Italy defeats Abyssinia 1896

Please forgive my mistakes but this is all from memory at this point. Just looking for some feedback.

-Italy defeats Abyssinia 1896. (not sure how this might happen, never having read much about the war or if this is even possible - would hope it is but has been kicked around a bit over the past century)
-Italy never falls out with the League of Nations in 1935 for it's war against Abyssinia, sanctions are never imposed upon Italy, and Mussolini does not go to Germany in 1937. Mussolini still views Hitler as a [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]mad little clown. [/FONT]Italy does not attack France in 1940.
-France has five or so extra divisions they move from the the border with Italy but they are not motorized or very mobile and are moved up to the diel (sp?) line with everybody else and is cut off by the German Sichelschnitt.
-Weygland and Petain sue for peace in 1940 as IRL.
-Germany never has to support Italy with oil and other resources (I thought I remembered at least 20% of German oil going to Italy) .
-Germany never has to invade Greece, and chooses not to invade Yugoslavia while their at it. His para divisions are never decimated, he allows there usage in large scale drops in the future.
-Barbarossa is mover up 2-3 weeks but well after the mud has dried up. Germany loses 8 Italian divisions for Russia, but they had negligible combat value, and he gains the German element of the Africa Corps (2 motorized, 2 light arm divisions?) plus garrison forces left in Greece and Yugo. Barbarossa front also gains the air group that fought the British fleet in the Med so well.
-Britain is able to move elements to east Asia and delay the Japanese conquests, they still get kicked out however.
-Germany gets to Moscow 2-3 weeks earlier and is able to surround it before the Siberian divisions arrive. The Siberian divisions are unable to lift the siege. Germany completely cuts off the Leningrad. Both cities surrender in the spring 1942. SU Counterattacks with everything they have that spring, but most forces are cut off and crushed in much the same way as they were that spring IRL.
-Germany controls the caucuses by the late summer of 1942. Murmansk is threatened and lend lease supplies are reduced. Out of oil, with its industry coming within range of Germany's medium bomber force SU sues for peace.
-UK has come up through Persia and is beaten back. UK sues for peace in order to avoid losing the Suez and India.
-Germany has declared war on USA as IRL. The 8th moves to Africa after UK capitulates to fight on but fighter cover limits bombing raids largely to Vichy France. Much of the caucuses' oil comes online by 1943. The Luftwaffe only has to defend against daylight raids, moves almost all of it's fighter groups to France. 8th air force is decimated by 1943. USA largely gives up all aggressive action against Germany by late 1943. USA moves most of the Atlantic fleet to Pacific. The Pac war goes the same as IRL.
-USA public sees the European war as un-winnable, Dewey runs on the promise to sue for peace with Germany, FDR is forced to coop the position. By early 44 USA has sued for peace with Germany. Japan is defeated in 1945 as IRL.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The Spanish Civil War would still make Hitler and Mussolini bedfellows. Taken there has been no butterflies since 1896, which is unlikely.
 
Italy would likely throw a lot of resources into trying to colonizing the area and may well need a sizable military commitment to ensure that the area stays peaceful seeing as if I recall correctly that their plan was to settle a sizable amount of people in the new territory which doubtless won’t go over well the native population. This added burden might even be enough to cause Italy to accept Austria-Hungary’s offer for neutrality during WWI which would almost certainly cause a lot more butterflies earlier than you have.
 
Italy defeats Abyssinia 1896. (not sure how this might happen, never having read much about the war or if this is even possible - would hope it is but has been kicked around a bit over the past century)
Possible, but unlikely.

Italy never falls out with the League of Nations in 1935 for it's war against Abyssinia, sanctions are never imposed upon Italy, and Mussolini does not go to Germany in 1937. Mussolini still views Hitler as a [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]mad little clown. [/FONT]Italy does not attack France in 1940.
If Mussolini stays is in the legue's good book, odds are that Italy stays in the Stresa front (basically an alliance against Germany). The spanish civil war could change this, but it's difficult to say. The italian foreign politics depends a lot by internal power struggles. (now as during fascism). It's true that IOTL it was after the SCW that Mussolini started to see Great Britain as a possible enemy, but ITTl the italian commitment to the franchist cause could be radically different...

