Italy Doesn't Join the Axis

[yourworstnightmare]

Italy not joining the Axis would mean no Axis invasion of Greece and no North African Front. This would probably result in a slight earlier Barbarossa. When it comes to Mussolini's own expansionistic tendencies, who knows. at least he'd have a chance to grab Fiume to "protect ethnic Italians from the barbarian Axis invasion".

On the other hand a TL where Hitler and Mussolini aren't friends could result in German claims on South Tirol.

 

[peteratwar]

You missed the biggest player in the war, US.
What are they doing?
If Germany doesn’t declare war on US they win the war.

How would they do that for heaven's sake?

 

[Alratan]

A big variable is whether Japan dares to attack the European Asian colonies with the Med open? If they do they're doomed to early defeat in Thailand, but will still divert significant Allied resources to contain them. If they don't then the Allies will have significantly more resources to play with in Europe - I work on the assumption that Roosevelt will find an excuse to make a DoW on Germany somehow.. This could lead to the Allies trying an early invasion, although they'd be most sensible to wait until the Germans are stuck deep in Russia and then bribe Italy and the Balkan powers on-side. If the Allies can expel the Germans from Romania then they will have a far easier job invading the west.

 

[Sovereign12]

If I remember correctly, Mussolini was ready to stand up for Austrian independence when Hitler was getting ready to send his stormtroopers in. But the Western democracies were too timid to take a stand at that point, and Mussolini knew he couldn't defend Austria alone. Dollfuss was a right-winger, too, even though he opposed Hitler. He just wanted Austria to remain sovereign. Didn't Austria have its own civil war, like Spain and Portugal, in which the right crushed the left?
Whether Hitler would have invaded Italy or not is hard to say. My guess is that he would have. Gaining control of the Med was just too important to leave Mussolini alone. If that had happened, the Italian Communists might have come out of the war on top.

Yes, but this all occurred in 1934. So, this doesn't really affect the POD posited. By the pre-war time of WW2, Hitler and Mussolini have made nice with each other.

_______

I could still see Mussolini not coming to Germany's side when it was required, or the meeting in March of 1940 between Hitler and Mussolini, at the Brener Pass, comes to nothing. This would, temporarily, help Germany. Not needing to come to Italy's aid for their fiascoes and a safe southern border means Germany can concentrate on its other borders.

Another advantage is German trade moving through Italy. Italy could be a middleman, making a decent profit, supplying Germany with resources from other nations.

 

[Cornelius]

This could only work however if Greece did not respond to a Yugoslav call for help.
What if Greece decides to join in, envisioning the recapture of Albania?
While the Italian Army is busy attacking the Yugoslavian Army out of Albania, the Greeks decide to kick the door and grab Albania. The Italians in Albania are surrounded and probably lose big-time?

It's a possibility, but as far as I remember, greek army wasn't actually prepared for a war (main reason why the italians could advance in 1940, notwithstanding an abysimal strategic preparation and the criminal overlooking of logistic), nor Greece had a fleet that could prevail over the italian one (that in this ATL could act freely). Mind you, I'm not saying that would be an easy walk for the italians...

As for a german attack on Italy, I think that there wouldn't be one. Germany would actually gain nothing from this attack and Italy, given its geographic configuration, can be kept only with a fleet. I don't see what Hitler could gain by opening a south front that would become only a leech of men and resources.

Furthermore if the North African Front never materialises, you have a couple of more German Army divisions available to the Germans for operations in Russia, plus more aircraft+uboats and most importantly a lot of trucks.
The aircraft and uboats could be very handy in attacking Russian-bound convoys in 1942+1943. A lot of the Luftwaffe ship-killing aircraft and Kriegsmarine u-boats were lost in the Med in OTL, deploy them out of Norway in this ATL and the Russian convoy system may collapse.
It is often overlooked that a lot of the German truck production was shipped to North Africa and lost there. With all those trucks available in the Eastern Front, the Germans may have a much bigger freedom of movement and truly mechanised (and not horse supported) formations, allowing them deeper penetrations in 1942+1943.

