Fall of II Duce: The Mediterranean under German rule

[ArmchairSamurai]

If Mussolini was assassinated in 1939 before the war broke out... What would be Hitler's response?
I could hypothetically assume that the Fuhrer would try and annex the ethnic German population of Italy, as with Austria in 1938 (Anschluss). Maybe a possible Fascist puppet government could be established or even a coup by the King of Italy to reinstate control, though I cannot see the feasibility and repercussions of either. Obviously the Allies would not intervene because of their appeasement policies up to that point. Unless a civil war breaks out like with Spain in 1936, though that is unlikely. So what would become of the 'Afrika Korps' and the war in the desert? Would Italy remain the "soft under belly" of Europe that Churchill declared as in the OTL, or something greater??

Now this may be a stretch, but I imagine the Germans would implement Italian manufacturing into their war machine; possibly supplementing the coming material shortage temporarily.
And with a surplus of soldiers (granted, are led by competent generals) could accomplish more than the OTL.

I would like to hear your opinions, the feedback really helps. Cheers.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

By 1939, appeasement was actually over. In the event that Germany tries to make a play for the territories of its major ally, the response in Paris and London is rejoicing at the strategic godsend. Chamberlain and Daladier back the Italian government to the hilt, and the war breaks out over Italy rather than Poland.
There's no easy blitzkrieg south, instead it's a bloody war in the Alps. If the eventual attack west doesn't go perfectly- and given how many things had to happen just so for the stunning success of OTL- I expect you end up with a Blunted Sickle situation where the Entente slowly grinds its way east in 1941.

 

[lukedalton]

If Benny is killed before the war, well, the italian goverment will be for a while in chaos due to Mussolini heavily working to surround himself of yes men and non entity; this mean that the King will 'reluctanly' (yeah sure ) step in to ensure stability and continuation of goverment.
The two most probable candidate to lead the govern are Ciano and Balbo and both are not really friendly towards Germany...and no, while political violence will happen a civil war is out of the question as the army is firmly on the king side and the blackshirts are in no shape to fight it even if they are solidly unified.

Any attempt by Germany to conquer Italy will bog down in the alps, a place were the fight basically highlight italian capacity and play against German ability (they are basically forced to launch a direct assault against a Maginot line level of fortification...so it will not end well).

Both Paris and London while pubblicy mourn the loss of a head of state will rejoice as now Italy can be bring back in the fold and while they don't need to fight directely Germany, just giving supply to Italy in case of war mean that Adolf plan will need to be scrapped as even in case of a very costly victory, there will be no way that an easy victory in Poland and/or France will be possible.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

If Mussolini was assassinated in 1939 before the war broke out... What would be Hitler's response?
I could hypothetically assume that the Fuhrer would try and annex the ethnic German population of Italy, as with Austria in 1938 (Anschluss). Maybe a possible Fascist puppet government could be established or even a coup by the King of Italy to reinstate control, though I cannot see the feasibility and repercussions of either. Obviously the Allies would not intervene because of their appeasement policies up to that point. Unless a civil war breaks out like with Spain in 1936, though that is unlikely. So what would become of the 'Afrika Korps' and the war in the desert? Would Italy remain the "soft under belly" of Europe that Churchill declared as in the OTL, or something greater??

Now this may be a stretch, but I imagine the Germans would implement Italian manufacturing into their war machine; possibly supplementing the coming material shortage temporarily.
And with a surplus of soldiers (granted, are led by competent generals) could accomplish more than the OTL.

I would like to hear your opinions, the feedback really helps. Cheers.

If Mussolini's assassinated and Italy pulls out of their alliance, Hitler would leave them alone. The Alps create a serious barrier between German and Italy, it's not particularly rich in resources and Hitler was a bit of an Italophile (as well as an anglophile).

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

If Mussolini was assassinated in 1939 before the war broke out... What would be Hitler's response?

