Italy neutral in WWII: post-war effects?

Once it's clear that the allies are going to win.

Now when would taht be?

without the North African Front, the Med is clear for British shipping: is is a huge butterfly.
Also UK troops and gear is freed up for SE Asia

France still goes Vichy that will not be friendly to the UK

Are some of those troops used to do an earlier *Torch, or will the UK succumb to the US demands for an Op. Sledgehammer?

Speaking of Troops freed up, will Stalin be just as trusting with Adolf without a North African campaign keeping the Brits and Nazis occupied?

Even saying Uncle Joe is just as blind as OTL, the DAK forces really doesn't bring much to the Barbarossa Party. Odds are that while the Nazis might get to Moscow, they won't be able to take all of it

With the British in better shape in SEAsia,do they blunt the SW drive of Japan, hold Singapore, or even more of the Malay peninsula?
 
...

Are some of those troops used to do an earlier *Torch, or will the UK succumb to the US demands for an Op. Sledgehammer? ...

I just cant see that in 1942, without any changes in Commonwealth leadership. It would take a few major changes, such as Dill remaining CIGS. Brooke & several others were loathe to get in a major land campaign on the continent.

It might also require the Japanese offensive of 1941-42 being stuffed early on. The ongoing emergency in Asia/Pacific was from the Allied perspective not resolved until the autumn of 1942. Remove that sense of emergency late winter or early spring and maybe the Allied leaders can justify a continental invasion in 1942, but I see it as a long shot, however justified it might have been in hindsight. 1943 is another matter entirely.
 
It might also require the Japanese offensive of 1941-42 being stuffed early on. The ongoing emergency in Asia/Pacific was from the Allied perspective not resolved until the autumn of 1942.

Well, troops from Oz and S.A. won't be in North Africa.
While it's possible they would be wasted at Hong Kong exists, hopefully saner heads would prevail for Malaya.
Doesn't take much to change that from OTLs disaster
 
Agree there. Japan may not even try for FIC, & even if so may be discouraged from opting for a Pacific war. Its difficult to see how Britain could be dispersed as OTL without a Mediterranean front.
 
Now when would taht be?

without the North African Front, the Med is clear for British shipping: is is a huge butterfly.
Also UK troops and gear is freed up for SE Asia

France still goes Vichy that will not be friendly to the UK

Are some of those troops used to do an earlier *Torch, or will the UK succumb to the US demands for an Op. Sledgehammer?

Speaking of Troops freed up, will Stalin be just as trusting with Adolf without a North African campaign keeping the Brits and Nazis occupied?

Even saying Uncle Joe is just as blind as OTL, the DAK forces really doesn't bring much to the Barbarossa Party. Odds are that while the Nazis might get to Moscow, they won't be able to take all of it

With the British in better shape in SEAsia,do they blunt the SW drive of Japan, hold Singapore, or even more of the Malay peninsula?

No NA campaign adds a few hundred thousand more troops and more panzers... I could see Leningrad falling at least in 41.
 
No NA campaign adds a few hundred thousand more troops and more panzers... I could see Leningrad falling at least in 41.

More troops and tanks makes the logistics troubles even worse. OTL they couldn't supply what they had
Most of the DAK logistics were covered by Italian and captured British trucks. This ATL, they have to make do
 
No African campaign, no Yugoslav campaign, and no Greek campaign result in an earlier Barbarossa, which will still be a meat grinder, but one for which the Soviets are far less prepared and whose logistical challenges the Germans are better quipped to meet.
Can this meme die? Not only - as PhillyofDelphi pointed out - Germany needed time to reorganize its army in several fields, from command to supplies; but the Spring Rasputitsa of 1941 was exceedingly long and brutal, which means that if Hitler insists on Barbarossa starting pronto, undersupplied and disorganized tanks are going to drive right into a ton of mud. If the Führer decides to go on, WW2 might end earlier than it did historically.