This is true, but i'm afraid you are actually giving too much weight to the entity of german commitment in North Africa. I don't think that those few divisions could have tipped the balance for the germans (besides, you are losing the italian expedition corp in 1942/1943 when Germany started to be starved of manpower. Yes, I know, they were not really incisive, but the russian front needed an awful lot of troops)

Without a mediterrean theatre, I think that Churchill would try an invasion of Norway in 1942 or 1943 backed by american troops, though.

Am I the only that thinks that such an operation could turn into a huge fiasco for the Allies?

No, you are not the only one . I just wrote that Churchill would have tried. The success of such operation is completely another matter.

 

[stevep]

Am I the only that thinks that such an operation could turn into a huge fiasco for the Allies?
The U-boat threat was very much alive in 1942+1943. And the Luftwaffe was not beaten yet.
Do the Allies even have enough aircraft with a range long enough to cover the invasion fleet in Norway (other than P38s)?

MUC

It might conceivably in 42. By 43, especially with the Germans struggling in Russia and a Britain so much stronger with no Med conflict and successes in the east it should be very practical. Given what you mentioned about a greater threat to the Murmansk convoy run it might even prove useful for the wider war effort, rather than just for the liberation of Norway.

Steve

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If we assume that Mussolini simply listens to Franco then Greece and Yugoslavia most likely stay out of the war.

Yugoslavia probably does permit volunteers to serve with the Axis on the basis of the more (dead) Croat volunteers the better Belgrade likes it.

Japan was on borrowed economic time once FDR imposed the embargo so Japan has little choice at that point but the attack on Singapore probably fails due to superior British forces. On the other hand the RN likely suffers a defeat more costly than Repulse and Prince of Wales by sending a larger naval force still badly outclassed by the IJN.

One ugly possibility is the IJN taking just enough in terms of lost or damaged ships to abandon the attack on Midway, the US therefore losing the one clear naval victory before 1943 and Japan having four more carriers around Guadalcanal.

The big question is whether or not the US and UK can force a successful invasion of occupied Europe. In OTL the Americans were alarmingly green and the landings in North Africa were fortunate to face Vichy French troops of uncertain commitment and poor firepower. Even Sicily and Italy were vital learning experiences. If the US and UK launch D-Day without those prior experiences to learn from then I doubt they succeed.

Meanwhile Hitler does have 40+ more divisions available not occupying Greece or Yugoslavia or Italy...

 

[DuQuense]

This would probably result in a slight earlier Barbarossa.

Lets assume 2 weeks, earlier than that and the Rains still affect things, later and there wouldn't be much change from OTL.

?Is this 2 weeks enuff to allow the Germans to take Leningrad? Fewer Reinforcements and Supplies, Less Civilians Evacuated.

 

[Markus]

What would a Cold War fascist Italy look like?

Like cold war fascist Spain.

 

[Wendell]

Like cold war fascist Spain.

Not quite. Italy might manage to hold onto some of its bits in Africa, all of which were more substantial/bountiful than those of Spain in the same period.

 

[LordKalvan]

Not quite. Italy might manage to hold onto some of its bits in Africa, all of which were more substantial/bountiful than those of Spain in the same period.

Once oil starts flowing from Lybian fields, no way Lybia can gain independence. I would also anticipate that the manpower required to build infrastructures and to man the oil industry will change the demographic balance there.

If Lybia is safely hold by Italy, there is also a stronger French hold on Algeria: both countries are considered a part of the metropolitan territory of the respective colonial powers and there would be s strong incentive to coordinate the repression of any independentist movement (assuming that such a movement develops, and gains popular support - I do not think it is a given). Tunisia might become independent (or rather autonomous) in the late 1950s-early 1960s: it is anyway hammered in between Lybia and Algeria, and must certainly toe a strict line of no support to independentists (Italy and France would reserve the right of hot pursuit for sure).

Ethiopia is more of a question mark, but it is also a Fascist colony, one of the major achievements of the regime. I frankly doubt it can gain again independence before the regime falls. Frankly, I do also doubt very much that it can become a self-sustaining colony. Ethiopia will drain both money and troops for the period.

 

[Wendell]

Once oil starts flowing from Lybian fields, no way Lybia can gain independence. I would also anticipate that the manpower required to build infrastructures and to man the oil industry will change the demographic balance there.