Nothing. Hitler would have no grounds for intervention in another sovereign country.

I could hypothetically assume that the Fuhrer would try and annex the ethnic German population of Italy, as with Austria in 1938 (Anschluss).

If post-Mussolini Italy became actively hostile to Germany, Hitler might revive the issue of Sudtirol. But that would be much later.

So what would become of the 'Afrika Korps' and the war in the desert?

Italy would almost certainly remain neutral throughout the war. Thus no North African campaign, no East African campaign, no Balkan campaign, no Iraq campaign, and no Syria campaign. (Both of the latter popped up in response to the dazzling German successes in North Africa and the Balkans.)

Would Italy remain the "soft under belly" of Europe that Churchill declared as in the OTL, or something greater??

Italy will be neutral.

 

[King Augeas]

If Mussolini was assassinated in 1939 before the war broke out... What would be Hitler's response?

No immediate response. Later response depends on who takes over. Is this likely to be Balbo? I think he was opposed to joining the war, so the probable result is a neutral Italy and peace in the Med.

 

[KACKO]

There were serious plans to assassinate Mussolini I believe in September 1938 by Slovenians.

 

[Iñaki]

I personally think that being the principal obsession of Hitler or to have an alliance with Poland against the Soviet Union (in fact Germany first steps after the taking of Czechoslovakia in march 1939 was to try to offer an alliance to Poland against the Soviet Union, in exchange of Danzig being german and a the control of a way that could join Eastern Prussia with Germany Hitler was disposed to in a future war against the soviet Union offer Soviet eastern territories to Poland and to recognize certain polish rights in the Polish Corridor) or to conquer Poland in a first step in his way to the Soviet Union it is very very unlikely that made any movement against Italy, while Italy remain neutral no problem another thing is if Italy decides to ally with the Western Powers but even Mussolini knew that Italy was not prepared for an european war (conflict in the Spanish Civil War practically mean a waste of a lot of resources for the preparation of Italy for a war in 1939).

So no Hitler moves and Italy neutral.

 

[thaddeus]

Italy being principal in Axis was real barrier to Turkey joining. not saying with a neutral Italy they WOULD join but it does remove one barrier.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Interesting feedback. I would like to propose another question however: Suppose that after Mussolini is abdicated or assassinated (which either better suits this scenario) and Italy becomes neutral... what if, like Operation Catapult (1940), a fearful Winston Churchill launches a surprise attack on the Regia Marina as it rests in port? Would the death of countless sailors (possibly even civilians) be enough for Italy to fan the flames of war and join the axis once more? Just a thought.

 

[lukedalton]

Interesting feedback. I would like to propose another question however: Suppose that after Mussolini is abdicated or assassinated (which either better suits this scenario) and Italy becomes neutral... what if, like Operation Catapult (1940), a fearful Winston Churchill launches a surprise attack on the Regia Marina as it rests in port? Would the death of countless sailors (possibly even civilians) be enough for Italy to fan the flames of war and join the axis once more? Just a thought.

Sure a surprise and unprovocked attack, expecially if Italy stayed neutral, mean only one thing: an immediate declaration of war against the United Kingdom and this time the endevour will be supported by the general population and will not look very good in the eyes of the american.
Naturally one must thought why Churchill has done a move like that...unless he had a sudden attack of crazyness; if things has gone as OTL try to keep Italy neutral will be a very important objective for the British as they don't really need to expand the conflict adding another great power to the list of their enemies.

It will be more probable that anyone in charge in Rome will accept the bribe/concession of the Wallies before the fall of France to stay neutral and try to milk both side for what is worth; not even considering that italian neutrality...and someone in charge not really fond of Berlin mean that Germany need to guard his south border and any asset not used against France is a plus for France and UK.

