AH Question: Prospect of a German-Italian War before World War II

Well, of course I meant 1934. It was the only moment OTL that Germany and Italy could face each other.

In the 1936, Mussolini had already shifted his opinion on Hitler, mainly due the ill advised Ethiopia invasion and the following sanctions.

If the Duce had steered clear of Abyssinia, the so called Stresa Front would have been active and this would have raised the possibilities of an allied intervention against Germany.

Even if we esclude a direct intervention (GB and France weren't really eager to face another war, to put it mildly), the allies could lend enough money and resources to Italy to outlast Nazi Germany, in what would become a slow war through the mountains.

And Hitler needed quick victories to feed his war machine.

A German/Italian war that Germany lost would have interesting consequences too. I had not given this much thought before.
 
Possible, but unlikely. Hitler was too shrewd a politician to screw up his relationship with his only real European ally over something as insignificant as that. What if Yugoslavia and Greece goes fascist voluntarily, and are able to replace Italy as Germany's ally?
Greece was essentially fascist, it was under the dictatorship of Ioannis Metaxas which King George II endorsed. The good thing about Metaxas was that, while he used the Megali Idea as a good piece of propaganda, he was very pragmatic over foreign policy. Due to Hitler's friendship with Mussolini Metaxas leant towards a Franco-British alliance, but without such a friendship we may see him favour a Greco-German Alliance.
 
In the thought process which inspired this thread I did not so much want Italy neutral as I did neutralized. In other words, the Germans beat Italy into becoming another Hungary, Romania, or even a slightly more belligerent Spain, albeit one which has probably ceded border areas to the Reich. Thus, the Italians are not neutral, but at the same time, no real effort is made by the Germans to bail the Italians out of idiotic invasions of Egypt or Greece, the latter of which could be coopted into the Axis, perhaps bought off with southern Albania.

Sorry, but your plan would lead to even a quicker german defeat than OTL.

Italian forces in Africa were mainly infantry based, meaning that in desert warfare a highly mobile force even if smaller (like the british one, for example) could isolate and beat piecemeal the italian army. Without german support, the british would go on isolating and capturing the italians strongpoints.

Now, without Mussolini (I really can't see him staying into power with any degree of free decision in your scenario) there would have not been any invasion of Greece. This means that our ATL operation compass goes on without problems and the British kicks the fascist out of Africa in early '41. Besides they are probably able to take the Dodecanese, too. So mr Churchill now have a nice airfield (or better: a location where to build a proper airfield) which is damn near Ploesti...

At this point, I would not rule out a british attempt to invade Sicily. Successful or not, consider that from this moment on Italy is a ticking bomb. The first defeat would probably start a civil war, which would bring the front right to the german border far sooner than OTL.

The Germans would have been better off (as far as what they wanted to achieve) if forces-Italian and German, but especially the latter, had been used more uniformly in the East and not bogged down in worthless Balkan or North African pursuits.

You can achieve this by having a neutral Italy. Mussolini would probably send some volunteers against Russia, just like Franco did, and Germany could use the whole army (but the occupation troops) in the east.
Of course this frees a lot of allies troops too...
 
Sorry, but your plan would lead to even a quicker german defeat than OTL.

Italian forces in Africa were mainly infantry based, meaning that in desert warfare a highly mobile force even if smaller (like the british one, for example) could isolate and beat piecemeal the italian army. Without german support, the british would go on isolating and capturing the italians strongpoints.

Now, without Mussolini (I really can't see him staying into power with any degree of free decision in your scenario) there would have not been any invasion of Greece. This means that our ATL operation compass goes on without problems and the British kicks the fascist out of Africa in early '41. Besides they are probably able to take the Dodecanese, too. So mr Churchill now have a nice airfield (or better: a location where to build a proper airfield) which is damn near Ploesti...

At this point, I would not rule out a british attempt to invade Sicily. Successful or not, consider that from this moment on Italy is a ticking bomb. The first defeat would probably start a civil war, which would bring the front right to the german border far sooner than OTL.



You can achieve this by having a neutral Italy. Mussolini would probably send some volunteers against Russia, just like Franco did, and Germany could use the whole army (but the occupation troops) in the east.
Of course this frees a lot of allies troops too...
With Italy being neutral, there wouldn't be any Germans in Africa!
 
With Italy being neutral, there wouldn't be any Germans in Africa!

The first part of my post tried to develop Wendell's idea, where a subdued Italy is anyway allied with the germans and one of the belligerants.

In the thought process which inspired this thread I did not so much want Italy neutral as I did neutralized. In other words, the Germans beat Italy into becoming another Hungary, Romania, or even a slightly more belligerent Spain, albeit one which has probably ceded border areas to the Reich. Thus, the Italians are not neutral, but at the same time, no real effort is made by the Germans to bail the Italians out of idiotic invasions of Egypt or Greece, the latter of which could be coopted into the Axis, perhaps bought off with southern Albania.

Emphasis mine.
 
Sorry, but your plan would lead to even a quicker german defeat than OTL.

Italian forces in Africa were mainly infantry based, meaning that in desert warfare a highly mobile force even if smaller (like the british one, for example) could isolate and beat piecemeal the italian army. Without german support, the british would go on isolating and capturing the italians strongpoints.
So, Britain takes the time to invade Italian territories in Africa even though the Italians are going along with the Germans, but may or may not have made war on France and Britain?

