What if the Italian military was fitter and better preformed during WW2? Italy must remain an axis member.
.
The biggest problem, was the average Italian Fighting Man wasn't really into the whole conquest thing, like their German and Japanese counterparts.
MVP right here.One of the first TLs to get me sucked in on the board answered exactly this question:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-fitter-italian-military.68257/
Sadly there is no part 2, but what’s there explains exactly how the military could be practically reformed.
Simple, have them join the Allies.
I know you're joking, but it's not a far fetched an idea and not necessarily bad for the Allies.That's not fair, we had them in WW1...
Depending on how things play out, this could end up worse in the long run for the Brits as the US might not be nearly as inclined to provide L-L aid if the Allies are still on the continent and the BoB doesn't happen, while Barbarossa isn't really viable until Italy is wrapped up, which means it may well not happen ITTL. Germany is spared considerable resources not propping Italy up, both pre-war and throughout the conflict, while Britain has to expend it's own limited resources supplying Italian industry and committing troops and equipment to Italy. Yes they had savings in the Mediterranean, but a lot of that then goes into propping Italy up. We had a major argument around that issue in a relatively recent thread about an Allied Italy.I know you're joking, but it's not a far fetched an idea and not necessarily bad for the Allies.
IIRC Count Caprioni was so pro-British that he sold 1,000 aircraft to the RAF in the first half of 1940 and the aircraft had been given Air Ministry serial numbers.
The Italians did better in WWI than they are usually given credit.
The Italians could have produced more 1940-43 on the Allied side because they could obtain raw materials from outside the Mediterranean.
Keeping the Mediterranean open to British merchant shipping 1940-43 would increase the carrying capacity of the available ships by not having to go around the Cape of Good Hope.
It would turn the Mediterranean Sea into an Allied Lake, which meant no need for Force H and a weaker Mediterranean Fleet could be maintained so more ships for the Home Fleet and Far East. I'm guessing that the land and air forces used to fight Italy 1940-43 IOTL would be sent to Italy ITTL to help the Italians defend themselves against a German invasion of northern Italy.
It would encourage the French to fight on from North Africa. It would make the French evacuation to North Africa easier, because the Italians wouldn't be bombing the evacuation ports and attacking the ships on their journey to North Africa. Also, many French people and some material could be evacuated via Italy.
AIUI Mussolini was initially hostile towards Nazi Germany. He was a friend of Chancellor Dollfuss of Austria and sent Italian troops to the Austrian border in 1934.Let's say, in 1935, Mussolini is assasinated by a communist. His successor, probably Italo Balbo, is a bit more motivated to enter into an Anti-Comintern pact. He is also going to be a fair bit Anti-German so he's going to want maybe push for a closer relation with the Little Entente. There is a whole reorganization of the military towards fighting a land war in Europe rather than behaving as colonial power. Industrial cooperation and no expensive colonial expansion means the Italians get better funded and equipt military.
It's a bit hard to see how this Italy goes along with the Nazi program.
Points taken.Depending on how things play out, this could end up worse in the long run for the Brits as the US might not be nearly as inclined to provide L-L aid if the Allies are still on the continent and the BoB doesn't happen, while Barbarossa isn't really viable until Italy is wrapped up, which means it may well not happen ITTL. Germany is spared considerable resources not propping Italy up, both pre-war and throughout the conflict, while Britain has to expend it's own limited resources supplying Italian industry and committing troops and equipment to Italy. Yes they had savings in the Mediterranean, but a lot of that then goes into propping Italy up. We had a major argument around that issue in a relatively recent thread about an Allied Italy.
Granted there are a ton of variables and it could be better for the Allies, but that is hardly guaranteed.
Although I wholeheartedly agree, another reason for squandering the strategic initiative was that when Italy declared war it looked as if Germany had all but won the war for them and that the British and French would ask for an armistice in months if not weeks without Italy lifting a finger. Therefore, they didn't have to take risks that seemed unnecessary at the time.The Italians should have had a plan for when they declared war. They squandered strategic initiative initially, which is where the other Axis powers got their flashy successes. Even if you argue that the situation evolved much faster than could be predicted, there really should have been files labeled “How to take Malta on war day 0” and “How to invade Egypt next week” in Italian HQ. Alternatively, they should have noticed they didn’t have such plans for good reasons and avoided war altogether.
There were several Sudanese battalions who, along with reinforcements from Egypt, would have eventually slaughtered the paras if left alone. Plus, Karthoum would require building up vulnerable airstrips in S-E Libya.Although I wholeheartedly agree, another reason for squandering the strategic initiative was that when Italy declared war it looked as if Germany had all but won the war for them and that the British and French would ask for an armistice in months if not weeks without Italy lifting a finger. Therefore, they didn't have to take risks that seemed unnecessary at the time.
Having written that I think that Rome should have complied with the Duke of Aosta's requests for reinforcements a few months earlier. I also think that they should have agreed that the estimates of the British military strength in Aden, East Africa and the Sudan were excessive and that he should be allowed to attack while he had the chance.
With that in mind, I think that there should also have been a file on, "How to take Khartoum on war day 0". IOTL the Italians had 2 battalions of paratroops in June 1940 and they were both based in Libya. Therefore, it should be possible to take Khartoum by an air landing soon after Italy entered the war, had there been adequate forward planning.
I know you're joking, but it's not a far fetched an idea and not necessarily bad for the Allies.
IIRC Count Caprioni was so pro-British that he sold 1,000 aircraft to the RAF in the first half of 1940 and the aircraft had been given Air Ministry serial numbers.
The Italians did better in WWI than they are usually given credit.
The Italians could have produced more 1940-43 on the Allied side because they could obtain raw materials from outside the Mediterranean.
Keeping the Mediterranean open to British merchant shipping 1940-43 would increase the carrying capacity of the available ships by not having to go around the Cape of Good Hope.
It would turn the Mediterranean Sea into an Allied Lake, which meant no need for Force H and a weaker Mediterranean Fleet could be maintained so more ships for the Home Fleet and Far East. I'm guessing that the land and air forces used to fight Italy 1940-43 IOTL would be sent to Italy ITTL to help the Italians defend themselves against a German invasion of northern Italy.
It would encourage the French to fight on from North Africa. It would make the French evacuation to North Africa easier, because the Italians wouldn't be bombing the evacuation ports and attacking the ships on their journey to North Africa. Also, many French people and some material could be evacuated via Italy.
Although I wholeheartedly agree, another reason for squandering the strategic initiative was that when Italy declared war it looked as if Germany had all but won the war for them and that the British and French would ask for an armistice in months if not weeks without Italy lifting a finger. Therefore, they didn't have to take risks that seemed unnecessary at the time.
Having written that I think that Rome should have complied with the Duke of Aosta's requests for reinforcements a few months earlier. I also think that they should have agreed that the estimates of the British military strength in Aden, East Africa and the Sudan were excessive and that he should be allowed to attack while he had the chance.
With that in mind, I think that there should also have been a file on, "How to take Khartoum on war day 0". IOTL the Italians had 2 battalions of paratroops in June 1940 and they were both based in Libya. Therefore, it should be possible to take Khartoum by an air landing soon after Italy entered the war, had there been adequate forward planning.