 

[King Augeas]

Interesting feedback. I would like to propose another question however: Suppose that after Mussolini is abdicated or assassinated (which either better suits this scenario) and Italy becomes neutral... what if, like Operation Catapult (1940), a fearful Winston Churchill launches a surprise attack on the Regia Marina as it rests in port? Would the death of countless sailors (possibly even civilians) be enough for Italy to fan the flames of war and join the axis once more? Just a thought.

It's an interesting idea because it's in character with British history. It might even go down well in the US, as the attack on Mers-el-Kebir did, as it demonstrates absolute British commitment to the war and the defeat of fascism, and hence that Britain is deserving of US aid. But there are problems with timings. The British could have done this historically when Italy was neutral in 1940. However, when Italy was neutral, France was still standing and hence there was no need to do so. Then when France was gone, Italy was already at war, so there is no opportunity. So, to work, France needs to have fallen and Italy needs to still be neutral. Historically this didn't happen because Mussolini just needed a few thousand dead to be able to sit at the peace table, so he had to declare war before France was gone.

So we need a situation where Mussolini chooses not to enter the war at the ideal, historical time, yet the British are still convinced that he will enter at some point in the near future. Wiki says "Wavell compared Mussolini's situation to that of someone at the top of a diving board: "I think he must do something. If he cannot make a graceful dive, he will at least have to jump in somehow; he can hardly put on his dressing-gown and walk down the stairs again."" But the start of June is such a good time for entry that failure to do so then makes it look as if Mussolini has chosen to stay neutral for the immediate future... making such an attack unnecessary at that point. It seems difficult to get an Italy that doesn't enter at that point while simultaneously the British believe that she will enter in the near future.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

I believe I finally have a workable scenario, here goes: The year is 1940, the month, July. Germany's war machine has ravaged across Europe and Britain stands alone. In Italy, Mussolini is gunned down by a foreign nationalist at a rally following the surrender of France. In the ensuing chaos left by ll Duce, his son-in-law, Galeazzo Ciano, assumes control on the country and pushes for Italy's withdrawal from the war. All black shirts are thus arrested as enemies of the state.
Hitler is set aback by this sudden and deliberate stab in the back by his former ally but nonetheless is powerless to stop the domino effect caused by Mussolini's absence. Germany, in a attempt to reconcile with Italy and avoid its allegiance with Britain, sends an envoy to Rome. In return for a division of the Regina Maria, Hitler promises to cede lands promised to Italy after the last war (by the Treaty of London), including complete control of the Adriatic Sea. Galeazzo hesitates, trying in vain to stall, but eventually begins negotiations several months later after his cabinet 'twist his arm'. He hopes to win good favor with Germany as a potential trading partner, especially if England was to fall soon thereafter. Churchill however catches wind of this potential scheme and secretly plots a raid on the Italian port of Taranto (like in the OTL). On the 20th of October, 1940, HMS Eagle and HMS Illustrious, with escorting destroyers and cruisers, slip into the Mediterranean Sea and steam towards Italy. At dusk the next day, RN Swordfish torpedo bombers swarmed the area, coming in by the light of a full moon. The attack was over in less than two hours. The aftermath left half of the Regina Maria in ruins, including the loss of Conte di Cavour. Hundreds of Italian sailors and merchantmen were killed in the ambush. Galeazzo was infuriated by this double cross, though he had only himself to blame. To cover up the ensuing unrest caused by the raid, Galeazzo attempts to blame the British and rallies the cries for vengeance in his favor. Against his best wishes, Italy rejoins the Axis in November of 1940.

What do you think? We really do not know how Galeazzo would react, if at all, though this is an interesting scenario.
The feedback really helps. Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Depending on who assassinations Mussolini, I'm assuming an Italian, then Hitler can do nothing. He just won't have Italy as an ally. Mussolini was the only one willing to fight in the war that would have been in charge, any replacement would certainly trade with Hitler, but they wouldn't likely even jump in in mid-1940. Italy stays neutral, though favorable to Hitler so long as he is powerful in Europe. That opens up a bunch of butterflies for the rest of the war that might well alter the outcome in the East if the Germans then don't get sucked into the Greek and North African campaigns.

