Italy survives WWII

What if Italy had gone the route of Franco's Spain and, no matter how friendly the Germans got, remained utterly neutral during WWII?

Two primary things I can immediately think of:

1) Italy probably would not have invaded Greece without the possibility of German backup, which means Barbarossa does not get delayed; and
2) If Italy does invade Greece, Germany is not obligated to help Mussolini, so Greece either becomes a) a long, protracted battle that ends Italy's involvement in WWII in any capacity, or b) a long, protracted battle that only strengthens Mussolini's resolve and convinces him to launch an attack against Istanbul

If Italy does invade Greece, I see it eventually throwing Italy into the arms of the Germans. If Italy contents itself with Albania, Tunisia, and Libya, I can see a German invasion at some point, especially if Italy is suspected of colluding with the Allies. But if Italy remains neutral throughout, it means the second front through Italy is barred and the Allies have to go through somewhere else, possibly Yugoslavia, at great risk of violating Italy's exclusive maritime borders between Albania and the Italian peninsula.

Any thoughts on this?

I have a small timeline brewing in my head where Italy not only survives WWII, but manages to hang on to her gains, at least as far as Thrace. I'm thinking the only way for this to happen is for Italy to become aware of what's an Allied victory would look like, and then throwing her lot in with the Allies and suddenly we have Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Mussolini at Yalta.

Best case scenario, I would like for Italy to have at least a presence in Anatolia (with or without Istanbul), but it doesn't necessarily have to happen, especially as the further from Italy Mussolini sends his troops, obviously, the harder it is for supply to maintain itself and the more ASB-ish the whole thing becomes.

The attached map shows my convoluted attempt at fleshing this out. The year is 1940, Barbarossa is progressing smoothly (all things considered...it is Russia), and Operation Alexander is progressing slowly but surely into Anatolia.

Mussolini hasn't yet thrown his lot in with the Allies or the Axis (would the Axis even have been signed with this POD considering the Pact of Steel was never signed?) but is still gobbling up what he considers rightfully Rome's.

The colors are according to the Brown Shirts and the Black Shirts. Too many WWII maps have Germany in grey.
 
THIRD REICH VICTORIOUS

If Italy didnt join the Axis, but remained neutral, Germany would have likely survived much longer.
The Germans always had to bail Italy out of trouble, and they often had to pay Italy's way during the war.
What is more likely is an Allied strike against Italy to put pressure on Germany.
 
What if Italy had gone the route of Franco's Spain and, no matter how friendly the Germans got, remained utterly neutral during WWII?

SNIP

Best case scenario, I would like for Italy to have at least a presence in Anatolia (with or without Istanbul), but it doesn't necessarily have to happen, especially as the further from Italy Mussolini sends his troops, obviously, the harder it is for supply to maintain itself and the more ASB-ish the whole thing becomes.

The attached map shows my convoluted attempt at fleshing this out. The year is 1940, Barbarossa is progressing smoothly (all things considered...it is Russia), and Operation Alexander is progressing slowly but surely into Anatolia.

Three things:

1. You mean 1941. Getting into Greece delays the German attack by weeks, not a year.
2. "Slowly but surely?" These are the _Turks_ we are talking about. Any invasion is going to be as serious a clusterfuck as the OTL invasion of Greece.
3. Tunisia?

That being said, Italian neutrality is an interesting idea. Hitler might not attack a neutral Italy, especially if it 1.) hasn't had a chance to show it's military incompetence and 2.) is a useful conduit for buying stuff that he can't get from his European conquests, since Italy still trades freely with the rest of the world.

Musso might join in at the last minute, say after the Allies cross the Rhine, so he gets a place at the victor's table - perhaps he "liberates" Yugoslavia to create a group of pliant puppets as a buffer between him and the USSR.

Postwar, he'd be in the doghouse for a while, but once the cold war heats up, like Franco's Spain, he'll be welcomed into the "free world" as a valuable ally - hmm - if there is no invasion of Greece, perhaps a 1960's lil' "Fascist block" of Greece, Italy, Coatia, Chetnik Serbia, Spain, and Portugal? Turkey? FRANCE??? RAISE THE FASCES HIGH...!

