DBWI: Italy in WW2

Hello! This is a interesting premise: some historians say that Benito Mussolini, the first Duce of Italy, planned to ally Italy with Germany in WW2, but some frontier disputes between both countries and the pride of their leaders made Italy stay neutral. But what if it happened? Would this butterfly away the Latin Union? Would Germany have done better during the war?
 
Well, it depends when Italy would join the war. If they joined in the early days, after the German victory over France, i feel they could have some potential, however their army, especially in Africa, was mediocrely equipped and led at best. Maybe some German reinforcements would assist them, probably led by either Guderian or the leader of the 7th Panzer Divison, Erwin Rommel (you've probably never heard of him, he basically raced through France at the speed of sound)

If they joined later, let's say 1942, i think they can do much better in Africa without German assistance, maybe even reach closely to Alexandria? who knows, really
 
Hello! This is a interesting premise: some historians say that Benito Mussolini, the first Duce of Italy, planned to ally Italy with Germany in WW2, but some frontier disputes between both countries and the pride of their leaders made Italy stay neutral. But what if it happened? Would this butterfly away the Latin Union? Would Germany have done better during the war?
Basically, Italy joining Germany is a German instant win. You're giving Germany 1M+ extra very well trained and experienced with a competent general staff to lead them, as well as the entire Mediterranean. India will indirectly be threatened after all British positions in the Med get melted away by the onslaught of the Italian military.
 
Well, it depends when Italy would join the war. If they joined in the early days, after the German victory over France, i feel they could have some potential, however their army, especially in Africa, was mediocrely equipped and led at best. Maybe some German reinforcements would assist them, probably led by either Guderian or the leader of the 7th Panzer Divison, Erwin Rommel (you've probably never heard of him, he basically raced through France at the speed of sound)

If they joined later, let's say 1942, i think they can do much better in Africa without German assistance, maybe even reach closely to Alexandria? who knows, really

Good observations. I am also thinking about the geopolitical impact in the post-war world, as the creation of the Latin Union, a military and economic alliance between Italy, Spain and Portugal, which was very important for the path of Italy and the other members. Also, if italy was defeated just like the germans, probably it wouldn't have claimed Malta in the 70's

Basically, Italy joining Germany is a German instant win. You're giving Germany 1M+ extra very well trained and experienced with a competent general staff to lead them, as well as the entire Mediterranean. India will indirectly be threatened after all British positions in the Med get melted away by the onslaught of the Italian military.

I don't think so. While it was strong, the Italian military lacked a big weapon industry to sustain itself and had/still has a questionable leadership. Still, they could have surpassed their weaknesses with Germany's help.
 
I don't think so. While it was strong, the Italian military lacked a big weapon industry to sustain itself and had/still has a questionable leadership. Still, they could have surpassed their weaknesses with Germany's help.

Probably, it depends on whether Mussolini will listen to his new German allies or not - my money's on not. But if he'd died during the war, I think he could've been succeeded by someone willing to compromise - like a younger Ciano, for example: in OTL, it didn't take long for him to turn into an obese, senile mess after Mussolini kicked the bucket. The Latin Union would've been butterflied - since Italy would've played second fiddle to Germany - and the last Duce, Maria De Carli, would've been erased from history: I can't see someone like her going very far in an Axis-led world.
 
Well, yes, during the period between 1935-38 Italy and Germany had come more close politically and economically, expecially thanks to the common partecipation in the Spanish civil war; but at least from Mussolini pow it was all a mean to make Italy having more political capital towards the Anglo-French and to mantain his regime open to more possibility, than a real alliance...ironically taking a clue from the usual foreign politics of the previous liberal goverment.
Mussolini had seek a rapprochment with Germany, as a mean to make the Entente 'pay' for forcing him to sign the Geneva agreement over Abyssinia in 1935*, but he disliked Hitler at first sight (he thought was an uncultered thug and wannabe) and the entire Anshluss debacle (Italy agreed only to support a custom union between Germany and Austria, but the Germans decided to launch a referendum for a political union) basically sealed the fate of any possible real alliance.

