Italy remains neutral in World War II. What happens to its territories and colonies?

[Michele]

Italy was even before the start of the war a great power and her remaining neutral will mean that ITTL WW2 will be totally different from ours; on the same note, no, Italy will not be snubbed in the new world order, she is too big to be ignored (and untouched by all the destruction) and this will also create a total different decolonization process.

Nobody says Italy will be snubbed forever. It will certainly be snubbed in 1945. Eventually, though, just as Spain joined in the UN, so will Italy.

Note, BTW, that another neutral, Sweden, managed to join as early as 1946. But the problem is that some seem to see the UN as a monolith. In 1945 it actually already is the lowest common denominator of mutual vetoes. Sweden happens to fall within it. Italy won't.
Consider:
- Italy is ruled by the Fascists, thus anti-Communist - a big thumbs-down from the Soviet Union;
- Italy is ruled by the Fascists, thus non-democratic - something of a thumbs-down from the USA;
- Italy has (and we go back to the thread topic) colonies - lots of new countries dislike it.

Add that the French, in particular, and de Gaulle, in particular's particular, will loathe seeing Italy get a chair at the table for free.

This also brings us to the Italian behavior as a neutral. By the late war, Sweden had managed to gracefully become a pro-Allies neutral. Had it continued to behave as it did in 1941, I doubt they would have gotten in by 1946.
So how has Italy behaved, as a neutral?


Now, on to the colonies:

AOI: while it will be a guerrillas hotbed, in the early 40's the abyssinian will not receive any help from the Wallies, unlike OTL, as it will be more important keep Rome friendly

Hmmm. So maybe they receive help from the Soviets in the early 50s. That in turn means help for the Italians by the USA, probably.

Lybia: going for an italian majority, at least in the city.

Possible. You are aware, naturally, that the Falklands, with a 100% English-speaking population that self-defines as British and regularly votes for remaining British, still is on the UN list of non-self-governing territories.

Albania: will be difficult for the Albanian to shake off italian control, too little distance between the two and Benny send colonist even there

In the short run, yes. And in the long run, if Italy joins the NATO/OTAN and Albania has strategic value. On the economic side of things, and after Mussolini retires/dies, the Italians might also write Albania off as a money drain.

Neutrality: sure Rome will remain neutral, this doesn't mean that she will do it for free or/and will not try to get the best from this situation, attempting to get concession from Greece and Jugoslavia and later to retake control of Austria

Greece joined the NATO/OTAN in 1952, before Western Germany. Italy will keep the Dodecanese, and that will be it. As to the rest, you seem to be thinking in 1930s terms. Austria would be spoilt for a choice for powerful supporters (two sides to pick from) in case another neutral harasses them even just a little.

 

[Lusitania]

Few observations:
1) the date Italy joins UN will be dependent on its interactions with the Axis. Being neutral does not mean non trading or non participant in many of WWII events. Being a major country with industry bordering Nazi germany there would of been a lot of trade. This would not of been looked upon very favorable by allies especially US. At end of the war if Italy did not pull a turkey and declare war on Germany in dying days it would of been barred from joining UN for 10 years like Portugal and Spain.
2) Albanian and Greek nationalism would of erupted at end of war and if west did nothing to help them we could of seen both being supplied by soviets and Greek discontent and anger at part of its territory being occupied by Italy could of been reason Greece becomes communist. Maybe Stalin seeing a great opportunity does not stop supplying the Greek communists. Either way both regions early on become hot bead for communist insurrections and both territories would of become armed camps with all the citizens against the Italians.
3) the ascent of Nasser as president in Egypt would of allowed Egypt to become a major supporter not only Algerian anti colonial rebels but also Libyan and with a huge border with Egypt it would of forced Italy to militarize The whole border with Egypt. While Libya small population and potential to find oils could of provided additional economic reasons to keep libya till the sues canal incident oil was not a huge cash and economic boost. Especially for Libyan oil that as I understand is located deeper than Middle East and more costly to extract. Italy could of been a co-beligerante of the suez incident since it too would of had a vested interest in bringing down Nasser.
4) Ethiopia would of been difficult for Italy to keep it would if required a huge investment of military power. It’s a huge country with limited infrastructure and tough terrain. The best bet would of been double size of both Eritrea and Italian Somalia and turn it loose.
5) Eritrea could of been kept but development and incorporate black ad Italians be required. Hard where to some northern Italians anyone south of Naples are considered “baptized Arabs”. So if Italy wanted to avoid fighting a war in Eritrea in the 1960-1980s they need to incorporate iit and more importantly it’s people otherwise if treated as second class people they support independence and welcome any one who helps them be they America or soviets.
6) Somalia was there any economic value to it? It would of been only included part of what us considered Somalia. With British Somalia gaining independence in 60s like rest.