 

[WeissRaben]

The point of an attack on Italy is that, unlike OTL and as Lukedalton points out, you will have a nation completely committed to war. They decided to rescind their treaties with Germany, to walk their own way, and the British sink their ships and kill - in an act that will be seen akin to Pearl Harbor as a borderline warcrime, but without the shame fig leaf of the declaration being delivered almost at the same time - hundreds of Italians? No, there's no way Ciano has to feign British guilt - the British did kill hundreds of citizens of a neutral nation. It's a warcrime.

 

[lukedalton]

The point of an attack on Italy is that, unlike OTL and as Lukedalton points out, you will have a nation completely committed to war. They decided to rescind their treaties with Germany, to walk their own way, and the British sink their ships and kill - in an act that will be seen akin to Pearl Harbor as a borderline warcrime, but without the shame fig leaf of the declaration being delivered almost at the same time - hundreds of Italians? No, there's no way Ciano has to feign British guilt - the British did kill hundreds of citizens of a neutral nation. It's a warcrime.

Worse, it's probably the most idiotic diplomatic move of the century; in a moment when Great Britain stand alone and fear that an invasion will come and the dark cloud of war are ammassing in Asia...Churchill decide to declare war at the only great power not involved.
Sure they have done in the past, like in Denmark...but unlike that example, Italy is a lot more powerfull and can start conflict in various zone that at the moment are very quiet and there is no way that the population of Italy don't want blood...british blood to be precise and the only possible reaction of Ciano will be declare war if he want remain in power for more than 2 second.

 

[WeissRaben]

Worse, it's probably the most idiotic diplomatic move of the century; in a moment when Great Britain stand alone and fear that an invasion will come and the dark cloud of war are ammassing in Asia...Churchill decide to declare war at the only great power not involved.
Sure they have done in the past, like in Denmark...but unlike that example, Italy is a lot more powerfull and can start conflict in various zone that at the moment are very quiet and there is no way that the population of Italy don't want blood...british blood to be precise and the only possible reaction of Ciano will be declare war if he want remain in power for more than 2 second.

The thing is, Churchill already caused the death of a lot of Englishmen via poor decision-making (Gallipoli), and that had killed his career for a fair while. Dragging Italy in the war screaming for blood might well be the nail in the coffin, and Chamberlain might be seen as the calm, competent, maybe too soft diplomat followed by the bloodhound that twice got a lot of good people killed for nothing.

 

[Mrstrategy]

The Italian army was not in shape to defend the border against a german attack if the Germans invades .best scenario germany takes all or most of the Italian mainland and forces the Italians to exile in Libya

 

[WeissRaben]

The Italian army was not in shape to defend the border against a german attack if the Germans invades .best scenario germany takes all or most of the Italian mainland and forces the Italians to exile in Libya

Through the Alps Italy had walled as much as the French had walled the Rhine, only with the addition of 4,000m high mountains, with the best parts of the Italian army focused on mountain warfare?
Yeah, I'm sure the Teutonic Onslaught will lead to a thousand-years reign! Or, more likely, it will be a bloodbath that will make 'Nam blush.

 

[lukedalton]

The Italian army was not in shape to defend the border against a german attack if the Germans invades .best scenario germany takes all or most of the Italian mainland and forces the Italians to exile in Libya

If the German invade they will quickly (and i mean hours) bog down on the alps as the place is really and i mean really easily to defend and all the tank of the world mean nothing there.
Not considering when that happen; in 1939? Sorry no Fall of France as all the supply, men and equipment needed for that will be used in Italy. In 1940? Well if people say that the Jugoslavia and Greece campaign had caused Barbarossa to fail due to be postponed and the waste of resources...image the same scenario but multiplied for 10.

Basically in any case Germany lose.