At the close of WW1, how could Italy have become a relevant military power?

[Grey Wolf]

Surely an Italian navy with 10 or so battleships and numerous heavy cruisers, if supported by a couple of carriers could have handled anything that the British could throw at it.

The carriers alone would have given them greater strategic flexibility over attacks on Egyptian ports (Alexandria, Suez)

The Italians are not intending to PASS Gibraltar.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Lee-Sensei]

They might not face the entirety of the British Navy but:

1) they might face the entirety of the French Navy and a good chunk of the British

2) the British can cut them off at Gibraltar and Suez with minimal (Gibraltar) or no forces (Suez)

3) coastal defense is best handled by large numbers of torpedo bombers. With great range and speed, they can be concentrated and attack an enemy fleet with deadly result. All the Pacific Naval Battles are essentially air battles- control the air and the enemy's fleet will be defeated. This is the lesson of Midway, Pearl and all the rest

4) Italy cannot realistically go for a sea control Navy in the Mediterranean and be able to defend its land border with France

5) The best way for Italy to hurt Britain would be to take Egypt. This could be accomplished by stockpiling supplies in Tripoli and then when war breaks out, go for it

It seems that what youre proposing assumes france is still fighting past june 1940.

 

[LordKalvert]

It seems that what youre proposing assumes france is still fighting past june 1940.

Actually, I was looking at the pre war situation and trying to figure out the best balance of forces for Italy based on that. Italy was a poor country and couldn't possible afford a Navy capable of dealing with England and France and an army capable of acheiving anything on the continent

She ends up trying to match them on sea and ends up with a worthless Army that accomplishes little

Italy's real interest lay in peace- she's not going to amount to much in a German occupied Europe either. Mussolini actually is right on that but joins Hitler when its obvious that France is out of the war- might as well grab what you can

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'd be interested to look at the relative costs of heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers for example

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Actually, I was looking at the pre war situation and trying to figure out the best balance of forces for Italy based on that. Italy was a poor country and couldn't possible afford a Navy capable of dealing with England and France and an army capable of acheiving anything on the continent

She ends up trying to match them on sea and ends up with a worthless Army that accomplishes little

Italy's real interest lay in peace- she's not going to amount to much in a German occupied Europe either. Mussolini actually is right on that but joins Hitler when its obvious that France is out of the war- might as well grab what you can

Italy being a poor country is debatable. Again, they can afford an army to establish local superiority in the central Mediterranean.

Italy's best interests were best served by peace with a weak military. With a strong one? Its best to take what they can while the getting's good.

 

[LordKalvert]

Italy being a poor country is debatable. Again, they can afford an army to establish local superiority in the central Mediterranean.

Italy's best interests were best served by peace with a weak military. With a strong one? Its best to take what they can while the getting's good.

Agree I think that Italy loses no matter what. If Germany or the Soviet Union become dominant on the continent, they will eventually be swallowed up. If France and Britain win, they won't even give them crumbs at the peace table like they did the last time.

This is sort of the fate of all minor powers in a great European War- survival is the best they can really hope for or crumbs no one wants

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Agree I think that Italy loses no matter what. If Germany or the Soviet Union become dominant on the continent, they will eventually be swallowed up. If France and Britain win, they won't even give them crumbs at the peace table like they did the last time.

This is sort of the fate of all minor powers in a great European War- survival is the best they can really hope for or crumbs no one wants

That's quite the stretch. The Soviet Union swallowing up Italy isn't going to happen for starters. Neither is Germany. Germany annexing or taking territory from the Italians isn't going t help them in anyways. Why would they?

Also, calling Italy a "minor power" is incorrect. It was a Great Power and likely could get a lot from Britain and France while they're weak.

 

[LordKalvert]

That's quite the stretch. The Soviet Union swallowing up Italy isn't going to happen for starters. Neither is Germany. Germany annexing or taking territory from the Italians isn't going t help them in anyways. Why would they?

Also, calling Italy a "minor power" is incorrect. It was a Great Power and likely could get a lot from Britain and France while they're weak.

I think that Hitler was going to conquer until he has everything. After the Soviets are beaten and England, why wouldn't he occupy Italy?

Stalin doesn't seem interested in conquering anything but assuming he comes out on top and beats Hitler, why would he stop? Who could stop him?

