Allied Italy in WWII: Effects on the Cold War and post war world?

NO Germans in the BAlkans and North Arica means that valuable assets are NOT used up. It also means the Brits have nowhere to fight (on land) from Mid 1940 to ??? maybe 1943 when they land in France (not taking into account the Pacific, which might be totally different from OTL) - this in turn might bbutterfly away OTLs US involvement.

But assume that Britain has nothing to do from mid 1940 to mid 1941 - Would it be possible that they try something like an invasion of Norway ?

Would public opinion demand an attack on Germany (or maybe there is an incasion in Vichy France) ?

No Italiabn involvement in 1940 will make a totally different war - It even could be that AH does NOT attack the SU before there is peace with britain (which COULD be more likely as there is no front to fight over - public opinion might ask - why are we still fighting a war without battles - air and sea NOT counting as much ;) - France made peace - why can't we?

Would A-H prepare for a Sea lion verion 1941 (probably not)...
 
- this in turn might bbutterfly away OTLs US involvement.
No it doesn't, Hitler Declared war December 11, 1941, and FDR is still a Europe-Firster.

which COULD be more likely as there is no front to fight over - public opinion might ask - why are we still fighting a war without battles - air and sea NOT counting as much ;) - France made peace - why can't we?
France made peace because it got flattened, Hitler won't be able to do that to Britain, bjut will still try, thus the war is still on, no matter what some cowards in the British Public think, plus France does need to be liberated.
 
Last edited:
If Italy were in the allied camp from 1939, wouldn't Germany have to expend effort invading and occupying it in 1940? Italian forces might respond to a Nazi invasion of their homeland with far more elan and committment than they showed in Mussolini's OTL expansionist invasions, and arguably the terrain in Italy might make a German occupation of the whole country far harder than the French campaign. On the other hand, if Germany were willing to tolerate an enemy state immediately south of it, Italy's role as an Allied state might actually free up German forcese for more profitable use elsewhere.

Regardless, this would soften allied attitudes against "fascism" in general and help create much more nuanced ideological argument against Nazism.
 
Is just a question of numbers, the native Libyan population was low and the Italians occupy the coast city aka the best place, sure the border is porous but first any possible independent Algeria or Egypt (a big if with a different WWII) must find acceptable to go against Italy who now is still a big power and second the rest is much desert not very hospitable.
Italians represent 13% of the population, add some more due to the fact that the war will not touch Italy for a while and even in that case not in the scale of OTL so the plan to settle colonist will goes on, what's more probable is a IRA like low level war, but Algeria and Libya are two different beast...if the arabs begin an open rebellion due to the coming of the colonist, well i don't want to be in their place, Benny considered the place a showpiece of the regime plus there is oil, it will not be given up for any reason.

Yes, I agree, in the 20's and 30's when Italy had acquired Libya but was only starting to assert itself in the colony, the population was indeed quite low, and Libya certainly isn't as highly-populated as say... Egypt. However, my argument is rooted in the fact that this is going to change in a big way come the 1950's, and that even with oil, which is actually a relatively low-cost industry with regards to labor, is not going to be enough to reverse it. The Italians need the Libyans, after all, Italians aren't going to come to Libya to be janitors, busboys, and housemaids, they're going to want something glorious to justify the risk of leaving their homeland for a country in which they have nothing. The Libyans are going to be the people who do the jobs that nobody wants to do and for cheap, this happened in every other European colony, and it certainly happened in the most readily-available example of a similar colony: Algeria, which at its peak actually had more French settlers as a percentage of the total Algerian populace than Italian Libya did.

Libya fundamentally has nothing to offer the Italians before oil. Balbo ran a good show of it when he controlled the colony, but what kind of growth was that really achieving? What was going to come out of it? Or would the booming Libyan transport network and settler rush fall apart as soon as the next economic downturn hits? Far more likely the latter. Economic history is rife with examples of artificial economic booms built on a foundation of sand (literally in Libya's case), without oil, there's nothing to justify the kind of investment the Italians were making into Libya, and it would have crashed badly during a recession. Settler colonialism is about people wanting to come to the colony in question. Algeria could offer farms and good land, Libya doesn't have that same luxury.

