Impact of Fascist Italy remaining neutral in WW2

Moscow was that critical. It's not a headshot knockout, but it is the core of the Soviet regime and losing it will initiate the slow bleed that will ultimately kill the Soviets if they can't take it back. Besides the population, it is the rail hub of the nation, same with the land line phone network, is THE major industrial city of the country, is the symbol of Stalin's power, was the hub of organizing partisan resistance, sat at the center of a major coal/iron/industrial oblast, provides the best air bases in the country with access to the major industrial cities in the Upper Volga region that house the core automotive industry and synthetic rubber production, and so on.
And considering how Stalin historically refused to evacuate, it is likely that the fall of Moscow might result in his own fall.
 

Deleted member 1487

And considering how Stalin historically refused to evacuate, it is likely that the fall of Moscow might result in his own fall.
Depends on when; IOTL he gambled on not evacuating as the Germans were already slowing down and the mud started. If the Germans were moving faster and the mud had yet to start he'd probably bail.
 
...
If it is the type of 'neutrality' the Swiss did, Italy's industrial capacity would be integrated into the German war efforts. That would (as with the Swiss) mean that bombing of the German industry would be far less felt as it would also be sitting in neutral Italy. The Swiss armaments industry feeding into Germany was (I need figures!) not in-substantial....

The OP states that Italian neutrality is of the type Franco adopted IOTL.

Use of Italian industrial capacity depends on the import of raw materials. One of the points several historians, like John Ellis, make is that the reason Germans were unable to make full use of their 'captured' industry from 1940 was the shortage of critical materials. ie: production of of 85,000 aircraft frames in 1944 was not the limit of factory capacity, but because thats all the aluminum ore and scrap that could be provided. French & Italian production capacity sat idle in a large part because there was not the aluminum to build more aircraft. By early 1941 the NavCerts system was firmly in place & even if one takes a low estimate of 80% efficiency for the Allied blockade in December 1941 it means Italy is not going to have much surplus to sell to Germany. This is the problem Spains businessmen came up against in 1942. They could make a lot of money selling the Germans Wolfram, or cork, or leather. But the blockade was steadily decreasing the import of raw materials needed to make stuff to sell the Germans.

"Selling" is a second key problem here. Even where Spain could find materials from interested neutrals, they had to either pay cash, or with very secure credit. Conversely political goodwill did not provide the hard cash, or cash flow needed for the nazi government to pay its share. Loot from the Cezch & Austrian banks was running out as fast or faster than than the British gold & Dollar reserves, & overall the nazi resources, cash, or barter were not covering required imports. Sometime 1941-9142 the Italians are going to find excuses and increasing complex and doubtful credit proposals from Germany.

Conversely the Allies can do much better drawing on the relatively deep pockets of the US and the efficiency of the New York and London banks. As 1942 plays through italian business leaders are going to have a choice between flakey credit proposals from the nazis, and fat contracts and bribes from the Allies. The Facists & Germanophiles in Italy will resist this, but at the end of they day they need to keep the economy going & the nazi kleptocracy can't do it.
 
Last edited:
Moscow was that critical. It's not a headshot knockout, but it is the core of the Soviet regime and losing it will initiate the slow bleed that will ultimately kill the Soviets if they can't take it back. Besides the population, it is the rail hub of the nation, same with the land line phone network, is THE major industrial city of the country, is the symbol of Stalin's power, was the hub of organizing partisan resistance, sat at the center of a major coal/iron/industrial oblast, provides the best air bases in the country with access to the major industrial cities in the Upper Volga region that house the core automotive industry and synthetic rubber production, and so on.
But there is little reason to doubt they could take it back, in time. Even without American Lend Lease, which is less likely if the Japanese are deterred from their great south Pacific/Indonesian surge by watchful peace in the Mediterranean and greatly eased global transport for Britain, freeing up more RN resources for the Pacific. Actually OTL Churchill began routing stuff to the Russians immediately and given FDR's sympathies for the British and recognition of Soviet importance in tying down German options, I daresay even if the USA never enters the war at all the Lend Lease officially routed to Britain could be raised to cover British diversions on to the USSR even though this might not be very popular in the USA.

Anyway if the German assault is concentrated by Romanian neutrality in the north, so is the Soviet defense so it is hardly a slam dunk the Germans will be able to take Moscow in the first place.
 

