If Soviet Union joins the Axis in the winter of 1940-41, how would Italy do in the war ?

There were talks about the Soviets becoming the fourth member of the Axis, with each one (Soviet Union, Reich, Italy and Japan) having its own designated sphere of influence.

It's probably unrealistic for various reasons (such as Soviets wanting influence in Finland and the Balkans), but "how and why Soviet Union actually decides to join the Axis" is NOT the point of the thread.

The point is rather :
IF the Soviets join the war (in practice, they would likely open a new front for the British Empire, invading Iran, and possibly Turkey and Afghanistan, and threatening British India, Abadan and the oil fields of Iraq), how does it impact the course of the war for Italy ?

I can see two main obvious implications.
1) Britain has less manpower and equipment to devote to the Western Desert front
2) Suddenly, Italy might be able to buy (at relatively low cost) oil, coal, iron ore and other strategic materials, as well as food, from the Soviets, which would relieve the chronic resource shortage afflicting the Italian war industry, and allow Italy to mass produce their newer tank and aircraft designs, as well as use the Regia Marina more efficiently (without having to worry about oil shortage)

And if Germany never turns on Soviet Union, that would also mean that Germans can maintain their focus on Britain as the main enemy, and (like Italy) keep getting resource shipments from Russia, while avoiding the resource waste that was the Eastern Front (for example, the oil consumption or the tanks destroyed in the eastern campaigns, or the millions of dead soldiers).
With more manpower, iron ore and oil, the number of submarines produced might dramatically rise, which would force the Royal Navy to devote more ships to the Battle of Atlantic.
The specter of Sealion would (from the British point of view) look more realistic, even if it isn't really, forcing Britain to keep more British Army divisions at home.
Luftwaffe would be fully focused on the west, with more aircraft being produced and more oil to power them. Which again, would force the RAF to keep more aircraft at home.
 

TDM

Kicked
Frankly if we're hand waving USSR being a fully paid up, welcome and enthusiastic member of the Axis, Britain is screwed. Yes the home island is pretty much impregnable unless Germany builds a huge navy*, and there's the British empire. But here Britain and the Empire (well except Canada) will be pinned in place by an axis threat stretching from Borneo to Norway.

It's not that Italy will be better in and of itself, but it will basically now be fighting it's WW2 on easy mode in terms of how much Britain can devote to fighting it**, and with the added advantages of Soviet resource backing and un-distracted German backing.

Germany can basically fortify Europe and kill minorities to its heart's content

Japan and the USSR might be interesting as that's now the other Axis hinge that joins all Axis powers up. Can Japan and the USSR come to some kind of carving up the far east understanding? Well if the USSR can be a fully fledged member of the axis then anything is possible!

America's going to have to do some careful thinking here, as while it obviously doesn't want an Axis dominated Africa, & Eurasia and the longer*** it leaves it the worse it gets, but taking on the Axis in this scenario is somewhat tougher that OTL.



*and as pointed out in this scenario Germany can devote way more resources to U-boats

**not just Britain either, Greece and the Balkans likely goes differently as well

***it might hope that this axis can't stay unified for long once the immediate threat of Britain is gone, and it can some how exploit that later, but that's high risk and basically means trying to pick the right bones out of an axis civil war
 
Last edited:
Basically we have a bastardised version of the Anglo-American Nazi war.

Only this time however the Soviets are helping the Nazi's with building Fortress Europe and the Imperial Japanese Empire meanwhile is barely holding on against the Americans in the Home Islands and Asian mainland with the support of the Nazi's and Soviet's.
 

Garrison

Donor
There were talks about the Soviets becoming the fourth member of the Axis, with each one (Soviet Union, Reich, Italy and Japan) having its own designated sphere of influence.
Yes there was talk, but it was on a par with Hitler's ideas of joining up with British in a grand anti-comintern alliance. There were lots of wild ideas floating around in the 1940-41, but you need to look at Hitler's underlying aims, destroying Communism and seizing vast new territories in the East. At the same time Stalin signed up to the M-R Pact to see the western powers fight it out among themselves, he had no intention of seeing the Red Army becoming cannon fodder for the Nazis.
 

TDM

Kicked
Basically we have a bastardised version of the Anglo-American Nazi war.

Only this time however the Soviets are helping the Nazi's with building Fortress Europe and the Imperial Japanese Empire meanwhile is barely holding on against the Americans in the Home Islands and Asian mainland with the support of the Nazi's and Soviet's.
I'm not so sure about that, it will depend on how well and enthusiastically they work together but the USSR and Japan together could make some big changes in the far east.

So OK nothing is going to stop the US building more ships than the rest of the world combined if it chooses to, but there's more to that theater than that particularly on the Asian Mainland.

That said I think Nuclear weapons will long term be key (as ever in these threads)
 
Last edited:
IF the Soviets join the war (in practice, they would likely open a new front for the British Empire, invading Iran, and possibly Turkey and Afghanistan, and threatening British India, Abadan and the oil fields of Iraq)
Why should Stalin do that? He always picked fights with weaker nations. He wouldn't go to war against the British Empire. If Stalin joins the Axis, he only joins because he gets something out of it (a bufferzone to the Nazis for example) and he won't join the German-British war.
 
Germany was running a food deficit, even with Soviet shipments of grain and fertilizer pre Barbarossa.
So even in this Soviet alliance, Germany still can't import from USA, Argentina, Australia. And the USA still controls the food supplies to Spain and Vichy North Africa.
Russia could invade Turkey and Persia or Afghanistan, but those are neutral, and would become British Allies and with just a bit of British help, i.e. a few British submarines and mine layers in the Black Sea, might turn into more Soviet screw up like Finland (especially invading Turkey).