The Italians did all the bad stuff: concentration camps, mass deportation, brutal colonial wars in the Libyan desert, it didn't quench the Libyan desire for independence, it merely reduced the flames of active rebellion to the embers of resentment, waiting for the next chance to erupt into a towering blaze. Genocide? Nah, they need cheap Libyan labor, and lots of it, to keep the colony afloat. The idea that the Italians were somehow any less moral than the French who resorted to lots of dirty tricks to keep Algeria is a bit off. Italy does not face the same situation as Germany did in Southwest Africa, it faces contentious, hostile natives who will take efforts to "drive them into the desert" (then again how do you use the desert to kill people who are used to living in the desert?) as the suppression and genocide that it is and revolt, at which point the metropole runs the risk of losing the entire colony. Colonial powers knew that this sort of thing could happen, and this rather than any notions of morality was generally what stayed the hand of colonial authorities in dealing with rebellion.

And as for the idea that Egypt won't support Libyan rebels, well how does that explain all the training, funding, and outright sanctuary given to SWAPO during the South African Border War by neighboring African states? Or Egypt's own adventures with the nationalizing of the Suez? Nobody liked the prospect of the SADF blitzing into their country, but they did it anyway because the commitment to opposing it was that strong. What could Italy possibly do as a recourse? Invade Egypt? In what parallel setting will the British, the French, or anyone else with interests in Suez Canal simply allow the Italians to bulldoze their way into Egypt? To any reasonable outside observer, it will look like Mussolini is falsifying a pretext under which to seize control of Egypt.
 
This post by 'zoomar' has some good points

If Italy were in the allied camp from 1939, wouldn't Germany have to expend effort invading and occupying it in 1940?

Perhaps. Assuming France is defeated as per OTL then Italy may very well seek a seperate peace, abandoning Britain & its little collection of exiled governments. If France seeks a cease fire & armistice then I'd expect a Italian cease fire would not be far behind. It might be different if the French government moves to Algeria as Renaud desired. How much longer that Italian determination might continue once bombs star falling on the north Italian cities and German mountain corps start assualting the passes I cant say.

If Hitler chooses to attack Britain as per OTL, thinking Italy will give up when Britain is defeated then perhaps Italy has a reprieve of the winter of 1940-41 before a serious German attack south develops.

Italian forces might respond to a Nazi invasion of their homeland with far more elan and committment than they showed in
Mussolini's OTL expansionist invasions,

In some respects they might, tho the rapid collapse of Poland and France would have its effect on italian national morale.

and arguably the terrain in Italy might make a German occupation of the whole country far harder than the French campaign.

Depends on if the italian army can hold the Alpine border, in the face of the German ground and air forces. The latter will probablly make every effort to recreate the conditions of Sedan at the mountain passes and Rotterdam on several of the north Italian cities.

On the other hand, if Germany were willing to tolerate an enemy state immediately south of it, Italy's role as an Allied state might actually free up German forcese for more profitable use elsewhere.

This brings us back to Hitler choosing a attempt at defeating Britain by direct attack and being defeated as in OTL. A relatively weak Italian military might be judged no more a threat than Britain in 1941 & attacking the USSR chosen that year.

Regardless, this would soften allied attitudes against "fascism" in general and help create much more nuanced ideological argument against Nazism.

Only until it is understood what the nazis are inflicting on occupied Europe.
 
Regarding Germany knocking out Italy from the War in early 40 at the same time or just after France, the problem is that Germany throw everything in the Battle of France in OTL here must divide things in two front (at lest must divert asset to protect his flank and counter the italian air forces) so France had lot more possibilities to resist; second the battleground in Italy will be a lot more different, the only decent Tank terrain is the Pianura Padana but first you must pass the Alps and the German mountain troops will face the italian Alpini who are not to easy to dispatch
 
Top