So in summary Italy could of been saddled with a colonial war consuming 30-50% if its budget and causing major discontent at home and young men fleeing Italy in droves just before they get drafted to avoid being sucked up into 1-3 years of military service fighting insurgents.

It’s economy would suffered even if part of NATO. It never would if had UN Veto. Yes probably develop nuclear weapons in the 1950s to early 1960s.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
This also brings us to the Italian behavior as a neutral. By the late war, Sweden had managed to gracefully become a pro-Allies neutral. Had it continued to behave as it did in 1941, I doubt they would have gotten in by 1946.
So how has Italy behaved, as a neutral? ....

The economic incentives for a fully cooperative 'Allied Nuetral' from 1944 are just to great. That may even occur as early as the winter of 1943. Its very likely the Allies can afford to pay Italy to cease its trade & support of Germany. I'd think the odds are this is how it would go.

 

[Michele]

I'd think the odds are this is how it would go.

Indeed. And possibly a March 1945 DoW on Germany too, with some excuse or other.
Franco had his own internal political reasons, but Mussolini was even more of an opportunist and the Italian population, in general, had never been enthusiastic about the alliance with Germany.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Anti Semeticism was not strong in Italy. The Facist government might gain post war credit if a some tens of thousands Jews escape via Italy. Salazar's government gained some credit by not being complete dicks with the refugees passing thru Portugal.

 

[Poach]

Libya will be Italian long-term. The settlement policy would mean Libya would have a large Italian minority, if not an outright majority by the modern day, and their fairly ruthless Italianisation policies would mean there were a lot of Italianised Arabs there as well. With Italian Libyans also controlling most of the economy and best farmland (coastal regions), the region would be very much Italian-run. A modern-day democratic Italy that might be inclined to allow a referendum on independence would likely see Libya vote to remain Italian: there'd be a large enough bloc of ethnic Italians who'd mostly vote to remain that any Arab-centric moves to gain independence would probably fail, as they'd need pretty much unanimous support from all non-ethnic Italian groups.

Italian East Africa I think would've eventually gained independence after a Portuguese-style colonial war. The Italian settlers there were always a small portion of the population so I don't see the regions remaining Italian long-term. Eventually they'd be given independence and the Italian populations relocated back to Italy or to Libya.

Albania is harder to guess because the Italians never got their chance to try to integrate it, though their efforts on he Aegean Islands suggest it probably wouldn't have gotten far there either. Maybe the Albanians would become Italianised enough that they'd remain part of Italy even post-Fascism when the opportunity for independence referendums came along. I think after the UK leaves Cyprus the writing is on the wall for the Aegean Islands: they'd want to become Greek as soon as they're able.

So to conclude I think a modern Italy that had stayed neutral in WW2 would've ended up keeping Libya, maybe Albania, but not Italian East Africa and probably not the Aegean Islands.

 

[marathag]

Indeed. And possibly a March 1945 DoW on Germany too, with some excuse or other.
Franco had his own internal political reasons, but Mussolini was even more of an opportunist and the Italian population, in general, had never been enthusiastic about the alliance with Germany.

Could see him rolling Troops into Austria to preempt capture by the USSR late in the War.

A Neutral Italy to me means that Greece and Yugoslavia aren't likely to be invaded by the Germans

 

[Killer in]

Wouldn't a neutral Italy also lead to a stronger post war British Empire since they wouldn't be ground down fighting in the Med, so the anti-colonials in the US would have both a shaken but steady British Empire and an Italian empire to deal with.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Albania is harder to guess because the Italians never got their chance to try to integrate it, though their efforts on he Aegean Islands suggest it probably wouldn't have gotten far there either. Maybe the Albanians would become Italianised enough that they'd remain part of Italy even post-Fascism when the opportunity for independence referendums came along. ...