If Lybia is safely hold by Italy, there is also a stronger French hold on Algeria: both countries are considered a part of the metropolitan territory of the respective colonial powers and there would be s strong incentive to coordinate the repression of any independentist movement (assuming that such a movement develops, and gains popular support - I do not think it is a given). Tunisia might become independent (or rather autonomous) in the late 1950s-early 1960s: it is anyway hammered in between Lybia and Algeria, and must certainly toe a strict line of no support to independentists (Italy and France would reserve the right of hot pursuit for sure).

Ethiopia is more of a question mark, but it is also a Fascist colony, one of the major achievements of the regime. I frankly doubt it can gain again independence before the regime falls. Frankly, I do also doubt very much that it can become a self-sustaining colony. Ethiopia will drain both money and troops for the period.

Certainly, these 'permanent' extensions into Africa could become early targets for the Soviet Union...

 

[LordKalvan]

Certainly, these 'permanent' extensions into Africa could become early targets for the Soviet Union...

True: I would see Russian-sponsored subversion easier in Ethiopia than in Lybia, though. Egypt might be the battleground, but I do wonder if TTL Egypt is the same as IOTL: there might be a stronger residual British presence, for one; and Italian troops might cooperate against a leftist coup.

The other question mark is URSS. The gain at the end of WW2 would be less, at best only limited gains in the Balkans, and the soviet strategy might be directed toward Iran and India, more than toward north Africa.

 

[Alratan]

True: I would see Russian-sponsored subversion easier in Ethiopia than in Lybia, though. Egypt might be the battleground, but I do wonder if TTL Egypt is the same as IOTL: there might be a stronger residual British presence, for one; and Italian troops might cooperate against a leftist coup.

The point on Egypt is interesting. One of the big issues the British had in Egypt during the war, which soured relations afterwards, is that the Egyptian monarchy was very pro-Italian, and the British move to suppress these sympathies soured relations. With a neutral Italy, this won't occur. Whilst Britain will still have strong influence over post war Egypt, it is likely the Egyptians will be able to play the Italians off against them to some degree, so significant meddling is less likely.

The other question mark is URSS. The gain at the end of WW2 would be less, at best only limited gains in the Balkans, and the soviet strategy might be directed toward Iran and India, more than toward north Africa.

There are two factors here.

The first is that with a neutral Italy and the Germans not in Greece then the Anglo-Iraqi war almost certainly does not occur - Britain simply looks too strong and the Germans are too far away to be a potential help. Thus, British power in the region looks vastly greater than OTL, and the Shah of Iran would be even more insane than OTL if he defied them. This may well mean that Iran is not invaded, and so isn't sbject to the significant destabilisation and communist infiltration it was IOTL.

The second is that whatever happens, the British are exceedingly unlikely to be as comprehensively humiliated by the Japanese as IOTL. In a more optimistic case, with the ability to maintain appropriate forces in Malaya, they could well be seen as the key factor in the defeat of the Japanese, in contrast to initial American failure. As this loss of face critically undermined British standing in the region, the British should be able to make a far more nuanced withdrawl from India, and the Indian National Army will never have existed.

All of these mean that any Soviet sponsored "Liberation" movements have a much harder job in the European Power's colonies, and the traditional power structures in much of the Middle East retain much more legitimacy than they did than IOTL.

 

[glenn67]

It's an interesting idea. The main problem I have with it is that Mussolini was an expansionist in a way Franco never was. It was that which prevented, for example, the Stresa Front being more successful.

Mussolini saw himself as a Roman-style figure and the conquest of Abyssinia and Libya and forays into Greece were all part of this. Ultimately, I think, he saw Hitler as a way of achieving his goal of an Italian-dominated Med - if not a Mare Romanum in the traditional sense then certainly an area of Italian pre-eminence.

However, let's say that fate takes a different path. Perhaps, as other threads have posited, the Italians and Austrians defeat a German invasion of Austria in July 1934 and Mussolini is feted in London and Paris as a man of peace and supporter of order. This would have also played to Mussolini's inner vanity. Adoring crowds in Paris and London, lunch with George V, a friendly chat with the Prince of Wales, perhaps a telegram of support from Roosevelt and suddenly Mussolini is the "man of the hour".

