Italy declares war in 1939 not 40?

[new statesman]

What is the most likely outcome.?

will the british consentrate ther army in north africa insted of france?

will this afect the war compleatly? would the italians be that bold?

 

[Johnrankins]

Near ASB, Mussolini basically was an oppertunist who invaded France mainly because he thought that he could grab some land at little risk with France fighting the Germans.

 

[stevep]

Mussolini didnt fight in '39 because a. he saw no oppurtunity
b. His army was god-awful.

In '39 there was no indication that Britain or France would be defeated. I think it would be more interesting if Mussolini declares war in '42; then, the Afrika Korps may get involved in North Africa at a more innoppurtune time.....

037771

Depending on the butterflies but unless Germany is doing very, very well in Russia or Churchill has managed to spectacularly waste the resources freed up by the lack of a war in the Med, the fascists are going down the pan by 42. Japan in probably in the process of smashing its skull in against SE Asia and the battle in the Atlantic will have been virtually completed - although a US entry could give the Axis one last brief happy time.

Steve

 

[Cockroach]

What is the most likely outcome.?

will the british consentrate ther army in north africa insted of france?

will this afect the war compleatly? would the italians be that bold?

Taranto's rolled fowards considrably... and with the airgroup from HMS Glorious specifically trained for such a role there's a fair chance it ends up being even worse for the Italians than OTL.

 

[DuQuense]

Mussolini wanted to attack France in May 1940, but Hitler keep putting Mussolini off. Till Mussolini finally demanded to be allowed to participate.
Even with the shape the french forces were in Italy still lost.

But as for the WI

France will attack from Tunisia, while Britain attacks from Egypt.
Both will get a taste of Modern War, which will make them better prepared in May 1940.
Meanwhile the Combined Fleets totally wipe out the Italian Navy.

 

[Carinthium]

Worse- Turkey would join the war as an ally against Italy.

http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/ww2_0998.htm

 

[Alikchi]

An extra year for Italy to work up to wartime production would have been extremely pivotal. You would see near-1943 levels of production in 42.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Its an interesting POD but I dont know enough to comment

-1- What are OTL RN deployments to the Med ?
-2- Were these cut back on for Northern waters operations ?
-3- Can Norway still be carried out as per OTL if the Med is a live theatre ?

-4- Does France having to fight in Tunis/Libya as well as on the Alps mean they have even less mobile armed forces to face off against the Germans ? I know in WW1 getting the forces from Algiers to France was vital; what was the status of this in WW2 ?

-5- What is the internal situation in Egypt like and would it change in any significant way if by the time the W front collapses, Allied forces have already been fighting there for almost a year ? i.e. would the Egyptians see the Fall of France and Britain ending up alone as a sign they could kick the British out ?

Best Regards
Grye Wolf

 

[Alikchi]

Methinks that if the French had a victory under their belt, in North Africa (which seems highly likely in this scenario) that France would not have bowed out of the war, but fought on from Nord-Afrique.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

He would still had troubles in Greece... He would have to deploy forces in both North Africa and Greece and somehow the Brits would have find a weak spot somewhere... I dont know about the Italian Navy though... could they match Royal Navy in 1939?

 

[arctic warrior]

About the French in North Africa - look up this one:
http://france1940.free.fr/en_index.html

I read once that the French troops of NA was transported to mainland France but new inf. divs raised instead. Also a cavalry brigade was raised.

If Italy enters 1939 they might let their units remain in NA and deal with the Italians in Libya (if they have the stomach for some offensive action)

 

[DuQuense]

He would still had troubles in Greece... He would have to deploy forces in both North Africa and Greece and somehow the Brits would have find a weak spot somewhere...

If Italy enters the war in Septembre 1939, Libya would be attacked from both sides.
As such I Doubt If Italy would have time for the Greek Adventure in late 1940.

What is the internal situation in Egypt like and would it change in any significant way if by the time the W front collapses, Allied forces have already been fighting there for almost a year ? i.e. would the Egyptians see the Fall of France and Britain ending up alone as a sign they could kick the British out ?

Given attacks by both Britain and France, ?would the NAfrica Front last a Year?.
And despite being Pro Italian during the War, Egypt didn't kick the British out after May 1940 OTL.
Here with Libya taken, they would be even less likely.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

No way, especially the British, would have the forces for Norway.

If Mussolini joins the Axis in '39, the French could overrun Italy (or at least the North) before Germany is ready to attack France.
This could have two effects;
- Germans send forces South to help the Italians, DAK in Italy itself, but then most likely mountaineers or the likes.

- Germany speeds up the attack on France. But Germany won't be ready for that attack before the summer of '40, so an early attack could be too weak and slow to shock the French as IRL.

This could mean that Germany never manages to trounce France as IRL, as the Germans will need a pause halfway through their attack on France.