Deleted member 1487

But there is little reason to doubt they could take it back, in time. Even without American Lend Lease, which is less likely if the Japanese are deterred from their great south Pacific/Indonesian surge by watchful peace in the Mediterranean and greatly eased global transport for Britain, freeing up more RN resources for the Pacific. Actually OTL Churchill began routing stuff to the Russians immediately and given FDR's sympathies for the British and recognition of Soviet importance in tying down German options, I daresay even if the USA never enters the war at all the Lend Lease officially routed to Britain could be raised to cover British diversions on to the USSR even though this might not be very popular in the USA.

Anyway if the German assault is concentrated by Romanian neutrality in the north, so is the Soviet defense so it is hardly a slam dunk the Germans will be able to take Moscow in the first place.
If they lose it time is something the Soviets do not have, especially given the critical loss to industry and raw materials, as well as population and electrical production they'd suffer; even if they take it back the damage suffered in the process would be extremely damaging to the war effort. L-L was pretty maxed out IOTL due to the lack of ports to bring it in and the necessity to convoy to get it where it needed to go, as well as the limited infrastructure to bring it into the country from the ports. IIRC the vast majority of LL that came into Vladivostok was used locally rather than being transported via the limited rail capacity 6000km to Moscow. British shipments to Russia were pretty marginal compared to what the US gave, which itself was pretty limited compared to what Britain got from the US.
Without US entry and consequent use of US shipping to the USSR plus of course the billions of dollars spent to increase rail and port capacity in Iran if anything the USSR will get even less LL than IOTL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
was a joking reference to fact that longer the war continues, everything favors the Allied side. then the question becomes how much does absence of North African front aid Germany?

guess you could add absence of Balkan quagmire but that seems less certain, even absent Italy?

Greece certainly wouldn't have been an issue if Italy isn't busy launching a parallel war, but Yugoslavia may well still happen due to factors outside of what Italy does, it's just that Italy isn't involved (or if it is it remains neutral in the wider war).

Missing not just the African Front, but also the Greek/Aegean situation, and the Mediterranean conflict in general helps Germany actually quite a lot, especially if Italy can then aid Germany materially and Germany doesn't need to or substantially spends less on supplying Italy. The thing is without the Mediterranean Front Britain is also aided a lot. I mean a LOT. Millions of tons of shipping saved per year, hundreds of thousands of men and material, all the losses of the Africa and Greek campaigns, etc. So it is not only possible, but probably likely that Britain is quite a bit more aggressive in 1941 and on against occupied Europe because they have no excuse to sit on their asses and do nothing as they would really have no active fronts.

Then there is the French issue; without Italy in the war does France fight on or not? That would have major impact on the wider war one way or the other and talking about the wider war is impossible without knowing what happens with the French absent Italian entry. That could potentially force Germany into a Mediterranean campaign via Spain, which itself might be more doable in terms of promising Spain French territory and having more material to supply Spain absent Italy being a resource sinkhole ITTL.

guess the odds still favor a British attack on the French fleet? and later Dakar (and ITTL who knows where else)? might poison Anglo-French relations enough, coupled with no Italian invasions/distractions that some type of treaty is signed? the rationale for Germany would still be there to want the French empire held together (and out of the war)?

(the unsigned agreement Paris Protocols gave Germany access to Dakar, Bizerte, and Aleppo, not sure if Germany would desire that under this scenario? but possible if UK is moving more forcefully against French territories?)

Germany might move to defend Syria (this timeline version of Libya) and find themselves considering invasion of Greece? (to reach there)
 
Last edited:
  • The first big one is surprise on the Russians. Since Stalin was surprised by the attack and the defense were done so poorly, it is easy to have a negative impact here so we get a net German gain. I tend to lean towards surprise
Of course, I can easily write an ATL where the Soviets are not surprised...

If there is nothing going on in Greece, Yugoslavia, North Africa, the Middle East, and East Africa in 1940-1941, then ISTM that Stalin is going to wonder why the Wehrmacht remains fully mobilized. He's not going to see Britain as desperate for a Continental ally. And he might just believe the warnings of BARBAROSSA that he rejected OTL. BTW, the British, through ULTRA, compiled a complete OB for BARBAROSSA, which they delivered to the Soviets in May 1941.

So it is possible for Soviet forces to be at full readiness when BARBAROSSA starts, and to have detailed knowledge of what is coming at them. Under those conditions, the Soviets could still lose the battle of the frontiers, but they would fight a lot more effectively, inflicting far more casualties and suffering far fewer. The Axis onslaught could be checked 100s of km further west.
 