Ahem. :eek:

Anyway, it has some possibilities.

Bruce
 
If Italy didnt join the Axis, but remained neutral, Germany would have likely survived much longer.
The Germans always had to bail Italy out of trouble, and they often had to pay Italy's way during the war.
What is more likely is an Allied strike against Italy to put pressure on Germany.

Compared to Barbarossa, all the trouble Italy got Germany into was as a hangnail is to brain cancer. But it does improve Hitler's supply position (see above) and will make it harder to open a Second Front before the invasion of France is ready: getting in through the Balkans would be...messy.

Allied strike on Italy to put pressure on Germany? Drive another major military power (as perceived) into Germany's arms? Let me guess: you're one of George Bush's military advisors, right? :D

Bruce
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If Italy hadn't entered tha Axis you're right about Greece never happen. However Yugoslavia would have happened anyway, their betrayal of the Axis could not e forgiven. (Can even see Italians securing Fiume to protect ethnic Italians from the Axis unslaught.) But without Germans having to go to Greece and North Africa I can see them surviving a little longer. The prospect of a Cold War with Mussolini's Italy and Tito's Yugoslavia as the wild cards is very interresting.
 
What if Italy had gone the route of Franco's Spain and, no matter how friendly the Germans got, remained utterly neutral during WWII?

If Italy had chosen neutrality, as many fascist leaders desired, probably would have remained a fascist regime until the death of the major leaders (Balbo, Ciano, etc.).

During the war Italy would have acted like a safe port for Germany to get resources, but, knowing Mussolini, it's possible that he decided to join war in allies favour in 1944.

A war with Jugoslavia is possible, but only before the german occupation. As for Greece...well it's possible that Mussolini tried to attack her, while the rest of the world is busy (UK won't bother him, since has other things to mind). The war with Greece would be long,not the lighting strike Mussolini imagined, but in the end I think that Italy would prevail. Turkey is out of question.

Postwar, Italy is quikly readmitted to the "acceptable nations club". Her importance during cold war is too great to be dismissed. Besides, when shoah is discovered, Mussolini will do anything in his power to distance himself as much as possible from Hitler.

Depending on how decolonisation is handled, Italy could become a staunch Israel supporter or a friend of arab countries. Possible abroad involvements are the Suez crisis, Korea war and the colonels golpe in Greece. Even Vietnam could be a, rather improbable I admit, possibility.

The regime could fall due internal exhaustion, like in Spain, or due colonial wars, like Portugal.

If Italy didnt join the Axis, but remained neutral, Germany would have likely survived much longer.
The Germans always had to bail Italy out of trouble, and they often had to pay Italy's way during the war.

First: Barbarossa didn't get delayed a single day due Italy or other. The operation started when the weather allowed it. Really, there are hundreths of threads about this.

The amount of resources, both material and human, devolved by Germany to Italy was pretty low. This's a mith common among those who seeks an easy way to have a winning Germany.
Just consider this: without Italy all the troops, ships, planes and resources allocated by The British first and USA later in Africa are going to be used elsewhere. Guess where?

What is more likely is an Allied strike against Italy to put pressure on Germany.

No one present an enemy with an ally. Hitler should have been wary of Mussolini backstab, instead. There's no honour among dictators.
 
Italy attacked Greece because Mussolini felt that he needed to counter the Germans when they sent troops to Romania in August 1940. Hitler had not informed Mussolini beforehand, and Mussolini did not inform Hitler before attacking Greece.

A neutral Italy changes the Balkans quite a lot.

Without Italy in the Axis, Greece is not at war. Without Greece in the war, there's no reason for Bulgaria to join the Axis. Without Greece in the war, the Germans will not need to pressure Yugoslavia to join the axis, and there will be no pro-allied coup and no German invasion.

