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

[Michele]

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

Yes. If anything, the Fascists would downplay the Albanian culture in Italy to folklore levels, and insist on teaching Italian in Albanian primary schools on the other side of the sea.
As to the idea that Albanians can be Italianized, I doubt that. They might be convinced not to object too much to Italian domination, if their economic situation improves, which is a possibility with this ATL postwar. It is the Italians that, after a decade or two, might decide that Albania is a net loss and not worth the prestige of owning it.

 

[Georgie Washington]

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*.


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

Uh what? Not even close to what I'm saying. UK, France, PRC, Russia, all great powers today. UK was even more so in 1939.

Other than Vietnam and War of 1812 the US hasn't lost a war, so don't know where you talk about "did not win because reason". I never said a Great Power can't lose a war. I don't know where in this discussion you went off the rails arguing with me about things I never said. I'm walking away as I can't understand you. Have a good one

 

[anotherlurker]

Uh what? Not even close to what I'm saying. UK, France, PRC, Russia, all great powers today. UK was even more so in 1939.

Other than Vietnam and War of 1812 the US hasn't lost a war, so don't know where you talk about "did not win because reason". I never said a Great Power can't lose a war. I don't know where in this discussion you went off the rails arguing with me about things I never said. I'm walking away as I can't understand you. Have a good one

Neutral Italy post war would be in the UK/France league, pretty much, and thus a great power.

What you wrote:

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.

In reality there's a long list with countries defying others all over the place, most recently Syria. And yes, bombing other countries is war no matter how you wish to flip it for interal politics reasons.

When you post arguments you should not be surprised when people are arguing them.

 

[Evil Crusader]

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.

Of those 19, only 7 were stronger.

 

[Michele]

Neutral Italy post war would be in the UK/France league, pretty much, and thus a great power.

I'm not so sure. From what point of view?

Economically, maybe they are roughly in the same league as to gross product, but Italy, while not losing anything, still is, as in 1939, short of key strategic raw materials.

Militarily, Italy has not suffered the series of disasters of OTL, but its armed forces remain an untested, unknown quantity - save for the fact that everyone knows their weapons are either obsolete or obsolescent. As to quantity, they don't hold a candle to Britain's, even though the latter will quickly wind its armed forces down.

Diplomatically, we have already mentioned Italy wouldn't be in the UN as a founding member, wouldn't be in the NATO/OTAN when it comes into being, wouldn't have the clout and prestige of having won the war. As an anti-Communist state it would be loathed by the Communist states, as a colonial power it would be hated by the new countries, and as a non-democracy it would be at least disliked by several Western countries.

Culturally, I don't know.

 

[thekingsguard]

As soon as oil is found in Libya, Italy will do all they can to have it as much a part of the terra firma as Sicily. The Fourth Shore becomes reality.

Albania and those Greek islands can be kept and settled easily.

Ethiopia and the nearby colonies on the horn of Africa? Those likely earn independence because they're not close enough to Italy to be so easily overrun.

 

[anotherlurker]

I'm not so sure. From what point of view?

Economically, maybe they are roughly in the same league as to gross product, but Italy, while not losing anything, still is, as in 1939, short of key strategic raw materials.

Militarily, Italy has not suffered the series of disasters of OTL, but its armed forces remain an untested, unknown quantity - save for the fact that everyone knows their weapons are either obsolete or obsolescent. As to quantity, they don't hold a candle to Britain's, even though the latter will quickly wind its armed forces down.

Diplomatically, we have already mentioned Italy wouldn't be in the UN as a founding member, wouldn't be in the NATO/OTAN when it comes into being, wouldn't have the clout and prestige of having won the war. As an anti-Communist state it would be loathed by the Communist states, as a colonial power it would be hated by the new countries, and as a non-democracy it would be at least disliked by several Western countries.

Culturally, I don't know.

Here's my break down (assuming Italy sits it all out).