Its a little better for Germany, but still not much better for Germany if Hitler just decided to pass on Barbarossa in 1941 with Soviets still just a friendly neutral.

Food is still an issue, and the USA is still building a huge amount of aircraft which the Germans can't even begin to dream about matching without the resources of the USSR devoted to their direct purposes.

So I suspect eventually the British and USA close the ring, drive the Germans/Italians out of Africa, crush the Japanese Navy, and start bombing German crucial industry and win, might be 1946 or 1947 but the Allies still win.
 
Last edited:

thaddeus

Donor
Germany was running a food deficit, even with Soviet shipments of grain and fertilizer pre Barbarossa.
So even in this Soviet alliance, Germany still can't import from USA, Argentina, Australia. And the USA still controls the food supplies to Spain and Vichy North Africa.
Russia could invade Turkey and Persia or Afghanistan, but those are neutral, and would become British Allies and with just a bit of British help, i.e. a few British submarines and mine layers in the Black Sea, might turn into more Soviet screw up like Finland (especially invading Turkey).

an Axis USSR leads to more cooperation/collaboration from the Vichy regime, as they were a perfect barometer of German success, there was a scheme for German bases/operations from Bizerte, Aleppo, and Dakar.

the Soviets might "spill out" into the Med, the Bulgarian zone of Greece or Vichy Syria? the only way the British can strike at the USSR is hitting Baku, an option considered a risky gamble prior but maybe not here?
 
an Axis USSR leads to more cooperation/collaboration from the Vichy regime, as they were a perfect barometer of German success, there was a scheme for German bases/operations from Bizerte, Aleppo, and Dakar.

the Soviets might "spill out" into the Med, the Bulgarian zone of Greece or Vichy Syria? the only way the British can strike at the USSR is hitting Baku, an option considered a risky gamble prior but maybe not here?
Certainly Darlan and Petain could agree to bases, local down rank Vichy regime members seemed less comfortable collaborating with the Germans, the USA seemed paranoid about Dakar, being well very somewhat approximate to the western hemisphere, I wonder if that would trigger a USA response (even pre December 41), if the Germans started showing up there.

I suppose if the Germans/Bulgarians were in on it with the Soviets, Turkey could be taken out quickly enough, which is probably the biggest risk factor for the Allies. If the Turks blow the rail tunnel through the Tarsus mountains, it will be hard to supply much south of there, and the mountains themselves are an obstacle.
 

thaddeus

Donor
an Axis USSR leads to more cooperation/collaboration from the Vichy regime, as they were a perfect barometer of German success, there was a scheme for German bases/operations from Bizerte, Aleppo, and Dakar.

the Soviets might "spill out" into the Med, the Bulgarian zone of Greece or Vichy Syria? the only way the British can strike at the USSR is hitting Baku, an option considered a risky gamble prior but maybe not here?

Certainly Darlan and Petain could agree to bases, local down rank Vichy regime members seemed less comfortable collaborating with the Germans, the USA seemed paranoid about Dakar, being well very somewhat approximate to the western hemisphere, I wonder if that would trigger a USA response (even pre December 41), if the Germans started showing up there.

I suppose if the Germans/Bulgarians were in on it with the Soviets, Turkey could be taken out quickly enough, which is probably the biggest risk factor for the Allies. If the Turks blow the rail tunnel through the Tarsus mountains, it will be hard to supply much south of there, and the mountains themselves are an obstacle.

I was trying to relate any possible collaboration to Italy's position, so use of Tunisia would be paramount for supplying N. Africa, base(s) in Syria historically used to support the Iraqi coup, probably more realistic to incite a renewed Palestinian uprising?

was thinking more along the lines of putting Turkey in a vise to open the Straits rather than invading.
 
I don't think the Red Army would be able to invade Iran. The Zagros mountains would provide a very defensive posture for British and Commonwealth forces stationed there.
 

TDM

Kicked
Why should Stalin do that? He always picked fights with weaker nations. He wouldn't go to war against the British Empire. If Stalin joins the Axis, he only joins because he gets something out of it (a bufferzone to the Nazis for example) and he won't join the German-British war.
Only in this case Britain and the Empire would be a weak distracted enemy Stalin could take advantage off by carving chunks off it.
 
I was trying to relate any possible collaboration to Italy's position, so use of Tunisia would be paramount for supplying N. Africa, base(s) in Syria historically used to support the Iraqi coup, probably more realistic to incite a renewed Palestinian uprising?

was thinking more along the lines of putting Turkey in a vise to open the Straits rather than invading.
Indeed, one of the major problems for Italy (in the Western Desert campaign) was the limited capacity of Libyan ports, so adding Tunisian (and maybe later, Algerian ?) ports would certainly help.
 
Don't see it as anything remotely likely, but if it happens, the British probably are forced to come to the negotiating table.Italy was doing decently all things considered, but their attention was already sapped by the inconclusive fighting with Greece and that isn't really going to change, so I see the course of Italian-British warfare remaining similar to OTL but quickly interrupted by peace anyways.
 

marathag

Banned
Even with that, Italy does best as a pro-Axis Neutral, and stay out of the War until Greater Germany is about to fall to the Allied Powers, then jump in.
That's the only way the Moose has a chance of dying an old Man in bed, like Franco
 

thaddeus

Donor
my (repeated) speculation is that Germany (and Italy) could have contributed to Soviet naval construction, as Stalin, against all reason, wanted a huge battleship fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship

Germany and Italy could reap huge resources, and it would place the USSR in the sights of UK and US if they had a potential navy of such size (and from the German standpoint at least it would drain the Soviets in other areas of their military)

it presents Stalin with the issue of access to the open ocean, Turkish Straits then the Suez Canal? would they try to aid their putative Axis partners gain control of those and/or try to seize Iran to have a blue water port of their own.
 
Top