Now, without Mussolini (I really can't see him staying into power with any degree of free decision in your scenario) there would have not been any invasion of Greece. This means that our ATL operation compass goes on without problems and the British kicks the fascist out of Africa in early '41. Besides they are probably able to take the Dodecanese, too. So mr Churchill now have a nice airfield (or better: a location where to build a proper airfield) which is damn near Ploesti...
I'm assuming it's Farinacci running the show after Italy's loss to Germany. Now, why the the British in the Dodecanese if Greece is pro-Berlin, and gained from the Italian war, but has not made war on Britain, France, or Russia? This is my fault; I should have specifically said that the Dodecanese would be a clear Greek gain if Greece was enticed by Germany to get in on the Italian war.

At this point, I would not rule out a british attempt to invade Sicily. Successful or not, consider that from this moment on Italy is a ticking bomb. The first defeat would probably start a civil war, which would bring the front right to the german border far sooner than OTL.
Conversely, the Axis may still have made a play here for Malta, albeit likely without success.

You can achieve this by having a neutral Italy. Mussolini would probably send some volunteers against Russia, just like Franco did, and Germany could use the whole army (but the occupation troops) in the east.
Of course this frees a lot of allies troops too...

The problem with a neutral Italy is that he could get into the war later, and Germany then has a southern border to secure.
 
The first part of my post tried to develop Wendell's idea, where a subdued Italy is anyway allied with the germans and one of the belligerants.



Emphasis mine.

My fault. I meant that nonbelligerence toward Britain and/or France was a possibility. Thus, Italy would not be neutral, but might also not be belligerent, or could be only selectively belligerent. For example, did Hungary and Romania declare war on Britain and France in our timeline?
 
If the Duce had steered clear of Abyssinia, the so called Stresa Front would have been active and this would have raised the possibilities of an allied intervention against Germany.

Even if we esclude a direct intervention (GB and France weren't really eager to face another war, to put it mildly), the allies could lend enough money and resources to Italy to outlast Nazi Germany, in what would become a slow war through the mountains.

And Hitler needed quick victories to feed his war machine.

The Italians would also benefit from the fact that they had a large force of very good mountain warfare specialists. Really, the best I could see the German managing is a quick occupation of the Pannonian Plain and then a stalemate in the mountains.

Also, if Germany still goes for it's OTL army buildup, it has the issue of Blitzkrieg not being terribly effective in mountainous terrain. If Germany builds an army suited to kicking the Italians out of the Alps, that will probably mean less mechanization than OTL.
 
So, Britain takes the time to invade Italian territories in Africa even though the Italians are going along with the Germans, but may or may not have made war on France and Britain?

Why not? If Italy is just a german puppet, the problem for the british is not IF Italy is going to war against them, but WHEN. Even if Churchill waits till the invasion of Russia, this means only more time for the british to get ready. Besides, once operation Barbarossa starts to roll and Stalin is firmly in the allied side, it would imperative for the british to try to light the german pression up on the soviets by opening a second front.

I'm assuming it's Farinacci running the show after Italy's loss to Germany. Now, why the the British in the Dodecanese if Greece is pro-Berlin, and gained from the Italian war, but has not made war on Britain, France, or Russia? This is my fault; I should have specifically said that the Dodecanese would be a clear Greek gain if Greece was enticed by Germany to get in on the Italian war.

Greece on the german side during the Italo-german war pre WW2? Well, this changes things a lot. I made my considerations sticking on OTL as much as possible. It seems that you have quite a complex scenario in mind, maybe you should write down a timeline, just to avoid misunderstandings.

Conversely, the Axis may still have made a play here for Malta, albeit likely without success.

I've always thought that the best chance to capture Malta would have been by a surprise attack by Italy on the eve of declaration of war, a la Pearl Harbour. OTL, Italy had the means to pull such operation (even alone), IF someone had planned war BEFORE declaring (that crimped the italian war effort a bit...)

The problem with a neutral Italy is that he could get into the war later, and Germany then has a southern border to secure.

Well, you have this problem even if Italy is a belligerant.

You could try by having a civil war in Italy like the spanish one, that would leave the country too weak to be involved in WW2, or changing radically italian history and have Italy stick to a strict neutrality policy, like Switzerland.
 
Good points all.

Why not? If Italy is just a german puppet, the problem for the british is not IF Italy is going to war against them, but WHEN. Even if Churchill waits till the invasion of Russia, this means only more time for the british to get ready. Besides, once operation Barbarossa starts to roll and Stalin is firmly in the allied side, it would imperative for the british to try to light the german pression up on the soviets by opening a second front.
True.


Greece on the german side during the Italo-german war pre WW2? Well, this changes things a lot. I made my considerations sticking on OTL as much as possible. It seems that you have quite a complex scenario in mind, maybe you should write down a timeline, just to avoid misunderstandings.
Like I said, I should have been clearer on this point:eek: Honestly, I'm researching for another, far earlier timeline at the moment, but my thoughts in this thread are loosely inspired by TheNordicBrit's thread here.

I've always thought that the best chance to capture Malta would have been by a surprise attack by Italy on the eve of declaration of war, a la Pearl Harbour. OTL, Italy had the means to pull such operation (even alone), IF someone had planned war BEFORE declaring (that crimped the italian war effort a bit...)
That is an interesting idea.

Well, you have this problem even if Italy is a belligerant.
True, but the Germans will have gotten something out of their fairweather ally first though, theoretically.

You could try by having a civil war in Italy like the spanish one, that would leave the country too weak to be involved in WW2, or changing radically italian history and have Italy stick to a strict neutrality policy, like Switzerland.
Interesting, but that probably causes too many butterflies.

Incidentally, I missed this thread before...
 
Top