Italy was colonising Libya quite a lot during the 30s - people moved there, setting up agriculture (mostly on siezed Arab and Tuareg land). When the oil is discovered, Italians may very well be 40-50% of the population. I don't think the Italians will be leaving at all under those circumstances, and having a friendly western power in control of that oil will be enough to let other western powers look away on the self-determination issue.
 
I played a Hearts of Iron II game as Italy that was similar to this scenario.

I conquered Ethiopia in 1936 and Albania in 1939 as normal. When Germany started the war against Poland, France and Britain, I never did join in, instead jumping on Greece while everyone else is busy.

Since I launched a two way attack from Albania and an amphibous landing on the Pelopensian penninsula, subduing Greece wasn't hard. I went to war with Yugoslavia after that but settled just for annexing the Adriatic coastline which Italy has cores on instead of the whole country.

Germany took Yugoslavia out completely later on and launched Barbarossa on schedule. He actually took Moscow and Leningrad too but didn't Stalingrad so didn't trigger the surrender event for the Soviets. This was one of the few games I played with a successful D-day landing by the AI.

I don't know how much the second front helped the Soviets as they had already gotten Moscow and Leningrad back by this time. I joined the Allies after France was liberated and basiclly all I was able to do before Germany's surrender events kicked in was take Austria and Croatia.

Italy wasn't included in the surrender/annexation events so I had to mod the game a little bit, but it turned out with an interesting Europe.

The Communist powers in Europe included Soviet Union, Poland, DDR, Chezchoslovakia, Bulgaria, Finland, a smaller Yugoslavia and Hungary

The Democratic powers were Britain, France, FRG, Luxemburg, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.

The Fascist Powers were Italy, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia and Spain.

Austria, Croatia and Slovenia were all Italian puppets and after Japan was annexed(surrender events never kicked in though I had the US liberate/puppet Japan & Korea and give the rest of it's territory to it's previous owners, Nationalist China ended up with everything except for Communist China, Sinkang and Tibet) I left the Allies. I ended up with a Greater Italy consisting of Italy, the Adriatic coastline, Albania, Greece, Libya, Ethiopia and Somalia. Germany surrendered in 44, Japan lasted till summer of 1945. Still have the savegame, might resume playing it till 1970.. see if WW3 errupts. Maybe have it be over Nationalist/Communist China if the Chinese Civil War event fires again by throwing Communist China into Russia's alliance.
 
I didn't really see Turkey as a viable option in this timeline, but it was my romantic notions concerning the return of the Roman Empire. A resurrected Constantinople would be the creme de la creme for Mussolini in this scenario.

I can still see Mussolini invading Greece, even without Germany's invasion of Romania. This would probably bring pressure in on Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to pick a side, but Italy would probably be happier with friendly governments in both nations rather than Nazi puppets or even Nazi forces on his borders in the Balkans. Obviously Italy does not take part in the occupation of Vichy France and therefore doesn't get his little bits along the Franco-Italian border, but the gains he would see in the Mediterannean would offset this. An amphibious landing on Cyprus obviously would be the next phase of Mussolini's offensive if Turkey doesn't happen, though I can see Mussolini's military commanders putting plans on his desk in either event.

Italy jumping to the side of the Allies would probably see Yugoslavia broken up, especially if it joined the Axis or Hitler went ahead and occupied it. In any event, I can see the Balkans being pretty evenly divided between Italy's sphere of influence and the Soviets' sphere of influence post-war. Then we have Bosnian and the Serbo-Croatian wars 50 years earlier.
 
I can't see Italy successfully invading Greece without becoming part of the Axis. A neutral Italy is very plausible, and very good for the Allies (particularly the UK) overall. Without Mediterrean distractions the War of the AAtlantic is resolved in the Allies favour earlier, significantly improving British productivity, and withoput the immediate crisis rearmament to support the Desert War more modern tanks and equipment can be introduced by the army. The Balkans as a whole (save Romania) remain neutral as well, and with the Med open and Britain undistracted the Pacific war either dosen't occur or dies in Thailand.