A neutral Italy kind of requires them not to invade Greece as that aligns them too closely with the Germans in British eyes. If they don't (and that's a huge stretch) then you have to ask what will they do in the war.

I think that will depend on what Germany does. Without an Italian intervention then Germany doesn't have an skin in the Med game. if it pushes too hard in France (occupation and bases in Vichy zone to allow subs to operate in Med) then it's likely Vichy will be still born and the whole of the French empire is Free French. In this case Italy is even more hemmed in by "Allies"

If Germans don't have any interest in the Vichy zone then unless Italy wants to take on UK in North Africa and/or Greece (which will make it non-neutral as above) it is stuck.

Can't see Germany getting involved in any Balkan adventures from any of its co-belligerents then either.

So Italy has basically sat in a corner throughout the world war until it declares with the Allies right at the end and probably gets an occupation zone in Austria.

After that it's going to mirror Spain and Portugal. The only difference is Libya which may (as others have said) become Italy over the sea (as does Albania). If Italy does hold on to Albania and Libya (which is a stretch but possible), they become seriously richer in the 1950's and 1960's. Won't be founder member of EU until fascism is done but can see that disappearing earlier than Spain in otl.
If Italy is neutral, it's neutral. Greece was an attempt to one-up German successes in the war, as Mussolini feared being considered a junior to Hitler; if, for some reason, enough distance (re)forms between the two to keep Italy out of the war, then Greece is "safe" - for a certain value of the word. There might be some attempt at strong-arming, but not a whole invasion.

And as others have said, Libya - especially the coastline - would probably remain Italian. The native population was laughably low, and Italy had been pushing colonization hard. If oil pops up early enough, this would only make the flow of settlers into a flood. The rest of the colonies are probably going to go at some point, with varying degrees of Italian influence.
 
Now when would taht be?
Really fair question.
without the North African Front, the Med is clear for British shipping: is is a huge butterfly.
Also UK troops and gear is freed up for SE Asia

France still goes Vichy that will not be friendly to the UK

Are some of those troops used to do an earlier *Torch, or will the UK succumb to the US demands for an Op. Sledgehammer?
Also fair. I could see a southern FRance invasion plan gaining steam if backchannels could bring Italy into the war?
Speaking of Troops freed up, will Stalin be just as trusting with Adolf without a North African campaign keeping the Brits and Nazis occupied?

Even saying Uncle Joe is just as blind as OTL, the DAK forces really doesn't bring much to the Barbarossa Party. Odds are that while the Nazis might get to Moscow, they won't be able to take all of it

With the British in better shape in SEAsia,do they blunt the SW drive of Japan, hold Singapore, or even more of the Malay peninsula?
Russia is probably too big of a nut to crack, but some of that depends on extraneous factors, like the changes all of this means for the war in Asia.

Can this meme die? Not only - as PhillyofDelphi pointed out - Germany needed time to reorganize its army in several fields, from command to supplies; but the Spring Rasputitsa of 1941 was exceedingly long and brutal, which means that if Hitler insists on Barbarossa starting pronto, undersupplied and disorganized tanks are going to drive right into a ton of mud. If the Führer decides to go on, WW2 might end earlier than it did historically.

I should have been clearer. I was thinking May versus June. You're entirely right about the mud.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Can this meme die? Not only - as PhillyofDelphi pointed out - Germany needed time to reorganize its army in several fields, from command to supplies; but the Spring Rasputitsa of 1941 was exceedingly long and brutal, which means that if Hitler insists on Barbarossa starting pronto, undersupplied and disorganized tanks are going to drive right into a ton of mud. If the Führer decides to go on, WW2 might end earlier than it did historically.
The OTL river floodings, which are mostly what delayed Barbarossa, cleared up about 2 weeks before Barbarossa. The delay at that point was the Balkan campaign. That campaign delayed the build up for Barbarossa by a large margin, as the plan originally was supposed to start in mid-May; without the Balkan campaign Barbarossa would have been ready in May sometime logistically speaking. The problem then is the weather, which meant that Barbarossa could be launched on June 12th or so if there is no Balkan campaign. I however don't see why Yugoslavia wouldn't still rise up against the king and prompt a German invasion, especially with Italy neutral. So that part of the operation is still happening...but that may still mean that Barbarossa could start on June 12th as Yugoslavia was wrapped up in early May. Not only that, but the 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions, IOTL stuck in Greece in June and then losing their equipment to British subs as they were being shipped out of southern Greece so not showing up in the East IOTL until later September, would be available for Barbarossa in June ITTL.