Advantages over OTL Italy:
The Libyan oil, Albanian gold (just to name the 2 that will be held despite decolonization)
Foothold in the Balkans (Albania) for Nato
Post colonial influence in the East of Africa
Lack of post-war reconstruction and all its costs and burdens
A very real chance that the Mafia plague in the South stops being a thing
A lot more well educated people alive and potential refugees settling in Italy post war

-There's also an influence gain during the war itself, Italy would find itself with a number of refugees to show how good they are (all those who can pay for it and don't cost the Italian state anything of course) while France/UK experience real influence losses during the war Italy proportionally gains compared to them, there's no shame of loss and occupation like in France and no "loss of Singapore" to show its weakness to colonized states.
-I have Italy in Nato/UN later, not as a founding member but certainly not as a North Korea-esque rogue state, while Italy would be proportionally stronger it's still in a lower league than the Soviets/USA. Italy will also have a lot of influence in Spain due to the relation to Franco (who also was a colonialist, a dictator, disliked etc etc as you wrote yet Spain found its way into both Nato and UN fairly quickly).

Military equipment: They can make their own things and will advance, invest and buy it as they see fit. As none of it will be destroyed by war or seized by occupying powers these companies will be better than they were OTL, no disruptions, no loss of intellectual property etc. There's few countries in the world that can make battleships, airplanes, tanks, and when the war ends there will be even fewer but Italy is one of them putting them into a very exclusive club. I'd expect Italy to be in the nuclear club during the second wave of nuclear proliferation (when UK, France and China got theirs) cementing their claim to being a great power in the atomic age.

 

[Michele]

Good points there. I'd only wish to mention that as I mentioned, I don't see Italy as being kept out of the UN or NATO/OTAN for a long time. Probably it can join the UN in the 1950s, like some fo the few neutrals of 1945, and the Alliance when Mussolini dies and the regime undergoes some amount of democratization; giving the Dodecanese to Greece or coming up with some condominium would smooth that up.

 

[marathag]

Good points there. I'd only wish to mention that as I mentioned, I don't see Italy as being kept out of the UN or NATO/OTAN for a long time. Probably it can join the UN in the 1950s, like some fo the few neutrals of 1945, and the Alliance when Mussolini dies and the regime undergoes some amount of democratization; giving the Dodecanese to Greece or coming up with some condominium would smooth that up.

Italy would almost certainly have DoW on Germany in the months after D-Day, allowing the Allies to springboard on in.

That also gets them into the UN, and NATO, once that is a thing, given Soviet postwar behavior will be no different from OTL.

 

[marathag]

There's few countries in the world that can make battleships, airplanes, tanks, and when the war ends there will be even fewer but Italy is one of them putting them into a very exclusive club.

Also the FIAT Lingotto and new Mirafiori plants being 100% intact, will be able to supply a lot of cars and trucks to a mobility hungry western World in 1946+

 

[Lusitania]

Italy would almost certainly have DoW on Germany in the months after D-Day, allowing the Allies to springboard on in.

That also gets them into the UN, and NATO, once that is a thing, given Soviet postwar behavior will be no different from OTL.

Actually it was not known in 1944 that Germany was going to loose and if Italy had sat the war out it would of waited till 1945 to make sure. Remember that it would have a large border with Nazi Germany that it would need to protect. Therefore only when it knows Nazi Germany on the ropes and about to loose would in DoW.

What I think we forget in this scenario is what happens in both Yugoslavia and Greece. No Italy in the war on the Axis side no reason for the Germans to invade both. So the Germans have extra month or two for Barbarossa Plus extra troops not lost in North Africa. How much many thousands of troops does Italy contribute. Nationalist Spain sent the Blue Division to fight the communists. Would Italy call up volunteers too, send two divisions? What the out come of the war. Still end at same time and with same conditions.

Would the Americans and British attack Nazi occupied France after liberating French North Africa. Attack from the south and across the Channel? 1943 or wait till 1944?

Would both Greece and Yugoslavia be beset by nationalist and communist wars. Would Italy invade both increasing it size on the premise of stamping out communist. Could we see Italy capture all Aegean islands if mainland Greece was taken over by communists. What of Yugoslavia?

Many different scenarios and we been discussing things around Italy like they all be the same. We could see WWII go to 1946 and Germans actually drive deeper into Russia.