Looking at a map of the European languages of 1900 I see that the SE regions of Italy, adjacent to Albania, had a strong incidence of a Italo/Abanian dialect. Did this still exist 1940 , & did it create any basis for connection?

 

[Evil Crusader]

Looking at a map of the European languages of 1900 I see that the SE regions of Italy, adjacent to Albania, had a strong incidence of a Italo/Abanian dialect. Did this still exist 1940 , & did it create any basis for connection?

Not enough to create the common basis, and the fascists wouldn't want to use anything but the purest (post-1850) Italian as a cultural standard.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I've had that map since the 1970s & often wondered why there was such a Albanian language and cultural presence on both sides of the Adriatic Sea?

 

[Ricardolindo]

I've had that map since the 1970s & often wondered why there was such a Albanian language and cultural presence on both sides of the Adriatic Sea?

The Albanians of Southeastern Italy are descended from medieval migrants, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbëreshë_people.

 

[Georgie Washington]

So did Turkey join the UN in 1945?
Huh, no. It had been a neutral.

Anything can happen. Accurate knowledge of actual history, however, tells you pretty accurately what it is realistic to expect.

Turkey declared war on the Axis powers in February 1945, after the Allies made its invitation to the inaugural meeting of the United Nations (along with the invitations of several other nations) conditional on full belligerency.

So, you're right at least when it comes to accurate knowledge of actual history tells you a lot of what to expect. I suggest you research before making assumptions. The whole "Turkey was neutral" trope is just plain wrong and is repeated, sadly, too often inaccurately. Full knowledge is important, not just "technically true".

 

[Georgie Washington]

I may be wrong, but Im quite certain there was a point early in WWII that Hitler had strongly encouraged Italy to just sit out and be a neutral that could support Germany through trade because he knew the Italians were not going to be very effective in the war and that Germany would have to spare material and men to bail them out (as actually happened). And don't forget when German ambassador von Ribbentrop, in 1937, said- "Remember, Mr. Churchill, if there is a war, we will have the Italians on our side this time" and Winston retorted- "My dear Ambassador, it's only fair. We had them last time." Which while it may not have actually been said, it is an accurate portrayal of the international sentiment at that time concerning the Italians after their dismal performance in WWI. I'm seeing a lot of chatter about "great power" status... they were about as much a great power as Austria-Hungary in WWI. They were clearly not a WORLD power, a regional power at best, and on par with how we would view today Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Nigeria, or the Philippines. Maybe at the high end at most as highly regarded as we regard Belgium as a fighting force, today.*

*if you believe the liberal conspiracy that Belgium is real, that is

 

[LuckyLuciano]

Ethiopia is the biggie. Does it turn in to a grinding war, potentially with the USSR funding and supplying the rebels, becoming an Italian "Vietnam" or "Afghanistan" or do the Italians get smart and cut it loose in more controlled way.

I'm imagining an ATL where the US finds itself entangled in the war in Ethiopia, supporting Italy so as to prevent the rest of Africa from falling to communism. The Neway brothers become a Ho Chi Minh analog, probably with Sylvia Pankhurst. Similar to OTL Vietnam, the USA pours resources into the conflict, first propping up the Italian government, and when the Italians pull out, propping up the puppet regime (ala Diem's RVM).

Such a conflict occurring in Africa rather than Asia would have big ramifications on civil rights. There would definitely be a lot of African-American protests against the war, and pushing for civil rights could definitely become synonymous with protesting the war. Civil rights are probably slower, and protests are a hell of a lot larger. It would be a very different civil rights movement.

Also for a nickname for the conflict (ala 'Nam), I can definitely see veterans saying, "I fought in Et' "

 

[anotherlurker]

I may be wrong, but Im quite certain there was a point early in WWII that Hitler had strongly encouraged Italy to just sit out and be a neutral that could support Germany through trade because he knew the Italians were not going to be very effective in the war and that Germany would have to spare material and men to bail them out (as actually happened). And don't forget when German ambassador von Ribbentrop, in 1937, said- "Remember, Mr. Churchill, if there is a war, we will have the Italians on our side this time" and Winston retorted- "My dear Ambassador, it's only fair. We had them last time." Which while it may not have actually been said, it is an accurate portrayal of the international sentiment at that time concerning the Italians after their dismal performance in WWI. I'm seeing a lot of chatter about "great power" status... they were about as much a great power as Austria-Hungary in WWI. They were clearly not a WORLD power, a regional power at best, and on par with how we would view today Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Nigeria, or the Philippines. Maybe at the high end at most as highly regarded as we regard Belgium as a fighting force, today.*