And even if neither one actually occupies Italy, would Italy ever have the might to stand up to either one?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I think that Hitler was going to conquer until he has everything. After the Soviets are beaten and England, why wouldn't he occupy Italy?

Stalin doesn't seem interested in conquering anything but assuming he comes out on top and beats Hitler, why would he stop? Who could stop him?

And even if neither one actually occupies Italy, would Italy ever have the might to stand up to either one?

Why would he occupy Italy is the real question? It means he has a hostile population of over 46 million extra people under his control and a wide open peninsula to defend through the alps of al things.

Why would he stop? Why would he go any further. Britain, France and Italy are safe from Stalin as are the countries in heir immediate area. The only countries that have anything to fear from Stalin at this point are the countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Essentially for the same reason he was eager to keep the peace with Japan.

Who knows? At he beginning of the 1800s, who would have predicted that Germany would surpass France?

 

[marathag]

Italy being a poor country is debatable. Again, they can afford an army to establish local superiority in the central Mediterranean.

They were 2nd tier. They had a GNP similar to Japan.

Unlike Japan, however, it was very easy for France/UK and Germany to attack.

Best to be like Sweden, trade to both sides.

Italy needed both Coal and Oil to run their industry.

Trading gets them both.

Choosing one side or the other, will only supply one of them

 

[Lee-Sensei]

They were 2nd tier. They had a GNP similar to Japan.

Unlike Japan, however, it was very easy for France/UK and Germany to attack.

Best to be like Sweden, trade to both sides.

Italy needed both Coal and Oil to run their industry.

Trading gets them both.

Choosing one side or the other, will only supply one of them

Yes I agree. Italy was a 2nd Tier Great Power. When I said it's debatable how poor they were, I meant that they had a decent per capita.

How easy it is for France and the UK depends on how the war is handled, but what's an undeniable fact is that if they stay out of the war, they're destined to remain a second tier Great Power.

Staying neutral OTL, would have been smart because while they had a large military, it was rife with problems that hampered its effectiveness. In a scenario where, the Italian military is more competent, not so much.

 

[LordKalvert]

They were 2nd tier. They had a GNP similar to Japan.

Unlike Japan, however, it was very easy for France/UK and Germany to attack.

Best to be like Sweden, trade to both sides.

Italy needed both Coal and Oil to run their industry.

Trading gets them both.

Choosing one side or the other, will only supply one of them

Definitely 2nd tier- the definition of a Great Power is one willing to take on any other. Italy definitely isn't in that class.

What Italy needed was a balance of power so that she could play both sides off against each other.

Her strongest position pre WWI was after Adowa when they started to pull back from the Triple Alliance and made both France and Germany bid for their favor. That's how they got Tripoli

Compare that to when Crispi was boot licking the English and all they did was trade him off in their dealings with France. It was a disaster

After Germany got beat in WWI, no one needed Italy anymore which is why she once again got burned at the table

I don't see Hitler, Stalin or Churchill paying for Italian favor after WWII either. Hitler and Stalin would have made them puppets, Churchill may have been more subtle

 

[deathscompanion1]

The Moose should have never declared war, but follow what Franco did:

Be a Neutral, willing to take bribes from both Allies and Germany.

Jump on the Allied Bandwagon as soon as as Nazi Germany is in its death throes in 1944, offer the Italian Navy against Japan

Take Seat UN Security Council in 1945

Bennie is seen as the greatest Italian Leader since Garibaldi

I'm not seeing any meaningful gains for Italy whatsoever here.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Definitely 2nd tier- the definition of a Great Power is one willing to take on any other. Italy definitely isn't in that class.

What Italy needed was a balance of power so that she could play both sides off against each other.

Her strongest position pre WWI was after Adowa when they started to pull back from the Triple Alliance and made both France and Germany bid for their favor. That's how they got Tripoli

Compare that to when Crispi was boot licking the English and all they did was trade him off in their dealings with France. It was a disaster

After Germany got beat in WWI, no one needed Italy anymore which is why she once again got burned at the table

I don't see Hitler, Stalin or Churchill paying for Italian favor after WWII either. Hitler and Stalin would have made them puppets, Churchill may have been more subtle

The definition of Great Power isn't a country ready to take on all comers. It's a country with the power to influence countries in its sphere of influence through political, military or economic strength. For example, the reason the US had so much power at Versailles despite doing by far the least fighting of the Big 4, was because the Entente were in debt.