Anyways, how would fascism be seen here if the Nazis still lose? Would it be seen much like communism is IOTL?
I think it would be pretty toxic and polarizing in the liberal Allied circles veering into Cold War. Note, while I agree to disagree about the people who seem so interested in proving the Soviet Union was indeed close to collapse, and acknowledge I am pretty firmly prejudiced in my belief the Soviets were freaking indestructable--because of course they could soak up horrible amounts of damage and keep coming, not because they shrugged it off--and attacking them was simply suicide, at any rate I think I ought to be able to get an amen that if the Nazis could break the USSR, they would not lose, at least not to the extent of collapsing completely. If they can break and hold the choice former Soviet territory, they have won. One can write Hail Mary passes in which the British develop the A bomb and come back later and blast them to smithereens, but honestly I think if Hitler can secure western Russia and break Soviet resistance to levels that can be contained beyond the Urals, he's got it made. Not everything is in his favor, but the Germans could then start developing nukes at their leisure, and probably would. Heisenberg et al concluded A bombs would not be practical before the optimistically hoped for end of "the current war," but Hitler bloody well expects another war with Britain and the USA and maybe Japan pretty soon. How else is he going to kill all the Jews?

So....Soviet collapse is something that if I am wrong, can happen much sooner than I think, and that is exactly what Hitler was counting on after all. Then Germany is much better able to fight Britain in the long haul and for that very reason is more likely to offer a truce and perhaps to get one. I suppose Churchill won't let up but he might get yanked out of office and someone who will negotiate will be put in. Now, the British are hardly in an abject position, particularly in a Neutral Fascist Italy TL, so they don't need to concede much. But even if the truce amounts to containment, with the British having a free hand to hinder German attempts to establish trade outside the zones they control, they control in this scenario a whole hell of a lot. So German defeat, if they can beat the Russians, is at any rate a long way off.

OTOH stipulating the Reich fails, I think that is tantamount to saying USSR survives, and if they survive they probably are very much in at the kill. At the very least they retain their prewar territory which was formidable enough, and are in the running for developing A bombs. More likely they are all over northeast Europe, quite possibly holding all of the Baltic coast and to the North Sea. (Again, Italy's influence diverts war efforts northward).

Italy will be considered a key player in Soviet containment, and it will be no questions asked much as Franco was rehabilitated post war.

But not all people in liberal countries will find this acceptable. It very possibly means a really nasty Red Scare crackdown shifting the Overton Window far right, normalizing Italian practices as reasonable and necessary and putting a hard chill on leftism generally.

Now we might get some weird configurations. For instance I see a lot of right wing TLs (not so much on this site, though someone who is famous, not for AH but other things, did try it here, not sure what their status is now) which suggest that racism is not an inherently right wing thing and that a hard attitude against radicals is not inconsistent with an end to racism. I don't buy it one little bit, but I could be wrong about that too. Call this the Tom Clancy mode of thinking, color blind reaction, including perhaps right wing forms of feminism and who knows, maybe LBGQ etc acceptance on aggressively anti-communist terms, whatever.

But by default I think the culture wars battle lines have been drawn as they have for deep reasons relating to deep ideology and that if Mussolini is a major bastion of containment, the tendency will be toward normalizing Fascism (with Nazi pathologies limited to a relative few idiosyncratic markers, while other things we think of as part of the package are normalized) and with it will come resistance to civil rights, authoritarian police state practices, censored dialog. In a sense there is always a kind of censorship going on, but this would be more intrusive and cross the line to actual literal censorship, the attempt to erase inconvenient arguments and facts and silence the uncooperative, not merely to use social tactics to isolate and discredit but to make them go away.

Now actually I am not 100 percent sure this would be substantially worse than OTL, really. Actual censorship seems to be a rare and unusual thing in our post war world...we think. We can't know what has been erased, but that way madness lies, and it does seem to be the nature of things that censorship leaves traces we'd notice. But if social isolation, discrediting, gets the job done, are we substantially better off really?

I suppose that while association with Mussolini normalizes fascism, Fascism's association with the wider liberal world will make the Fascists more normal. Toleration of diversity will probably seep into Italy as Italy gets more prosperous in association with the established powers. Perhaps Italy will return to parliamentary norms and tolerate diverse political factions, perhaps it is more likely that division and diversity will arise within established Fascist circles and patronage of various factions will cover a renaissance of liberalism within formally Fascist institutions.

Fundamentally though it looks ugly to me.
 
Top