When the time comes to invade Europe, the western Allies will be worse off tactically and doctrinally, but significantly better off economically. It's even (just) possible that the Western Allies recognise their disadvatange here and send and listen to advisors on the Eastern Front.
 
The Balkans wouldn't have remained completely neutral. With or without the Axis, Mussolini had designs on Greece. The only reason he invaded when he did IOTL was because of Hitler's unannounced invasion of Romania. Italy may be seen in a light similar to the Soviet Union IOTL after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland, but it wouldn't throw Italy to the side of the Axis.

Italy invades Greece on their own. Long protracted war. Germany knows it cannot rely on a passive Italy for too long and starts putting pressure on Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to join the Axis (and Romania, too, if he hasn't occupied it yet). Italy pressures Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to remain out of the Axis. The two attempt neutrality but have seen what Germany's doing to their north and what Italy just did to their south. They are flanked and either way they need to make up their minds or face invasion by one, the other, or both.
 
The Balkans wouldn't have remained completely neutral. With or without the Axis, Mussolini had designs on Greece. The only reason he invaded when he did IOTL was because of Hitler's unannounced invasion of Romania. Italy may be seen in a light similar to the Soviet Union IOTL after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states and Finland, but it wouldn't throw Italy to the side of the Axis.

Mussolini had designs, yes, but when would he had activated them? Britain is still going to be backing the Greeks (as per their treaty requirements) to try to get a toe-hold in Europe again, and Mussolini dosen't have the comforting self-delusion that the war is all over bar the shouting that he did when he entered in OTL. Whatever happens, I think the war will be delayed compared to OTL, and this is strongly in favour of the Greeks, as the modern weapons they ordered in 1938-9 will be delivered, and the fruits of Italy's premature rearmament will become even more outdated.

Anyway, why wouldn't Mussolini go with his OTL plans of attacking Yugoslavia rather than Greece, if he was going to attack anyone? This fighting would leave the Italians bogged down in guerilla warfare for years.

Italy invades Greece on their own. Long protracted war. Germany knows it cannot rely on a passive Italy for too long and starts putting pressure on Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to join the Axis (and Romania, too, if he hasn't occupied it yet). Italy pressures Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to remain out of the Axis. The two attempt neutrality but have seen what Germany's doing to their north and what Italy just did to their south. They are flanked and either way they need to make up their minds or face invasion by one, the other, or both.
If Barbarossa has started, Germany dosen't really have the resources to spare to throw down in the Balkans too seriously until 1943, and with the Italians bogged down in Greece, they're hardly presenting much of a threat. If it dosen't look like the British are going to get directly involved, then the Germans probably don't care. As italy is likely to be loosing the war, or at least caught in a stalemate, I could easily see Yugoslavia intervening (without Hitler caring) against Italy, and a subsequent Italian defeat.

This would probably be a good scenario for all concerned. With the Balkans obviously distracted by a litle private war they are of no use to any of the Great Powers and so could duck the Greaer War.
 
Ok, so thinking this out a little more, I have the following:

Italy does not sign the Pact of Steel, and later declares his full neutrality in the "German conflict" (as he calls it ITTL).

After weighing the pros and cons of the two plans of battle presented to him (Yugoslavia vs. Greece) he chooses Yugoslavia. After utilizing the ethnic strife latent in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, he manages to secure an easy win in Croatia and the Catholic part of Bosnia. The Serbs try to hold on, but after sponsoring coups and rebellions in Kosovo and Montenegro, the Serb government is forced to negotiate. Before they can surrender, a military coup ousts the government in Sarajevo and sign a peace pact with the Italians a la the Bolsheviks and the Germans circa WWI. With Sarajevo effectively a puppet (albeit a cranky and sometimes argumentative puppet), Italy turns its eye towards Greece.

This is more than likely pretty close to 1941/42. Understanding that Germany would be firebombing the hell out of Britain and entertaining notions of an invasion of Britain via Norway (realized or not), would Britain be in any shape to prevent an Italian invasion of Greece? Understandably, Italy would become bogged down in a stalemate or guerilla war, but understanding what he had to do to secure his gains and obtain a peaceful end to Yugoslavia, Mussolini might install a satellite regime in Greece with plans later on to incorporate it into a greater Italian Empire.