I should have been clearer. I was thinking May versus June. You're entirely right about the mud.
The problem wasn't the mud, it was the rivers being too high, which would impede river crossing. That wasn't resolved until about June 10th or so. So it was possible to invade early with an impact on operations, just about 10 days or so earlier than IOTL. But the other impact of no Greek Campaign, besides saving on losses, is that Yugoslavia could be occupied with more forces and units like the 2nd and 5th Panzer and 5th Mountain division would be available from day 1, which would have a significant impact on operations, plus there is less wear and tear on men and equipment compared to OTL as they don't have to travel as far (or at all) into Greece and then back to Russia for the invasion.


More troops and tanks makes the logistics troubles even worse. OTL they couldn't supply what they had
Most of the DAK logistics were covered by Italian and captured British trucks. This ATL, they have to make do
Not really sure that was true. The Germans bought a couple thousand French trucks that they used from Tunisia, plus sent a lot of their own. The Italian trucks in the wide supply chain certainly helped, but Italian losses necessitated German trucks to make up for their losses, so NA was a pretty significant drain. ITTL French North Africa could well send those trucks to Germany for the East instead. Plus with Italy neutral it isn't as if the Germans couldn't buy trucks from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not only that, but the 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions, IOTL stuck in Greece in June and then losing their equipment to British subs as they were being shipped out of southern Greece so not showing up in the East IOTL until later September, would be available for Barbarossa in June ITTL.

The Heer couldn't supply the existing number of troops and Tanks in Fall '41, and adding more units to the tip of the spear just makes things worse.

How many attacks failed from shortage of combat units, vs the shortage of supplies limiting combat effectiveness of those already there?
 

Deleted member 1487

The Heer couldn't supply the existing number of troops and Tanks in Fall '41, and adding more units to the tip of the spear just makes things worse.
By Fall '41 they added two fresh panzer divisions to AG-Center. The problem of supply really came up when the rains and mud started. There were also issues during the October advance on Moscow of trucks being able to move forward quickly enough, but the biggest part of the problem was the weather change. The problems pre-mud weren't insurmountable, as AG-Center killed or captured 1 million men in two weeks for less than 50k casualties in the single greatest pocket battle of Barbarossa.

How many attacks failed from shortage of combat units, vs the shortage of supplies limiting combat effectiveness of those already there?
In Summer 1941 there were several occasions where more trucks, aircraft, and mobile divisions (panzer or motorized) would have made a huge difference. That is before the supply issues hit too. If I had the time, patience, and desire I could point out several instances in the Baltic campaign (arguably AG-Center as well, as Soviet units such as the 22nd Army nestled into the line between them) where extra units would have made campaign altering differences.
 

Deleted member 1487

@wiking @marathag If Vichy remains recognised by the Allies, what happens post-war when the Old Marshal is visibly senile and he was the only crumb of legitimacy they had,
Depends on the post-war settlement and who has climbed the political ranks of Vichy during the war. Pierre Laval probably was on his way to replace Petain, given that IOTL he took over as PM. He was effectively the head of government from April 1942 on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Laval

Jacques Doriot was a French Nazi who fought on the Eastern Front and helped found the LVF:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-post-war-effects.446026/page-6#post-17260997

Marcel Deat also was a rising figure in Laval's government who might have gone on to run things as a German stooge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Déat#Collaborationism
 
Top