*if you believe the liberal conspiracy that Belgium is real, that is

If your idea of a "great power" is so narrow that only one can exist then yes, Italy would not be one and neither was A-H in WW1. In actuality when decolonization is happening Italy would be sitting far up close to the top of a pyramid of nations. If you want a comparison with a nation today... Germany, though with a bit worse economy and a better military.

 

[Michele]

Turkey declared war on the Axis powers in February 1945, after the Allies made its invitation to the inaugural meeting of the United Nations (along with the invitations of several other nations) conditional on full belligerency.

So, you're right at least when it comes to accurate knowledge of actual history tells you a lot of what to expect. I suggest you research before making assumptions. The whole "Turkey was neutral" trope is just plain wrong and is repeated, sadly, too often inaccurately. Full knowledge is important, not just "technically true".

Well, I did not remember Turkey's DoW and I didn't check. You are right. I probably confused Turkey's joining the NATO/OTAN with their joining the UN.

 

[Georgie Washington]

If your idea of a "great power" is so narrow that only one can exist then yes, Italy would not be one and neither was A-H in WW1. In actuality when decolonization is happening Italy would be sitting far up close to the top of a pyramid of nations. If you want a comparison with a nation today... Germany, though with a bit worse economy and a better military.

I never said only one great power could exist. Other powers stronger at the time than Italy- UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, USSR, Japan, USA, China, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Switzerland. None of those countries could Italy defeat on its own without German support. Not to mention you could add literally any other country in the world based on the fact of just being able to project its power. For instance, Italy might be able to defeat and conquer Afghanistan if Afghanistan was next to Italy, but it isnt, and Italy could not project its power to Afghanistan. What makes a great power is power projection, the ability to enforce its will on many other nations and deter stronger nations based on war not being worth the effort needed to win. A regional power can only project onto its neighbors and must defer to stronger nations that do not fear a war with it. Based on that criteria- Italy sucked it.

 

[Georgie Washington]

If your idea of a "great power" is so narrow that only one can exist then yes, Italy would not be one and neither was A-H in WW1. In actuality when decolonization is happening Italy would be sitting far up close to the top of a pyramid of nations. If you want a comparison with a nation today... Germany, though with a bit worse economy and a better military.

Germany's military today would still defeat Italy's military from 1939; and is sitting higher in a comparison of today's fighting forces than Italy did in comparison to the fighting forces of 1939. Bit worse economy? Laughable as today Germany is fourth in the number of manufacturing output nation in the world, Italy in 1939 was not an economic powerhouse with anything close to the 7% of world output that Germany has today. A proper comparison of what Italy would be like in the "pyramid of nations" when decolonization is occurring is Spain or Portugal.

 

[anotherlurker]

I never said only one great power could exist. Other powers stronger at the time than Italy- UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, USSR, Japan, USA, China, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, Poland, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Switzerland. None of those countries could Italy defeat on its own without German support. Not to mention you could add literally any other country in the world based on the fact of just being able to project its power. For instance, Italy might be able to defeat and conquer Afghanistan if Afghanistan was next to Italy, but it isnt, and Italy could not project its power to Afghanistan. What makes a great power is power projection, the ability to enforce its will on many other nations and deter stronger nations based on war not being worth the effort needed to win. A regional power can only project onto its neighbors and must defer to stronger nations that do not fear a war with it. Based on that criteria- Italy sucked it.

So by your definition the only great power is the USA, but only if you ignore all the parts where the USA did not win because *reason*.

Germany's military today would still defeat Italy's military from 1939; and is sitting higher in a comparison of today's fighting forces than Italy did in comparison to the fighting forces of 1939. Bit worse economy? Laughable as today Germany is fourth in the number of manufacturing output nation in the world, Italy in 1939 was not an economic powerhouse with anything close to the 7% of world output that Germany has today.

A comparison with one today in todays environment, meaning Italy position would be comparable with Germanys position. Not Poland, not Turkey and Not Bhutan.