Let's play it up a little - Mussolini is able to broker a resolution to the Spanish crisis in early 1936 frustrating the Germans once again.

Now, I do think that going down this path will lead to a confrontation between the Stresa Front and Germany at some point - let's say Autumn 1938 over the future of the Sudetenland and Danzig.

However, this thread takes another route so let's follow it. Mussolini becomes tired of the vaciliation of the West and the intransigence of Hitler and opts for a more neutral stance. Italy is resolute in opposing ANY foreign intervention in Spain for example leaving the conflict to drag on. However, it will only protect its own frontiers and not anyone else's.

Austria is annexed by Germany in March 1938 and Mussolini plays no part in the Sudetenland crisis of that Autumn. The German invasion of Poland in September 1939 occurs and Britain and France go to war with Hitler.

Mussolini is not interested in the crumbs of Hitler's war against France and stays neutral as France falls. There will be no North African front as Italy refuses to allow foreign troops to cross Libya .

Italy protests the German invasion of Greece in April 1941 and fleeing Yugoslav and Greek soldiers find refuge in Italian-controlled Albania but the Germans do not cross the border.

The Germans under Rommel battle the British and Americans in Morocco, Algeria and later Tunisia while in the East, British and Commonwealth forces under Montgomery land in Greece in late 1943 and begin the slow process of liberating the Balkans.

D-Day and the relentless attrition of the Eastern Front take their toll on Hitler's war machine and by the spring of 1945, the allies have joined up in the Balkans and on the Elbe. Hitler dies and the war ends.

Though neutral throughout the conflict, Mussolini has faced a difficult period economically despite Swiss financial aid. Trade has been disrupted but the post-war period brings improvement as Italy and nationalist Spain draw closer. In the 1950s, wealthy Italians are the first to see the advantages of tourism in Spain, Greece and Egypt.

Mussolini is fading by the late 1950s and hands power to his son-in-law Ciano, who is widely considered to have been instrumental in maintaining Italian neutrality and propserity.

Benito Mussolini dies on April 28th 1958 - his funeral is a lavish occasion attended by world leaders and heads of state. He is buried in a specially-designed mausoleum at Predappio. Ciano leads the Italian national mourning and is quickly sworn in as the new Duce.

Ciano begins to make changes in Italian foreign and economic policy. In 1960, along with Spain, Italy joins France, Germany and Britain in the embroynic EEC and investment increases. British and German tourists begin to visit Italy in larger numbers. However, Italy refuses to join NATO and joins with Yugoslavia and Spain in the Mediterranean League, an integral part of the non-aligned movement.

Ciano visits Nasser in the mid-60s and urges him to seek a rapprochement with Israel. When the army takes power in 1967, Greece joins the Mediterranean League and leaves NATO.

Yet, the age of the dictators is over. Ciano falls ill in the early 70s and dies in Rome in early 1974. With the passing of Ciano, Salazar and Franco, the old Mediterranean League is fragmenting.

With Ciano's death, the Italian Fascists descend into civil war and the Army takes over promising a transition to democracy. The "wave of democracy" sweeps through Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece in the mid-1970s.

In January 1976, the first free elections for over fifty years take place in Italy. The Christian Democrats win most votes and seats in the new Parliament and Giovanni Leone becomes the Prime Minister. Aldo Moro is elected President soon after.

The path to democracy isn't smooth - there is an abortive Communist uprising in 1978 and an attempted coup in 1982 but by the mid-1980s Italy is an integral part of the EEC and is on the cusp of joining NATO.

Wasn't Italy a monarchy when Mussolini was Prime Minister. A neutral in WWII Italy would remain a monarchy albeit a figurehead one.

If Ciano dies in 1974, whoever is the king (or queen) would probably use his influence and moral authority to prevent a civil war and bring a return to democracy.

 

[LordKalvan]

The first is that with a neutral Italy and the Germans not in Greece then the Anglo-Iraqi war almost certainly does not occur - Britain simply looks too strong and the Germans are too far away to be a potential help. Thus, British power in the region looks vastly greater than OTL, and the Shah of Iran would be even more insane than OTL if he defied them. This may well mean that Iran is not invaded, and so isn't sbject to the significant destabilisation and communist infiltration it was IOTL.

