascism collapses Ethiophia probably becomes independent again, if not sooner.

 

[History Learner]

Italy and Eritrea end up absorbed, Ethiopia and Somalia eventually go their own way but Italy indirectly controls them in much the same way France does its former possessions. The lack of Ogaden Wars and Italians providing investments into them could see them better off in the long run, even despite the initial brutal treatment the Ethiopians in particular received.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Neutral Italy is bound to be a major player of ATL United Nations, with veto power and all, so it's unlikely the international community would be able to do much.

Why would Italy have veto power? I don't think Italy would be powerful enough to have an UN Security Council seat. And, I don't see why any other country would want it to have an UN Security Council seat. The Soviets, obviously, would be against it and the USA would have no interest in it because they already have a seat and France and the UK also do.

 

[Arlos]

Italy would 100% keep Albania, libya and dodecanese, short of an actual war, nobody can do anything about it.
Now, Ethiopia and the Territories around it on the other hand....it would be very, very bloody.

 

[Michele]

Neutral Italy is bound to be a major player of ATL United Nations, with veto power and all,

No. Just no.

The original meaning of the United Nations was the nations that fought united against the Axis. Pointedly, the countries that are a suitable OTL comparison to this ATL Italy, i.e. Spain and Portugal, joined in 1955.

And the five countries that, to date, have a permanent seat in the Security Council and therefore a veto power are the top five powers that defeated the Axis. Even minor allies of those powers, say Belgium or Greece, have no such power. Even the parts of the British Commowealth that were there, provided the British with invaluable help, and are now independent, say Canada or Australia, have no permanent seat.