Italy doesn't switch sides

Mussolini is not overthrown and arrested or his successor stays with the axis .Italy stays in axis .how would the war go from that point. Would italy return to pre 1914 borders in Europe post war.would D-day happen later
 
Mussolini is not overthrown and arrested or his successor stays with the axis .Italy stays in axis .how would the war go from that point. Would italy return to pre 1914 borders in Europe post war.would D-day happen later

They couldn't beat Ethiopia very little change.
 
I believe the statement should be Italy cannot even beat Greece solo.

I dont even think Italy is in the same league as Nazi Germany nor Japan even more so with the heavier weights like USA and USSR. We can say that even with all that military equipment, Italy is in the same league as Greece.

Italy staying in Axis would be irrelevant to the end game.
 
That was after intense militarization in the face of the consolidation of a jingoistic fascist regime.
Read a book, buddy. They conquered it fairly easily.

Mussolini staying in charge of the entire country by 1943 is unlikely though. By that point most of them hated him. Even his son-in-law turned against him.

I believe the statement should be Italy cannot even beat Greece solo.


I dont even think Italy is in the same league as Nazi Germany nor Japan even more so with the heavier weights like USA and USSR. We can say that even with all that military equipment, Italy is in the same league as Greece.


Italy staying in Axis would be irrelevant to the end game.
This is also inaccurate. Much like with Austria-Hungary and Serbia in WW1, failure came about largely because of military incompetence, but the disparity in resources, manpower and industrial strength makes defeat inevitable for the smaller countries.
 
That was after intense militarization in the face of the consolidation of a jingoistic fascist regime.
Read a book, buddy. They conquered it fairly easily.

Mussolini staying in charge of the entire country by 1943 is unlikely though. By that point most of them hated him. Even his son-in-law turned against him.
 
Last edited:
Why not discuss the aftermath? That's the most interesting part of this scenario. What does an Allie-occupied Italy look like? How is it divided, if at all? Do we end up with two Italies just as we had two Germanies?
 
I think what he's trying to point out was that when Italy was a kingdom, they failed to conquer it, and it took higher levels of militarization to conquer it.

But that was on the basis of one battle where they committed basically zero strength. The equivalent would be living in a timeline where the British gave up after Isandlwana and saying, "Britain? They couldn't even beat Zulus, their army sucked!" Besides, saying "They couldn't beat Ethiopia very little change." doesn't exactly acknowledge that the setback was only temporary.
 
I think what he's trying to point out was that when Italy was a kingdom, they failed to conquer it, and it took higher levels of militarization to conquer it.
They failed to conquer it, not because they couldn't. They failed because it was poorly planned and the Abyssinians prepared for it. They bought modern equipment from the French and the British. They hired Russian officers to train them. They also outnumbered the Italians (who had roughly 18,000 men with half being pulled from the conscripts) by over 6 to 1 with 100,000 of them being armed with modern equipment. Aside from that, I agree. The Italians clearly weren't prepared for a modern war and staying in the war isn't going to seriously effect things.
 
Last edited:
This is also inaccurate. Much like with Austria-Hungary and Serbia in WW1, failure came about largely because of military incompetence, but the disparity in resources, manpower and industrial strength makes defeat inevitable for the smaller countries.

Competence is part of level of power. you cannot just sprout competent people in power if the people In power remains the same as per OP.

Regardless, the pod is irrelevant for the end game. I even doubt that Mussolini can even do anything about the American advances since they already had competent German help in otl. The amazing thing about US resources is the USA can fight in Italy and continue DDay just like in otl.
 
Competence is part of level of power. you cannot just sprout competent people in power if the people In power remains the same as per OP.

Regardless, the pod is irrelevant for the end game. I even doubt that Mussolini can even do anything about the American advances since they already had competent German help in otl. The amazing thing about US resources is the USA can fight in Italy and continue DDay just like in otl.
It's irrelevant. Competence is important of course, but when the difference in size is that large (their population was 8 times larger, their gdp was 7 times larger etc.), defeat is inevitable.

I never said they couldn't. I agree that it won't change things.
 
Last edited:
Well, things are obviously better for the Germans ITTL, though by how much is difficult to guess.