In Africa we could see Mussolini, Franco and Salazar forming an alliance supporting each other. Spain might not withdraw from Spanish Morocco. Portugal's own colonial empire could been bolstered by Italian military support and military training and industry. I see Italy participation in Suez crises as means of punishing Nasser for supporting Libyan and other anti Italian rebels.

 

[marathag]

Actually it was not known in 1944 that Germany was going to loose and if Italy had sat the war out it would of waited till 1945 to make sure. Remember that it would have a large border with Nazi Germany that it would need to protect. Therefore only when it knows Nazi Germany on the ropes and about to loose would in DoW.

US Contracts for War production started to slow after D-Day as the Allies swept across France, and the Soviets west after Bagration. Handwriting was on the wall that thebWar would be over in '45

The large Border, besides being the Alps, also had the Italian version of the Maginot Line built into it, as well.

Last, this was the Moose, after all. Jumping into a War without complete forethought was his thing.

 

[WeissRaben]

Neutral Italy in WW2 can take a lot of shapes, to be honest. You can have a more cautious Mussolini losing the train to declare war on France; you can have France not falling and Italy remaining on the sidelines for that reason; you can have cooler heads prevail and Italy shrugging at a LoN embargo of dubious effect without going to Germany to cry; or indeed, you can have a softer, better-managed Abyssinian War resulting in no embargo at all. Now, to be quite honest the last two are more likely to result into _Allied_ Italy; but it still gives a wide spectrum of possibilities, and those possibilities have a very real influence on how well Italy comes out of WW2.

 

[Ikny]

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.

Reading this I had a thought that you might see a Libyan independence movement that is less ethnic based but civic and economic based. After all I can imagine grievances forming around the mainland Italians using the income from the Libyan Italians' oil to enrich mainland Italy. Colonists are not always 100% loyal to the mainland. You may even have a situation where the mainland Italians get a democratic government that decides to be a bit apologetic to the Arabs in Libya and the colonists decide to succeed rather than give equal rights to a minority.

I mean whoever's in charge might end up badly managing the economy, or the oil wealth will be used for whichever dictators personal project instead of benefiting the people. Then an oil price crash may be disastrous.

My point is don't assume the oil will be an instant I win button, or that the colonists will be forever loyal worker bees for the Italian Empire. There is an ocean separating the two places, differences in preferences are bound to emerge.

 

[sloreck]

At least until the population numbers begin to shift you have the Italian/Catholic/colonists needing support against the majority Arab/Muslim/locals, and this support comes from the metropole. Furthermore colonization/emigration are supported financially by Italy, as well as the metropole financing infrastructure in Libya which only becomes a profit center once oil is discovered and developed. While the Italians and Italianized Arabs (Catholic converts and primary Italian speakers) will probably see themselves as another "regional group" of Italians, I doubt they would see themselves as "Libyans". If Libya becomes legally a part of Italy, with elections for members of parliament etc so there is no difference between an Italian living in Libya and one living in Venezia legally, I don't see a push for independence by the "Italians" of Libya.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

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.

On what planet is this true?

 

[Ikny]

At least until the population numbers begin to shift you have the Italian/Catholic/colonists needing support against the majority Arab/Muslim/locals, and this support comes from the metropole. Furthermore colonization/emigration are supported financially by Italy, as well as the metropole financing infrastructure in Libya which only becomes a profit center once oil is discovered and developed. While the Italians and Italianized Arabs (Catholic converts and primary Italian speakers) will probably see themselves as another "regional group" of Italians, I doubt they would see themselves as "Libyans". If Libya becomes legally a part of Italy, with elections for members of parliament etc so there is no difference between an Italian living in Libya and one living in Venezia legally, I don't see a push for independence by the "Italians" of Libya.

Saying people will support the metropole forever because they financed the initial colonization isn't really supported by history. Speaking the same language is also useless. There is enough geographic separation to make different issues important to each group.

Speaking of Italian regional groups have a few areas voted for more autonomy? If places directly connected can feel alienated, how about a place a sea apart?