During this time the French can redeploy their armies and WWI number two sets in perhaps? Although I think the Germans will still manage to overpower France eventually. It will make them much weaker later on, so any Barbarossa will be less successfull.

 

[arctic warrior]

No way, especially the British, would have the forces for Norway.

If Mussolini joins the Axis in '39, the French could overrun Italy (or at least the North) before Germany is ready to attack France.
This could have two effects;
- Germans send forces South to help the Italians, DAK in Italy itself, but then most likely mountaineers or the likes.

- Germany speeds up the attack on France. But Germany won't be ready for that attack before the summer of '40, so an early attack could be too weak and slow to shock the French as IRL.

This could mean that Germany never manages to trounce France as IRL, as the Germans will need a pause halfway through their attack on France.

During this time the French can redeploy their armies and WWI number two sets in perhaps? Although I think the Germans will still manage to overpower France eventually. It will make them much weaker later on, so any Barbarossa will be less successfull.

I don't disagree on this one but would the French have the resolve at this time to do this???

 

[stevep]

I don't disagree on this one but would the French have the resolve at this time to do this???

Well actually I think Hitler initially wanted to attack France in about Nov 39. Might get his way under those circumstances, especially if Libya was being rapidly overrun.

That could be very bad for Germany. Not only does the army and air force have no time to recover from losses in and lessons learnt from the Polish campaign but they are also fighting in autumn weather. Which will hinder movement and especially ground support by air units. Furthermore this is before the change to the armoured thrust through the Ardennes so you would have a weaker Germany trying to reproduce a hook through Belgium and Holland, which is more the war the allies were expecting.

Germany might win in the west but if she does it will be a lot costlier. More likely I suspect it bogs down in which case the real winner is Stalin.

Steve

 

[chris N]

Italy's military chiefs clearly informed the Italian leader that Italy was not prepared for war in 1939. In fact it was even a mistake in 1940 as Italy had not recalled its merchant marine fleet and had not stockpiled war materiald.

 

[hinotoin]

Stick to the topic!

The Italian army is going to fighting to hold onto the alps so they will stay quiet for a time. There will be a massive war in AfriCA. The question is what willm Italy do to acquire new lands and what will her enemies do in response ?

 

[Roberto]

Stick to the topic!

The Italian army is going to fighting to hold onto the alps so they will stay quiet for a time. There will be a massive war in AfriCA. The question is what willm Italy do to acquire new lands and what will her enemies do in response ?

SATY NON TIOPOIC!!!

(that was a joke, in case you didn't get it)

 

[LordIreland]

An early declaration of war would almost certainly result in the loss of the Italian empire as in OTL with the addition of Libya as well. The Italian navy was generally inferior in both quality and ability. Plus the allis would have the French Navy, as yet GB would not be siphoning off units to other theatres (like the far east). Net result, a far more aggressive allied naval policy leaving the Italian fleet in an absolute shambles.

Longer effects are harder to predict, but I would say a stronger far eastern army, with crack units like the 5th Indian Div being in the Burma area when Japan gets feisty. In the ETO, does France fight on from a relatively unassailable North African position? Does Muss look to the Balkans to try and salvage his reputation, or is he overthrown? Would Italy then make a seperate peace, would the Germans then invade? Flip a coin for all the above.

 

[ranoncles]

If Italy declared war on the allies in 1939, I would expect some major repercussions/butterflies.

It would derail France’s reinforcement plans from North Africa. Those troops might have been necessary for the African defence and/or their transportation from NA to France could have been interdicted by the Italian navy. At the very least, that possibility would be high on everybody’s mind. The non-appearance of the hard-fighting African troops in France would instil caution in the French high command, which already feared the larger numbers of the German army (as they perceived it).

I also don’t believe France and England would invade Libya and destroy the Italian colonial empire. Italy had a vast army in its colonies and the utter uselessness of the Italian army was not yet known. France had spent a fortune on building the Mareth line in Tunisia, so a defensive stance would be the most likely action. Meanwhile, the British also lacked the forces to successfully invade Libya. Historically, it only skirmished with light recon forces until the Italians invaded Egypt and Wavell had assembled enough forces to counter-attack in what had become England’s main theatre of war after being expelled from the mainland. With war in the west and France menaced from the North-East and South-East, there would be little manpower to waste on ancillary operations.

The main difference with OTL may well have been the Greek adventure and the Russian Expeditionary Corps/8th Army. Historically, Mussolini was an egomaniac and opportunist. He invaded Greece because he felt slighted and wanted an easy victory. He also sent his best troops to Russia, in support of Fascist cooperation.

Had he not done that and focused on Africa (which would be likely if he was already at war IMO), he should have been able to defeat the meagre British forces in the region in 40-41 before they could build up a larger army.

Instead, Mussolini flittered his troops away in multiple campaigns, as a child with a low attention span, never bothering to prepare for a campaign or see it through to the end.