What is certain is that Sardinia and Corsica won't be abandoned, Italian formations won't be disbanded and will instead continue to act as garrisons and anti-partisan forces in Italy and the Balkans (or actual front-line forces in the case of a couple of divisions), Italian industry will continue its pre-invasion output and the failed British offensive in the Dodecanese won't take place. Furthermore, German persecution of Jews in Italian-controlled territories is at worst delayed and at best butterflied entirely.

Lastly, the invasion of Italy is going to be different. How different exactly depends on WHEN the Italian government decides to stick with Hitler.

If they don't initiate ANY secret negotiations from the start, then the invasion is likely to be carried out far more cautiously, with the landing at Salerno being scrapped. If it's at the last possible second, the Avalanche still goes ahead most likely.

Best case scenario for the Germans IMO (although rather low on the probability scale), is they decide to concentrate all of their forces relatively close to Salerno instead of keeping ample reserves in northern Italy, and then, when the landings hit, they counterattack the weakened allied right flank in force, scaring Clark into evacuating the bridgehead.

After that, it's all about delaying the British advance coming in from the south. In this scenario, Rome probably falls around 6 months later than OTL and the Gothic line still isn't breached when Germany surrenders. Also, with Corsica not yet taken in '44, Op. Dragoon can't go ahead.
 
Another way Italy could not switch sides would be if Marshal Bagdolio continued the fight, as it is borderline ASB for Mussolini to survive at this point.Now, if this happens, I don't see Italy lasting much longer anyway; its army was surrendering in droves by that point. I guess that the front might have stalemated sooner with more resistance, leading to an earlier D-day.
 
...

Lastly, the invasion of Italy is going to be different. How different exactly depends on WHEN the Italian government decides to stick with Hitler.

....

In this scenario, Rome probably falls around 6 months later than OTL and the Gothic line still isn't breached when Germany surrenders. Also, with Corsica not yet taken in '44, Op. Dragoon can't go ahead.

I agree with the decision date affecting things. Did game this out a couple times many years ago. Using the Italian Armies performance in Sicily as a guide I did not see much change. The morale and material condition was abysmal & the small number of good quality formations was hardly noticeable. Main difference is if there is some dithering over seeking peace then the positioning of the Italian field units may be different than if there is a firm commitment to the Axis cause.

Corsica-Sardinia had a fairly high status on the Allied to do list. If the Italian mainland looks stronger then the pressure from Marshal, Churchill & others to invade the mainland may be resisted & the two islands moved back ahead in the schedule. The Axis ability to defend either is modified by the Allied ability to isolate them.
 
I agree with the decision date affecting things. Did game this out a couple times many years ago. Using the Italian Armies performance in Sicily as a guide I did not see much change. The morale and material condition was abysmal & the small number of good quality formations was hardly noticeable.

But the large of number of low quality formations IS visible. Without having to take over garrison and anti-partisan duties, and with political pressure to defend the south, Hitler may agree to concentrate all (or most) of his formations near Naples, maybe even have Rommel be in command of them (since there are none left in the north).


Corsica-Sardinia had a fairly high status on the Allied to do list. If the Italian mainland looks stronger then the pressure from Marshal, Churchill & others to invade the mainland may be resisted & the two islands moved back ahead in the schedule. The Axis ability to defend either is modified by the Allied ability to isolate them.

IMO, they way they approached things OTL was the worst of both worlds. Taking C&S first would have either forced the Axis to divert a ton more formations to defend the lengthy (and now exposed) coastline or, had they been unwilling or unable to do so, would have permitted a landing MUCH further north, which would have shaved months off the allied timetable.

OTOH, the Italian switch meant an invasion had to take place ASAP in order to capitalize on the political development. Unfortunately, the Allies were too timid and bungled the whole thing, meaning they were now stuck with most of their formations in southern Italy, bottled up by a handfull of German units and facing a long slog north.
 
How about the Eastern Front and Normandy? And the air war? Not to mention the naval assets kept in the Mediterranean instead of fighting Japan or raiding Norway, France and hunting u boats.
 
I don't have the figures to hand, but all the Regia Navale ships and Regia Aeronautica aircraft that could sailed/flew to Allied territory to form the core of the Italia Co-belligerent forces that fought with the Allies. An Italian Co-belligerent army of several divisions was also built up, but for political reasons they weren't called divisions to play down the size of the Italian contribution to the Allied war effort.

If Italy doesn't defect then these forces will be denied to the Allies, but not necessarily added to the armed forces of Mussolini's RSI because the ships won't have the fuel and the land and air forces won't have the equipment.
 
Top