Italian territorial losses if it switches sides earlier

Say Mussolini is forced out and Italy switches sides following the end of the Tunisian campaign.

What territories could Italy retain following an earlier switch

Could Italy retain some of the land it took from Yugoslavia or could it retain Albania
 
This would probably turn out worse for Italy than what happened IOTL.

First of all, assuming the King escaped to Sardinia to make such a proclamation, the Nazis will probably end up occupying almost all of the Italian mainland and Sicily, instead of only the Mainland. This would likely make any Allied invasion of Italy a little bit harder.

One of the concessions Italy had to make to switch IOTL was to cede the Venezia-Giulia region to Yugoslavia, which ended up being annexed (and not merely occupied) by the Nazis. If the relationship between the Kingdom of Italy and the Yugoslav partisans get too friendly, and the Yugoslav partisans don't behave badly in Trieste as in OTL, then Yugoslavia (and eventually, Slovenia) may end up with the entire region instead of just a sliver of it.

The only silver lining, at least for the House of Savoy, is that Italy may remain a kingdom after 1946, depending on how that very close referendum swings.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
As the USA enters the war Musso had a moment of lucidity and contacts the Americans through his Swiss Embassy. A deal is made and Torch is directed towards the North Italian harbours. The Regia Marina stops supplying Rommel, who anyway is in full retreat and North Africa is doomed for the Reich. The allies with their new Italian collaborators take defensive positions on the Alps before planning an offensive on Austria. Italia must yield any territories taken after WW1 but can keep Libya and is understood that it will have a "interest" in Albania and the Adriatic.
 
Is there any chance that Italy would keep its pre-war border with Yugoslavia, and more or less set in stone with a smaller version of the Polish-Ukrainian population exchanges?

Another possibility is a regional autonomy arrangement along the lines of the Gruber-De Gasperi Agreement which afforded German-speakers in South Tyrol autonomous status. This seems agreement has worked reasonably well for the German-speakers' demands, but it's an exception to Europe's post-1945 "deport them to the 'right' side of the border approach" to minority issues.

The only reason the South Tyrol autonomy agreement probably happened OTL was because the alternative would be a German state (Austria) "gaining" land after WW2.
 
One of the concessions Italy had to make to switch IOTL was to cede the Venezia-Giulia region to Yugoslavia,

Can you substantiate that? AFAIK the modern border was just due to where the boots ended up being at the end of the War, but there was no preemptive declaration (not to mention that one would have been hugely devastating for the Italian Resistance).

Is there any chance that Italy would keep its pre-war border with Yugoslavia, and more or less set in stone with a smaller version of the Polish-Ukrainian population exchanges?

Another possibility is a regional autonomy arrangement along the lines of the Gruber-De Gasperi Agreement which afforded German-speakers in South Tyrol autonomous status. This seems agreement has worked reasonably well for the German-speakers' demands, but it's an exception to Europe's post-1945 "deport them to the 'right' side of the border approach" to minority issues.

The only reason the South Tyrol autonomy agreement probably happened OTL was because the alternative would be a German state (Austria) "gaining" land after WW2.

A better handling of the switch, rather than the ridiculous débacle of OTL, could lead to greatly diminished losses - especially if Yugoslavia ends up Communist like it did. But it won't end up as well as you think - the De Gasperi-Gruber agreement was borne of relative Italian strength and relevance to the Cold War, and for a while Italy actually tried to ignore the Agreements - by 1961 immigration to South Tyrol had bumped Italian presence to 1/3rd of total population, while Austria campaigned for more rights. Only the subsequent agreements have settled most issues - by giving South Tyrol a lot of autonomy (and outright economic privileges, in that most of their taxes stay there).
With a better handling of the switch, there will be far less pressure on Italy to give the same protection - unless Austria goes Communist, that is. You may well see another exchange of population, instead, or at least an encouragement for emigration of German speakers.
 
First of all, assuming the King escaped to Sardinia to make such a proclamation, the Nazis will probably end up occupying almost all of the Italian mainland and Sicily, instead of only the Mainland. This would likely make any Allied invasion of Italy a little bit harder.
Were there enough German troops in Italy to present before the start of Sicilian campaign to occupy the whole country ?
 
Can you substantiate that? AFAIK the modern border was just due to where the boots ended up being at the end of the War, but there was no preemptive declaration (not to mention that one would have been hugely devastating for the Italian Resistance).

Can't really find any materials online right now, but I went to museums in both Ljubljana and Trieste, and they both had WWII sections which mentioned that, at the very least, the former Austrian Littoral was supposed to be ceded to Yugoslavia.

The Slovenians even referred to the partisan occupation of the city as 'The Liberation of Trst' (as if Trieste were theirs), and the Italians as the Yugoslav 'Forty Days of Trieste'. Churchill even mentioned in his speech that Trieste was behind the Iron Curtain.

As for the German positions in Italy before the invasion, I'm honestly not quite sure how much of them there are, though there's definitely some in transit going to and from North Africa.
 
Last edited:
Were there enough German troops in Italy to present before the start of Sicilian campaign to occupy the whole country ?

Good question. There were on paper a number of high quality formations. The but is they were mostly run down, and some skeleton units made up of survivors of the Tunisian campaign. The German & Italian aircorces were rebuilding, but still run down rom the April battles. Another question is if the Italians have the will to close the Alpine passes to German reinforcements, and cut fuel, food, and land communications to the German forces inside Italy.
 
Another question is if the Italians have the will to close the Alpine passes to German reinforcements, and cut fuel, food, and land communications to the German forces inside Italy.

Even if they had the will, only a combination of extremely aggressive actions and extreme passiveness by German forces could result in Germany not occupying at least North Italy.

Can't really find any materials online right now, but I went to museums in both Ljubljana and Trieste, and they both had WWII sections which mentioned that, at the very least, the former Austrian Littoral was supposed to be ceded to Yugoslavia.

I know, but that was the result of the sudden collapse of Italian presence in Istria in 1943; Tito got there and there just was no ejecting him. Avert that and/or get Italian elements in there, and it will not be as clear-cut. Parts of north-eastern Julian March will still be given away, but the border will likely be a bit more to the East.
 
Were there enough German troops in Italy to present before the start of Sicilian campaign to occupy the whole country ?
Not really. There were some troops around since May, but the bulk of the divisions were added after the fall of Mussolini, and their positioning was also fixed for occupation in August.

The real problem is that every attempt to resist Germany is going to be visible from the Moon, so at least some measure of fighting is unavoidable.
 
Top