I agree that the British-iraqi war is butterflied away, at the same time Iraqis will not love the British more than IOTL.

Iran is more difficult to judge. However, Reza Shah is getting older (even assuming that there will be no occupation of the country), and the noth-west of Iran is traditionally the most rebellious part of the country. I would still expect Russian infiltration and Tudeh guerrilla around Tabriz and in Iranian Kurdestan

The second is that whatever happens, the British are exceedingly unlikely to be as comprehensively humiliated by the Japanese as IOTL. In a more optimistic case, with the ability to maintain appropriate forces in Malaya, they could well be seen as the key factor in the defeat of the Japanese, in contrast to initial American failure. As this loss of face critically undermined British standing in the region, the British should be able to make a far more nuanced withdrawl from India, and the Indian National Army will never have existed.

All of these mean that any Soviet sponsored "Liberation" movements have a much harder job in the European Power's colonies, and the traditional power structures in much of the Middle East retain much more legitimacy than they did than IOTL.

Quite likely, but at the same time I doubt USSR will refrain from expansionist moves after the victory in WW2: given the geographical proximity, Iran, India and Turkey would be odds-on candidates for soviet expansionism

India can be quite different ITTL: if UK gets out of WW2 with more strength and less losses than IOTL, Indian independence can be delayed (TTL should be a more conservative world, where de-colonisation should move more slowly than OTL)

Wasn't Italy a monarchy when Mussolini was Prime Minister. A neutral in WWII Italy would remain a monarchy albeit a figurehead one.

If Ciano dies in 1974, whoever is the king (or queen) would probably use his influence and moral authority to prevent a civil war and bring a return to democracy.

IMHO, Italy will start the process to return to democracy not later than the 1950s (the economic boom felled by Lybia development should kick in at that time). I doubt that Ciano will be Mussolini's heir (my money would be on Balbo), but it's always difficult to guess in advance who'll become the next Duce/Fuhrer/Shining Guide of the Socialist Masses: IIRC, the succession process in USSR always handed the big prize to some dark horse.

 

[Markus]

Not quite. Italy might manage to hold onto some of its bits in Africa, all of which were more substantial/bountiful than those of Spain in the same period.

Why just some? They are not in the war, the Brits have other things to worry about and the US wanted to go straight for France right away. So what could keep Italy from keeping all their colonies during the war. Afterwards keeping Ethiopia will be the cause for some friction, but once the cold war begins Italy will be considered a good anti-communist by the USA and Ethiopia no longer an issue.

@stodge: The wars in Greece and North Africa were started by the Italians! If Italy does not attack Greece, Greece does not invite British troops and Germany does not intervene. Same for NA.

 

[Wendell]

Why just some? They are not in the war, the Brits have other things to worry about and the US wanted to go straight for France right away. So what could keep Italy from keeping all their colonies during the war. Afterwards keeping Ethiopia will be the cause for some friction, but once the cold war begins Italy will be considered a good anti-communist by the USA and Ethiopia no longer an issue.

@stodge: The wars in Greece and North Africa were started by the Italians! If Italy does not attack Greece, Greece does not invite British troops and Germany does not intervene. Same for NA.

I was actually thinking that Italian East Africa would be likelier to stay Italian than would Libya.

 

[varyar]

I was actually thinking that Italian East Africa would be likelier to stay Italian than would Libya.

East Africa didn't have a huge number of Italian settlers, though (something like 30% of the population in OTL). Nor was it considered a region of Italy instead of a colony. If there's even more Italian immigration after the discovery of oil, and the maturity of a generation of Italians born in Libya, the attachment will get even stronger, and Libyan independence that much harder.

 

[Wendell]

East Africa didn't have a huge number of Italian settlers, though (something like 30% of the population in OTL). Nor was it considered a region of Italy instead of a colony. If there's even more Italian immigration after the discovery of oil, and the maturity of a generation of Italians born in Libya, the attachment will get even stronger, and Libyan independence that much harder.

Hadn't Mussolini ordered the building of Asmara to be a monument to Italian fascism? Why build such a thing in a less important Italian colony?