France has five or so extra divisions they move from the the border with Italy but they are not motorized or very mobile and are moved up to the diel (sp?) line with everybody else and is cut off by the German Sichelschnitt.
Consider, though, that if Italy is not a Germany ally, Hitler will have to man the austrian border, so he will have less troops in France...

-Germany never has to support Italy with oil and other resources (I thought I remembered at least 20% of German oil going to Italy) .
-Germany never has to invade Greece, and chooses not to invade Yugoslavia while their at it. His para divisions are never decimated, he allows there usage in large scale drops in the future.
-Barbarossa is mover up 2-3 weeks but well after the mud has dried up. Germany loses 8 Italian divisions for Russia, but they had negligible combat value, and he gains the German element of the Africa Corps (2 motorized, 2 light arm divisions?) plus garrison forces left in Greece and Yugo. Barbarossa front also gains the air group that fought the British fleet in the Med so well.
Generally speaking you are overstimating the impact that the troops stationed in Africa and the balkans could have had on the russian front. Hitler had to occupy Yugoslavia to secure his southern flank, not doing this seems quite dangerous to me.

Britain is able to move elements to east Asia and delay the Japanese conquests, they still get kicked out however.
Unlikely. With more troops the british could have defended Singapore and Malesia (others in the forum knows more on the matter, though). Besides you have to consider that the british won't sit idly in the west: without an african front, Churchill could decide to attack Norway again...

Germany controls the caucuses by the late summer of 1942. Murmansk is threatened and lend lease supplies are reduced. Out of oil, with its industry coming within range of Germany's medium bomber force SU sues for peace.
-UK has come up through Persia and is beaten back. UK sues for peace in order to avoid losing the Suez and India.
ASB. Have you an idea of how long would be the supply line from Russia to Suez? It would have been incredibly difficult to conquer starting from Libya...

Germany has declared war on USA as IRL. The 8th moves to Africa after UK capitulates to fight on but fighter cover limits bombing raids largely to Vichy France. Much of the caucuses' oil comes online by 1943. The Luftwaffe only has to defend against daylight raids, moves almost all of it's fighter groups to France. 8th air force is decimated by 1943. USA largely gives up all aggressive action against Germany by late 1943. USA moves most of the Atlantic fleet to Pacific. The Pac war goes the same as IRL.
-USA public sees the European war as un-winnable, Dewey runs on the promise to sue for peace with Germany, FDR is forced to coop the position. By early 44 USA has sued for peace with Germany. Japan is defeated in 1945 as IRL.
No, the only possible end for this scenario is a mushroom cloud over Berlin. The russians have no reasons to surrender (you took Moscow, all right. So did Napoleon) and you are understimating the british will to fight. Once the americans have the A-bomb, they are going to use it in Europe (as they had planned).
 
Possible, but unlikely.

If Mussolini stays is in the legue's good book, odds are that Italy stays in the Stresa front (basically an alliance against Germany). The spanish civil war could change this, but it's difficult to say. The italian foreign politics depends a lot by internal power struggles. (now as during fascism). It's true that IOTL it was after the SCW that Mussolini started to see Great Britain as a possible enemy, but ITTl the italian commitment to the franchist cause could be radically different...

Consider, though, that if Italy is not a Germany ally, Hitler will have to man the austrian border, so he will have less troops in France...

How many division would that take? three at most? As long as Guderian and Rommel cut off the bulk of the French mobile forces in Belgium I'm not sure how it could matter.


Generally speaking you are overstimating the impact that the troops stationed in Africa and the balkans could have had on the russian front. Hitler had to occupy Yugoslavia to secure his southern flank, not doing this seems quite dangerous to me.

Danger from what in Yugoslavia? An invasion from the British? Unlikely, but they could garrison the border with less troops than were left in Yugoslavia anyway. An extra panzer corps and one of the most powerful air groups in the war plus the air transport and three extra weeks before the mud and Siberian army comes seems hard to overestimate to me.