The big issue with Libya is the oil revenue. Whose profit centre is it? If Italy is funneling most of the revenue to the peninsula, people living in Libya will feel like something is being taken from them.

Keep in mind there are several points of conflict

For example let's say there's an issue that Italians care about but the region of Libya doesn't, or vice versa. Italy spend their energy on the issue that concerns them the most, using the oil wealth from Libya to finance moves related to that. Libya feel neglected and their concerns being ignored. Someone thinks, "we should have more autonomy, we should have more control over the revenue since we worked hard to build it up." Another time there is an issue in Africa and mainland Italy just doessn't care, how do the Libyans feel when ignored?

People, nation, cultural groups, they don't form monolithic hiveminds that will better their group to their individual detriment.

 

[Poach]

Reading this I had a thought that you might see a Libyan independence movement that is less ethnic based but civic and economic based. After all I can imagine grievances forming around the mainland Italians using the income from the Libyan Italians' oil to enrich mainland Italy. Colonists are not always 100% loyal to the mainland. You may even have a situation where the mainland Italians get a democratic government that decides to be a bit apologetic to the Arabs in Libya and the colonists decide to succeed rather than give equal rights to a minority.

I mean whoever's in charge might end up badly managing the economy, or the oil wealth will be used for whichever dictators personal project instead of benefiting the people. Then an oil price crash may be disastrous.

My point is don't assume the oil will be an instant I win button, or that the colonists will be forever loyal worker bees for the Italian Empire. There is an ocean separating the two places, differences in preferences are bound to emerge.

This "ocean" is about 300 miles of water. There would be regular ferries over that short a distance.

The Fourth Shore was also integrated into Italy proper. They didn't rule it as a colony: a post-fascist Italy that adopted democracy would have elected representatives from Libya in their Parliament.

There's obviously a chance Libya secedes, but you're suggesting Libya was some far-flung colony very far removed from metropolitan Italy which is false. There's a fairly narrow body of water between Libya and Italy, narrow enough that it wouldn't necessarily give rise to a separate society: you could travel between Libya and Italy on an overnight ferry.

 

[sloreck]

Using that sort of logic Alaska and Hawaii should have demanded independence a long time ago, and Puerto Rico would have voted overwhelmingly for independence, as opposed to overwhelming majorities for commonwealth or statehood in EVERY election. In Algeria it wasn't the Pieds Noirs who demanded independence, in fact they were fighting hardest to remain part of France (and Algeria was part of metropolitan France), it was the majority Muslim/Arab population that wanted out.

 

[Ikny]

This "ocean" is about 300 miles of water. There would be regular ferries over that short a distance.

The Fourth Shore was also integrated into Italy proper. They didn't rule it as a colony: a post-fascist Italy that adopted democracy would have elected representatives from Libya in their Parliament.

There's obviously a chance Libya secedes, but you're suggesting Libya was some far-flung colony very far removed from metropolitan Italy which is false. There's a fairly narrow body of water between Libya and Italy, narrow enough that it wouldn't necessarily give rise to a separate society: you could travel between Libya and Italy on an overnight ferry.

Ocean was a poor word.

But, like I said, speaking the same language, isn't enough, otherwise a bunch of serap

The sea is still a geographic separator. And African concerns will always be front of mind to Libya and European ones to Italy.

And of course there is the revenue issue that is being ignored.

Using that sort of logic Alaska and Hawaii should have demanded independence a long time ago, and Puerto Rico would have voted overwhelmingly for independence, as opposed to overwhelming majorities for commonwealth or statehood in EVERY election. In Algeria it wasn't the Pieds Noirs who demanded independence, in fact they were fighting hardest to remain part of France (and Algeria was part of metropolitan France), it was the majority Muslim/Arab population that wanted out.

Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rice tend to be net recipients of funds from the federal government. This is different from the hypothetical Libya whose oil will be a net contributer. There will be resentment funding social programs for someone else, even is it is better for the country as a whole

On the Libya scenario this is assuming this is past the point the place has been sufficiently "assimilated," not an Algerian war situation.

Basically, it is the money you are forgetting about.