Stalin making Italy, France or Britain their puppet isn't going to happen. First of all, because the Americans wouldn't allow it.

Hitler turning Italy into a puppet depends on when Italy enters the war. In WW2, he waited until their capitulation. Other wise they'll be given a free hand.

Churchill turning Italy into a puppet just isn't happening. The British Empire is soon to dissolve, and once that's done the gap between the two countries won't be as large as it was OTL during that period. In all honesty, when Empire dissolves, Italy's almost definitely going to be the stronger of the too given that all of their colonies except Ethiopia have very low populations.

 

[marathag]

I'm not seeing any meaningful gains for Italy whatsoever here.

They keep the Africa Colonies, for starters, and are on the Winning side.

Not being bombed by the USAAF is a bonus.

They will sell a lot of things to a wrecked Europe after 1945 with their industry and economy intact, if not grown.

in 1938, the exchange rate with the Dollar was 19-1
1946, it was set to 100 to 1, and inflation was running up, by Spring 1947 it was over 900 Lira to the Dollar

 

[LordKalvert]

Why would he occupy Italy is the real question? It means he has a hostile population of over 46 million extra people under his control and a wide open peninsula to defend through the alps of al things.

Why would he stop? Why would he go any further. Britain, France and Italy are safe from Stalin as are the countries in heir immediate area. The only countries that have anything to fear from Stalin at this point are the countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Essentially for the same reason he was eager to keep the peace with Japan.

Who knows? At he beginning of the 1800s, who would have predicted that Germany would surpass France?

I was suggesting Hitler's next move after he's beaten the Soviets and the British. Why would he let Italy hang around? He's occupied the whole continent so who would he be defending Italy from?

Ok maybe he takes out Japan first but Hitler isn't going to stop till he's conquered everything

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I was suggesting Hitler's next move after he's beaten the Soviets and the British. Why would he let Italy hang around? He's occupied the whole continent so who would he be defending Italy from?

Ok maybe he takes out Japan first but Hitler isn't going to stop till he's conquered everything

There's actually zero evidence of that. Hitler was a genocidal monster, but he had a very strict guide to how he saw things. It's pretty clear the way he saw things.

The Soviet Union: Communist, Slavs, with many Jews in high positions to boot. He considered them subhuman and he wanted to kill them all or push them beyond the Urals.

The French: Not Sub humans, but Germany's natural enemy. They needed to be crushed on the continent, but not necessarily destroyed.

The British: Part of the Germanic master race. Hitler was an anglophile and was willing to let Britain keep its Empire so long as Germany got to dominate the continent.

The Italians: Not Sub humans. Hitler saw the Italians as the descendants of Rome and Germany's natural ally. Italy's interests were in North Africa, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Southern Europe. Germany's were in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and perhaps in time Central Africa.

Do you have any evidence that he wanted to complete conquer and subjugate Italy?

 

[sharlin]

There was a thread..oh about a month ago maybe more about the Italian army and in that someone outlined the huge problem with the Italians performance in WW2. Really to become relevant and a real power, you'd not just need military change but social one. I sadly can't remember what the thread was called

 

[marathag]

Do you have any evidence that he wanted to complete conquer and subjugate Italy?

He was Austrian, and they had more Issues with Italy than Germans.

South Tyrol was an issue.

Doesn't mean that they wanted Rome or Naples, though, but here you can
see the changes since 1815 and Austrian territory, and many Austrians wanted those areas back

That said, Hitler was a pragmatist in this area, saying that the German speakers there should move to Greater Germany in 1939, not the choice the locals had hoped for, another Sudetenland style anschluss, but to stay and be Italian.

For whatever reason, Hitler was loyal to Mussolini

 

[Lee-Sensei]

He was Austrian, and they had more Issues with Italy than Germans.

South Tyrol was an issue.

Doesn't mean that they wanted Rome or Naples, though, but here you can
see the changes since 1815 and Austrian territory, and many Austrians wanted those areas back

That said, Hitler was a pragmatist in this area, saying that the German speakers there should move to Greater Germany in 1939, not the choice the locals had hoped for, another Sudetenland style anschluss, but to stay and be Italian.

For whatever reason, Hitler was loyal to Mussolini

Which is my point. The only real area they might quarrel over was the South Tyrol and Hitler gave that up, wanting the Germans there to either undergo Italianization or move.