Unlikely. With more troops the british could have defended Singapore and Malesia (others in the forum knows more on the matter, though). Besides you have to consider that the british won't sit idly in the west: without an african front, Churchill could decide to attack Norway again...

Good point about another invasion of Norway. I submit that will be an extremely difficult task for Britain given the terrain, the germans defending, and the lack of a British airborne forces. If it was easy they would have done it before the end of the war IRL.

ASB. Have you an idea of how long would be the supply line from Russia to Suez? It would have been incredibly difficult to conquer starting from Libya...

Quite long but certainly possible once the SU black sea fleet is destroyed. In fact it would be easier to supply an army in Persia than one outside Moscow
at that point. Use the black sea to take supplies from Romania to the caucuses overland to the Russian infrastructure used to take oil to the north, the rest of the way south will admittedly be difficult.

No, the only possible end for this scenario is a mushroom cloud over Berlin. The Russians have no reasons to surrender (you took Moscow, all right. So did Napoleon) and you are understimating the british will to fight. Once the americans have the A-bomb, they are going to use it in Europe (as they had planned).

Once the Russians oil is cut off, they might not have to surrender but they certainly can't go on fighting a conventional war. I thought that once Iraq and India were threatened by a panzer corps in Persia the British might begin to to think about cutting their losses since Hitler never wanted anything but a white peace with Britain.
If that proves true how could USA ever get a nuke to Berlin? Against the almost complete fighter component of Luftwaffe over France then east once past Switzerland? There was never a fighter in the war that could go from north Africa to Berlin and back. I don't think they good get air superiority since at that point fighter production should take its rightful place at the top of the production queue. I guess the USA would invade Corsica and launch from there but its still I mighty long way, against everything Germany can throw at them. Additionally, it will be hard to keep American Public behind FDR once they can see no way to victory on that front. Also, say they bomb Germnay twice in 45, then what? You think Hitler gives then? No way. And are you going to invade Japan and take another 500k casualties, or wait for your next to bombs two bombs be developed for them? Does japan even surrender since SU is out of the war after the 2 bombs drop, so you have to take 500k casualties invading anyway now? Once SU gives in and the bulk of forces go on the defensive in the West, the amount of casualties the allies will have to endure to get to Berlin, and then knowing it may not be over even then, would make it very difficult for a Democracy to carry out, disregarding the fact that once the casualty figures from the invasion Japan become known in America any further large scale operations will become impossible. Also now the USA might have to dig out the Japanese from Manchuria too.
 
-Italy defeats Abyssinia 1896. (not sure how this might happen, never having read much about the war or if this is even possible - would hope it is but has been kicked around a bit over the past century)
IIRC at the last major battle
The Ethiopian King was starting to retreat, as He was out of Supplies and the Moral/Will to fight of his troops was about exhausted.
Seeing the retreat the Italian general sent Scouts backed by a small amount of Troops to pursue.
However the Ethiopian troops left to cover the withdraw, managed not only to defeat these, but to counter attack and take the Italian Positions they came from.
At this the Ethiopian Army turned around, poured thru the hole in the Italian line and proceeded to defeat the Italians in Detail.

Taught in Military Schools as a classic case where an Army Snatched Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
It would only take a minor Butterfly, -Half Hour wait before sending the Pursuers- Or more men in the pursuit -etc- to have the Ethiopian Army Unable to take advantage of this and return in time, etc.

As to what Happens-- A lot will depend on how much of the Italian Emigrant stream the Italian Government can persuade, to divert to Africa, Instead of the Americas.
 
For Duquense

It would only take a minor Butterfly, -Half Hour wait before sending the Pursuers- Or more men in the pursuit -etc- to have the Ethiopian Army Unable to take advantage of this and return in time, etc.
The italians could have won the battle, yes, but I'm concerned about the possibility of keeping Ethiopia. Given the area width and his population fierceness, Italy could be locked in a long fight to "pacify" the region, a fight that would devour a lot of resources. Probably this would not prejudicate italian partecipation to WW1, but could very well butterfly away the conquest of Lybia.

