AHC: Italy goes to war with Germany in 1934

So I read reading about how Mussolini and Hitler nearly went to war over a Nazi attempted coup in Austria at the time. What would have taken for it to happen and what would've been the consequences? Would the French try and join in on it?
 
OTL France and Britain got cold feet about the Stresa front and Mussolini
didn't want to go alone.
So, this is ASB unless at least one of the above joins in.
 
Wait a moment, Stresa was in 1935, not 1934.

Other than that, Italy might win this, no matter how many jokes people make about their army. The Reichswehr/Wehrmacht was way too weak yet.
 
It would be a dirty affair with internal turmoil in Austria, the Austrian army battling the Germans along the Danube until the Italians can bolster their forces (Italian Air Force would dominate over the Germans who haven't gone far into building a Luftwaffe yet), and mountain warfare around Innsbruck. Germany would send SA units as cannonfodder and try to build up the Reichswehr as it goes along, throwing all Versailles-restrictions out of the window.

Would be interesting if France re-militarizes the Rheinland on their terms just because they could... It would also be interesting if a bloody war of attrition like that would have repercussions on the Saar-plebiscite.
 
Italy would win hands down. One of The biggest problems that Italy had was that the war came right in the middle of The replacement cycle. Mid-30s they were at their relative prime.
 
One thing puzzles me - what would the war aims of Italy apart from securing their Austrian ally? That would probably be easy....although costly, especially if the Nazis are going berserk and simply would not stop fighting.
Restoring the Weimar Republic or the monarchy don't seem like something Mussolini would bleed for. Would an attempt at creating a "second Austria" with an independant Bavaria be an option?
 
I wonder, Mussolini might get into this idea if the course of the war gives him a Czechoslovakian alliance and support. Czechoslovakia would likely feel safer if there were a Bavarian (and mybe Saxon and maybe Silesian) secession from the 3rd Reich. Maybe the Poles would take the opportunity to force demilitarization on east Prussia or all Germany to the Oder-Neisse.
 

Archibald

Banned
whatever crush Hitler and butterflies the shoah and the fall of France, can't be bad. So let's Mussolini and Hitler destroy each others.
 
I agree that the humiliation of a defeat suffered at the hands of Austrians (!!!) and Italians (!!!!!) would discredit Nazism as we know it. Something we haven't thought of: the Reichswehr leadership was not yet neutered as it was by late 1939.
Seeing their instrument slaughtered might also lead to a coup.

The result might be a less insane, but more stable authoritarian Germany alongside Austro-Fascism and Italian Fascism. All three regimes might in such a scenario last much longer, similar to the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal.

Shoah and fall of France would in any case get butterflied one way or the other, I agree.
 
One thing puzzles me - what would the war aims of Italy apart from securing their Austrian ally? That would probably be easy....although costly, especially if the Nazis are going berserk and simply would not stop fighting.
Restoring the Weimar Republic or the monarchy don't seem like something Mussolini would bleed for. Would an attempt at creating a "second Austria" with an independant Bavaria be an option?

Probably just that, keep Austria in the italian sphere of influence...and not having Germany with a direct border with Italy; this are both very important strategic objective for any italian goverment at the time. Said that any conflict of this kind will butterfly away the invasion of Ethiopia due to the necessity of concentrate assets in the north and the fact that this kind of victorious war will be enough to prop up the regime.
 
Note: at the time of the National-Socialist putsch in Austria, Hindenburg was still alive (he died August 2nd) and Hitler was technically NOT head of state yet. This also means that the German soldiers had not yet taken the infamous oath on Adolf Hitler.

Thus, a military coup could still occur with the legal cover of Hindenburg simply firing Hitler and declaring e.g. Blomberg (or perhaps Göring if they can persuade him and want to split the Nazis) to be Reichskanzler.
 
While I agree the Holocaust would not happen as we know it, we still will see anti-semitism of which we haven't seen in OTL in Europe since 1945. And without the horror of the Holocaust we are talking about these anti-semitic exiles and seizures of property that European nations had done for a thousand years continue, along with the fact there wouldn't be an Israel for us (I'm a Jew) to run to in times of horror or persecution, or to look out for Jewish rights around the world (Israel diplomatically often gets involved in local problems around the world, such as the Swiss hotel that put up a sign saying Jews couldn't use the pool which happened this year). So, while yes a TL where millions of my family doesn't die is great to think about, we do have to think realistically about how it's not going to be a rosy sunshine filled TL for Jewish history either, from 1945 on this ATL Jews are going to be treated worse in Europe than OTL Jews have been. And this will also mean the same for American Jews, who are probably going to be a smaller numerical group than in OTL due to greater assimilation (without the Holocaust as a defining moment German Jews in America are going to assimilate quickly and be more secular compared to Russian Jews in America as they did prior to the 1930s, plus more discrimination and less sympathy).

In OTL Stalin and the Soviet Union was supportive and strong to recognize Israel at the beginning and Stalin reversed many of his anti-semitic policies for awhile thinking Israel, with many socialist Jews, would be natural allies (of course this didn't pan out like Stalin thought, and being "rejected" by Israel led him to more anti-semitic policies). But in this ATL we can see him having occasional pograms (especially in Ukraine) alternating with "come to me, I'll protect you from the evil of Western and Central Europe" and we could see a Jewish Autonomous Oblast (either OTL one along the Chinese border, or a different location) be more "successful" in the terms of having a larger Jewish population and sustainable culture. Depending on the evolution of the Middle East we could see Stalin (or more likely his successor) be pro-Zionist in order to put a thorn in the British mandate in Palestine and cause them distractions, as no WWII means the Great Game is extended a bit in time.
 
Because it was easy way to stick a thumb in the eye on the UK and their then Arab allies
Because for the reasons I mentioned in my post. It didn't hurt the British because the British pulled out already and the Arabs weren't in 1948 British allies anymore. Oh, and the fact that in 1948 the British were meaningless as they would soon prove in 1956 to the entire world; something Stalin already knew especially since at this point Churchill was not PM.
 

marathag

Banned
Because for the reasons I mentioned in my post. It didn't hurt the British because the British pulled out already and the Arabs weren't in 1948 British allies anymore. Oh, and the fact that in 1948 the British were meaningless as they would soon prove in 1956 to the entire world; something Stalin already knew especially since at this point Churchill was not PM.

The Central Treaty Organization CENTO, AKA Baghdad Pact or Middle East Treaty Organization METO, was formed in 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and the UK.
Yeah, I know not all of them considered themselves Arabs.

UK still had relations with Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait and the Trucial States(U.A.E) and others, before that 'East of Suez' decision, by which time the USSR had long gave up on Israel
 
The Central Treaty Organization CENTO, AKA Baghdad Pact or Middle East Treaty Organization METO, was formed in 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and the UK.
Yeah, I know not all of them considered themselves Arabs.

UK still had relations with Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait and the Trucial States(U.A.E) and others, before that 'East of Suez' decision, by which time the USSR had long gave up on Israel
CENTO was created by instigation of the US, not through the UK getting those nations together, and you're right that not all of them considered themselves Arabs- only ONE of them considered or even IS Arab- and that is Iraq, none of those other nations are Arab in any definition.
 

marathag

Banned
CENTO was created by instigation of the US, not through the UK getting those nations together, and you're right that not all of them considered themselves Arabs- only ONE of them considered or even IS Arab- and that is Iraq, none of those other nations are Arab in any definition.
Still under UK direction, US was not a signatory

Now are the Gulf Statelets not Arab?
 
Top