Not considering that Mussolini, unlike Hitler and Stalin, was not the absolute ruler of Italy and the King mantained a lot of power (at least unofficially) and VEIII was adamant against the war (his role in make Italy enter WWI still burned him).

* France and Uk convinced Italy to instead start a war, to accept Ogaden and some minor border rettification in Eritrea...and a week later the British gifted Abyssinia with the port of Zeila in Somaliland
 
Not entering the war until mid 43 on the side of the Allies (3 days after Operation Sledgehammer was started in Normandy) was probably the winning move. It caught Germany off Guard and allowed Allied bombers to operate from Italian Airbases to support the subsequent Operation Anvil (the invasion of Southern France) with much of the Italian Navy able to support that Op as well as being able to strike into southern Germany using medium bombers.

I can however see Benito thinking that joining Germany on the eve of Victory over France would secure him a relatively cheap place at the Victors table and take advantage of the real or perceived weakness of the British position in the Med that would have ensued but its likely that the UK would as per OTL not accept peace and continue to fight.

While the West was not happy with Mussolini – specifically with his invasion of Greece in 41 and second successful attack in 42 (with British Forces supplying Greek forces with weapons and Occupying Crete) – they were more than happy with him joining the allies in 43. Enemy of my Enemy is my freind and all that

I certainly cannot imagine him dying in someone else’s wife’s bed with a smile on his face in the early 60s had he joined the Axis in 1940!

Also if the British are distracted in the Med and North Africa and possibly the Middle East if the Italians capture the Suez then I can see the Japanese taking advantage of the subsequent British weakness in the Far East and going for the Dutch East Indies and anything else that gets in their way.

Also had Italy joined the war in 1940 I cannot see their industry being able to produce sufficient weapon in a good enough quality – her invasion of Austria in mid-1944 was done largely with US made equipment (particularly in the principle fighting Divisions).
 
I don't think so. While it was strong, the Italian military lacked a big weapon industry to sustain itself and had/still has a questionable leadership. Still, they could have surpassed their weaknesses with Germany's help.

Well, to be fair we are talking about the period of the Graziani Generalship here. That man had a more solid grasp on Italy's military limits than most, and really knew how to economize and restrain his forces to get something approaching a 1st class preformance on a 2nd class budget. Assuming they could get the Germans to loosen up enough fuel oil to keep the Navy fully active and had sufficent aircraft operating out of the "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" of Sicily, they could easily dominate the centeral Med.

That plays merry hell with the defection of Gensoul and his resulting formation of an organized Government of National Resistance, which really helped organize the French naval and colonial resources and establish a more effective resistance movement in the south that made Anvil (and thus Sledgehammer) viable. You probably see the war and occupation of France extended by at least a year in that case, and with the end being alot messier and favoring the Soviets. Hell, it may even give the French Commies space in which to manuvers politically... imagine what would happen if they had a voice in post-war French politics!
 
Well, yes, during the period between 1935-38 Italy and Germany had come more close politically and economically, expecially thanks to the common partecipation in the Spanish civil war; but at least from Mussolini pow it was all a mean to make Italy having more political capital towards the Anglo-French and to mantain his regime open to more possibility, than a real alliance...ironically taking a clue from the usual foreign politics of the previous liberal goverment.
Mussolini had seek a rapprochment with Germany, as a mean to make the Entente 'pay' for forcing him to sign the Geneva agreement over Abyssinia in 1935*, but he disliked Hitler at first sight (he thought was an uncultered thug and wannabe) and the entire Anshluss debacle (Italy agreed only to support a custom union between Germany and Austria, but the Germans decided to launch a referendum for a political union) basically sealed the fate of any possible real alliance.

Not considering that Mussolini, unlike Hitler and Stalin, was not the absolute ruler of Italy and the King mantained a lot of power (at least unofficially) and VEIII was adamant against the war (his role in make Italy enter WWI still burned him).

* France and Uk convinced Italy to instead start a war, to accept Ogaden and some minor border rettification in Eritrea...and a week later the British gifted Abyssinia with the port of Zeila in Somaliland

Thank you for the commentary. Other thing that influenced the italians to not ally with Germany was the Tirol Plan, a set of texts published by a french journal that were supposedly documents made by the german government and acquired by frech spies. The texts showed a plan to annex the italian Tirol. After these texts, the diplomacy between Nazi Germany and Italy was never the same. Even today, the authenticity of the documents was never confirmed, nor delayed.
 
