How would an Allied Fascist Italy act towards the East and developing world?

We have discussed Italy staying neutral until towards the end of WWII and joining the Allies when it is clear they will win many times. So, again let’s Italy determines that Britain would not agree to terms in the near future in mid 1940 and recognized the danger of war with America and the Soviet Union in the near future and they wisely stay neutral. Around the Summer of 44 they join the Allies and declare war on Germany, maybe slightly reducing the length of the war in Europe.

After Germany is defeated, how does Italy act towards the Far East?

Does Italy declare war on Japan? If so, does this cause any added concern to Japan? Or can Italy do anything to persuade Japan to drop out earlier?

The Chinese Civil War soon rages on. Italy is still largely in good shape from avoiding serious war. Do they get significantly involved?

Korea. If the Korean War still happens, what is their level of involvement?

Indo-China has a variety of wars they could fight. Do they attempt to do so?

Do they get get involved in France’s war in Algieria?

Do they have much influence in the America’s with the huge Italian population living there?

Would Mussolini (if still alive) back down in the Suez Crisis?

What would general Italian relations with Israel be like?
 
They wouldn't really care about Far East issues, except perhaps for Italy's legation in Tientsin, China. They may well issue a token DoW to Japan, but their real hostile act will be not tying down the UK in the Mediterranean from 1940 onwards.

Italy's influence in the US will be higher than OTL, but surprisingly lower in South America as the Fascist government both encouraged people of Italian descent to go back home and treated poorly even similar governments like Argentina's.

Italy will still be busy pining over irredentist claims on France, and digesting the inevitabile gains in the Balkans. Assuming Israel forms, the two nations will be quite opposed - the POD is after the 1938 laws, even if they are pulled they'll still weigh down. Plus, Fascist Italy would loathe losing emigrants to other nations and will be, even if just for profit, on the Arab side and able to veto stuff in any alt-ONU.

Italy will focus most of her attention on the northern half of Africa and Europe, trying to counterbalance the Soviets in the Balkans and propping up other Eurofascists and their colonies. In fact, if Libya works (and there is not much doubt it would, at horrible human costs), they would all be taking cues, trying to emulate that 'model' colony.

Their relationship with France and the UK will still be 'interesting' because of the various overlapping spheres; alt-Suez is likely to be triggered by the hostile takeover of one faction in Egypt (Anglo-French, Italian, Soviet, US) and end up in a standoff no one is willing to force the resolution of.
 
The EU would be the entity that keeps getting into middle eastern wars for Israel instead of the US, thanks to the Italians.
 
They wouldn't really care about Far East issues, except perhaps for Italy's legation in Tientsin, China. They may well issue a token DoW to Japan, but their real hostile act will be not tying down the UK in the Mediterranean from 1940 onwards.

Italy's influence in the US will be higher than OTL, but surprisingly lower in South America as the Fascist government both encouraged people of Italian descent to go back home and treated poorly even similar governments like Argentina's.

Italy will still be busy pining over irredentist claims on France, and digesting the inevitabile gains in the Balkans. Assuming Israel forms, the two nations will be quite opposed - the POD is after the 1938 laws, even if they are pulled they'll still weigh down. Plus, Fascist Italy would loathe losing emigrants to other nations and will be, even if just for profit, on the Arab side and able to veto stuff in any alt-ONU.

Italy will focus most of her attention on the northern half of Africa and Europe, trying to counterbalance the Soviets in the Balkans and propping up other Eurofascists and their colonies. In fact, if Libya works (and there is not much doubt it would, at horrible human costs), they would all be taking cues, trying to emulate that 'model' colony.

Their relationship with France and the UK will still be 'interesting' because of the various overlapping spheres; alt-Suez is likely to be triggered by the hostile takeover of one faction in Egypt (Anglo-French, Italian, Soviet, US) and end up in a standoff no one is willing to force the resolution of.
This alt-Italy may have an incentive to get in bed with Israel out of "enemy of my enemy" considerations, rising Arab nationalism could be seen as a threat by both countries, in Libya as well as Palestine.

The '38 antisemitic laws in Italy was a case of trying to appease Hitler, this was a case of top-down antisemitism from the state rather than bottom-up, popular antisemitism in interwar Eastern Europe . Fascist Italy was responsible for a lot of nasty stuff, but Mussolini and most of the elite didn't appear to be ideologically antisemitic the way the Nazis were.

Nordic racialism was only popular in pro-German circles and among some Northern Italians. A neutral Italy would probably swing toward a Mediterreanist conception of the peoples around the Mediterranean being a common, superior race or closely connected set of cultures, with Italians and the Italian state being a first among equals in their propaganda, like the head of a flock of birds flying in a v formation.

Fascist racial theories are always pseudoscientific and subordinate to the leader's immediate geopolitical needs. However, a surviving fascist Italy could increase the prospects of ideologies like Pharaonism (secular Egyptian nationalism that emphasis pre-Islamic civilization around the Nile river as part of a larger "mediterranean" world), Phoenicianism (strain of nationalism popular among Levantine Christians that views Lebanese as the descendants of the ancient Phoenicians rather than part of the Arab world), and the Greater Syrian/Levantine nationalism of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.
 
We have discussed Italy staying neutral until towards the end of WWII and joining the Allies when it is clear they will win many times. So, again let’s Italy determines that Britain would not agree to terms in the near future in mid 1940 and recognized the danger of war with America and the Soviet Union in the near future and they wisely stay neutral. Around the Summer of 44 they join the Allies and declare war on Germany, maybe slightly reducing the length of the war in Europe.
Long term Italy is still likely to lose Italian East Africa. Allthough the countries that emerge may not have the same borders in OTL. There may be more countries that emerge than in OTL, or fewer. Perhaps just a single country?

Holding Libya would be more feasible. Allthough it will likely result in bad relations between Italy and the Arab world.

Italy holding the Dodecanese will somewhat strain Italian-Greek relations.

I don't think it is likely that Italy would be allowed to gain territory following a late entry on the allied side.
 
Asking about their relationship to Israel makes me wonder what their relationship is to the Vatican. Israel-Vatican's an interesting dynamic already, does Fascist Italy put any additional pressure on it?
 
Long term Italy is still likely to lose Italian East Africa. Although the countries that emerge may not have the same borders in OTL. There may be more countries that emerge than in OTL, or fewer. Perhaps just a single country?
The Italians can hold onto Eritrea if they join the Allies in the Second World War but Italian East Africa, if/when given independence, is not going to become a single country - Somalia is probably united with the Ogaden upon independence while Ethiopia has lost both the aforementioned eastern province and Tigray as well as some northeastern lands populated by the Afars.
 
...explain?

Equipment losses and logistics issues stemming from operations in Yugoslavia and Greece meant that, instead of kicking off on June 10th when flood waters had receded, Barbarossa had to wait until June 22nd. Two weeks might not sound like a lot, but it would've been decisive in August-October given how close everything was at that juncture. More importantly, however, Army Group South lost 11th Army for occupation duties and this left them unable to conduct encirclements like other fronts, leading ultimately to the diversion to Kiev in August.
 
Equipment losses and logistics issues stemming from operations in Yugoslavia and Greece meant that, instead of kicking off on June 10th when flood waters had receded, Barbarossa had to wait until June 22nd. Two weeks might not sound like a lot, but it would've been decisive in August-October given how close everything was at that juncture. More importantly, however, Army Group South lost 11th Army for occupation duties and this left them unable to conduct encirclements like other fronts, leading ultimately to the diversion to Kiev in August.
Although I agree with this, alternate-history allows for the German's always to lose in the end.
 
Top