As to what Happens-- A lot will depend on how much of the Italian Emigrant stream the Italian Government can persuade, to divert to Africa, Instead of the Americas.
Not many. Sending settlers in Africa means an expansive development politic, and Italy in those years had not a lot of funds... OTL, when the fascists started to look into the colonial affairs, they lamented the severe state of neglect of the african colonies and the lack of a coesive politic by the "liberal goverments".

For Relcec,

Since your main interst seems to lay in the WW2, I would easy the question simply supposing a neutral Italy during the war. The best choice for leading this Italy would be Ciano, who were anti-germanic, but not to Balbo's degree. Mussolini would, in fact, join the war at one point or another, alongside Germany or against depending by the PODs, while Balbo would be probably pro-Allies.

I diagree with your opinion on the germans conquest in Russia. Even supposing a better weather and so an earlier start, reaching Moscow is quite difficult and even more difficult keep her. I don't believe, besides, that Stalin would have accepted peace at that point. He had too much to loose and for Stalin only Stalin was important.
In 1941 he has an ally, Great Britain, and in 1942 the USA join the war too. The land lease will give oxygen to russian industry (that, please note, had already been moved beyond Urals and was at full regime). Stalin knows that he has just to resist until the allies can open a second front in Europe. In the meanwhile the red army would go on grindig down the wermacht with attrition war (Russia ghad much more manpower to waste than the Axis), while the allied bombings grind down german industries.
In 1943, american troops, rather than attacking Vichy in Africa, will first go to Great Britain and then land in Norway, giving to US troops the much needed baptism of fire. From Norway, Germany is even more accessible than Italy...

The problem with menacing Suez and India from the Caucasus is that it would be extremely difficult to supply an army trough it. Even coopting Turkey somehow in this plan, the region had poor infrastructures and was (well, still is :D) quite impervious. A british army could easily lock up a stronger hostile army...

As I see it, the only way to have a victorius Axis is to have the british leave the fray in 1940 (or, still better, to stay neutral). This way Hitler can wage war against Russia with his back fairly safe and keep his industries intacts. Russia would not receive any lend-lease and Hitler would have not any reason to decalre war to USA. Stalin would probably offer a good peace deal in 1941 or 1942, that a smarter leader than Hitler would gladly accept. Hitler, being Hitler, would probably press on the war trying, uselessly, to conquer the whole Soviet Union (Hint: Von Stauffenberg Soveraign Remedy Against Obnoxius Dictators could be quite useful).

Of course, this would mean to change completely the politic that british have followed nearly religiously since the napoleonic wars: never allow another european power to achieve continetal predominance. Not an easy task...
 
Last edited:
Let's tackle the appropriate things first.

With Italy in possession of Ethiopia, the two other expeditions intended to unite with Marchand's march on Fashoda in OTL would not have taken the Ethiopian route which ended in failure for a variety of reasons. Italy was no friend of France at this time, at least not as far as Africa was concerned.

This means that the expedition's will either join Marchand on a larger venture to the southern Sudan or, perhaps less likely, the scheme will be abandoned altogether. In the case of the latter, we have no international incident of Fashoda. Yet I find the former more likely, and if I am correct, then Marchand would simply be responsible for a larger expedition which, if it also reaches Fashoda like in OTL, it will be more formidable and less likely to submit to a British takeover of the region.

Then again, the British would still have a larger force present and, more importantly, the Dreyfus Affair would still rend the government of France in twain, leaving it unlikely in any event that they would remain at Fashoda.

Second, there is the effect on Italy's home government if there is no loss at Adowa, no shame of Abyssinia. Francesco Crispi's government would not have fallen in 1896, and this, due to the fact that he was a strong supporter of the Central Alliance, unlike those who followed him, might have a strong effect on Italy's European relations and alliances before World War I or TTL's analog.
 
Top