Although I think the PoD is borderline ASB (Mussolini was surely too rational for such a risky move - he was not one to gamble over anything less than a sure thing!), it's entertaining to play with. The existence of an active Mediterranean theatre would surely have consumed large British resources (especially shipping), thus preventing the reinforcement of Singapore/ Malaya in 1941. Who knows what effects that might have had on Japanese actions? The Battle of the South China Sea might have gone very differently, for a start, and in turn that would have had huge effects on China. And without Chiang (I know, I shouldn't be talking borderline ASB myself, but there really were serious problems in the KMT at that time), the Korean War might have been avoided entirely...
 
Good observations. I am also thinking about the geopolitical impact in the post-war world, as the creation of the Latin Union, a military and economic alliance between Italy, Spain and Portugal, which was very important for the path of Italy and the other members. Also, if italy was defeated just like the germans, probably it wouldn't have claimed Malta in the 70's



I don't think so. While it was strong, the Italian military lacked a big weapon industry to sustain itself and had/still has a questionable leadership. Still, they could have surpassed their weaknesses with Germany's help.

This is a critical point. One can compare a variety of shortfalls, ammunition, motor vehicles, cannon. But, the item that really tells is in aircraft production. This was so low the Allies provided Italy with 80 percent of the aircraft it used. The Italians had some good designs, but lacked the capacity. As it was Germany was out produced in aircraft by over 2-1 in 1943. There is no way it could have made the same contribution as the Allies to the Italian AF.
 
Italy would be poorer, the Germans had need of protection of the 'soft unterbelly' and Italy provided that. Besides, the Sarafino (with later P-65 model) tank, P.133 bomber, Re.2007 fighter, and Garafino rifles were 'heavily inspired' by Western models like the M4, M47, B-29, Ce 105, and FN-49 weapons, respectively. Libya/Cyraenica and other 'SupraEuropean' states of Italy might still be colonies or their own countries.
 
It would result in Italy losing their third coast at minimum.

People forget the allies consisted of not only great britian, the free French territories, but also of the soviet union and the united states and a host of other countries. The shear numbers, resources, money and logistics at play meant that Italy would be overweilmed by it all. As is Italy played their cards right used the war to make enough money to industrialize, settled Lybia and gained a seat at the negiotiating table.

If they join the axis they lose lybia and all the oil and resources that goes along with it.
 
Much of the British, or more accurately Churchills effort to bring Italy into the war against Germany was based on his obsession with the "Soft underbelly" of Europe. His writings of 1940-43 are littered with references to the opportunities to strike at Germany from the south. Into neutral Yugoslavia, across the Alps into Vichy France, across other Alps into Austria. He was beside himself when Italy did enter the war, declaring it "decisive" and was manic pushing plans for grand Allied offensives from northern Italy into the 'Greater Reich' His disappointment & depression over the failure of the Allies to execute any of this grand vision, "not trying hard enough" in his view colored Allied planning from 1943 to the end of the war.

Had Italy entered the war in alliance with Germany I'd think Churchill would have behaved much the same, attempting to turn the Mediterranean into a a vast war front.
 
This Churchill strategy didn't come out of nowhere. Lloyd George also tried hard to get something happening from Italy during World War I.

If Italy had been on the Axis side, it would have made some sense for the British to focus on Italy. They couldn't go toe to toe with the Germans in Western Europe. British strategy traditionally involved picking off their opponents' colonies (Ethiopia, Somalia, Libya, Rhodes). They wouldn't have wanted an actively hostile naval power in the central Mediterranean and would have likely gone for Sicily after picking off the colonies. It would have been a place for the British to fight, and the Royal Navy would have ha
 
Well since life in Ethiopia was already hell for the natives at the time of Italy's rule over the country, we would likely see and earlier revolt and independence for the country than when they did in the early 1960s, taking Eritrea (minus some important port cities) with them. We could also see an independent Libya and Italian Somaliland instead of them simply being constituent Countries of Italy.
 
Top