How feasible is this, as I want to begin working on fleshing out my TL. And then, of course, we have to get Italy to the table with the rest of the Allies to discuss the course of history for the Balkans.
 
...not looking so likely to me...

You seem to be unaware that, OTL, Italian forces in WWII routinely lost. Churchill believed, I think fairly, that most Italians were uninerested in a new Empire, and wanted peace. You might also not know that you're talking about some very challenging turf to conquer - the kind of mountains turf that even the Allies found tough skating back in Italy. In short, I'm afraid it's not so likely.

And, though Mussolini was an effective politician inside Italy, he had a tin ear outside it. I'm not seeing him pulling together the kind of ethnic minority alliances that Hitler was so good at (did he even try, OTL?).
 
Yeah, I see Italy going after Greece regardless and after a few initial debacles annexing it Italy would beat Greece in a war it would only be a matter of time and II Duce wasn’t squeamish about losses.

I see Germany hitting the Yugoslavs as per OTL and Italy jumping in to crave off territory along the Adriatic, they'd certainly have some handshake deals with Berlin even if there was no ‘’Axis’’

Germans were also strongly disliked in Italy so no alliance would keep the masses happy, and as the Germans will inevitably lose and the UK in particular will want to limit Soviet power in Europe I can see Churchill pressing the USA to make agreements with Italy and allowing the Duce to keep his gains as there would be a very real risk of a communist takeover otherwise, hell Stalin may even try to get Italy on his side too same the Soviets could be very pragmatic at times.

As for the Shoah...Well Fascist Italy didn’t have a big Jewish population and they only started enacting anti-Jewish laws because of Nazi pressure. Greece’s had a large Jewish population if they come through the war ok and no anti-Jewish laws are passed (some Italian fascists were Jews after all) then the Duce could portray it as a specifically German crime that had little to do with Fascism which didn’t believe in Hitler’s ‘’Aryan nonsense’’. Of course the Duce was very much a raciest he scorned Africans and Asians, but then in those days most Euros did.

If Greece/Italy became something of a haven for Jews the Duce's reputation would likely be that of a canny, pragmatic statesman, who made Italy into a great power and give her a strong presence on the world stage whilst avoiding a major war. Considering Italy’s weak starting place his methods may be questioned but the results would be plain to see, and Fascism may remain much more popular as an Idea during the Cold War, Hitler's Nazi ideas could be dismissed as an aberration or a totally different ideology not Fascist at all.


You seem to be unaware that, OTL, Italian forces in WWII routinely lost. Churchill believed, I think fairly, that most Italians were uninerested in a new Empire, and wanted peace. You might also not know that you're talking about some very challenging turf to conquer - the kind of mountains turf that even the Allies found tough skating back in Italy. In short, I'm afraid it's not so likely.

And, though Mussolini was an effective politician inside Italy, he had a tin ear outside it. I'm not seeing him pulling together the kind of ethnic minority alliances that Hitler was so good at (did he even try, OTL?).

The Italians were inconsistent, but they could fight better than their subsequent reputation implies. Italy had some elite alpine units which could be deployed in Greece’s and a large airforce, the Grreks couldnt hold for long if Italy attacked with full force.

Italians themselves were inconsistent II Duce’s dreams of empire were popular to a degree wit the Italian population the alliance with Germany was deeply unpopular and Italians hated being dragged into a ‘’German war’’. the conquest of Ethiopia was strongly supported my the people for example so Italians would willingly fight if they saw good reason or gain for their nation.

Mussolini himself was inconsistent as a statesman but he could win influence on the world stage, and impressed many world leaders such as Churchill so he could keep winning influence especially if Italy came out of WW2 with major gains, and no real losses to speak of.
 
Last edited:
I strongly suspect that the Italians would loose (or at least fail to win) any ATL Italo-Greek war, particularly in the wake of an Italo-Yugoslav war. Moreover,I don't think the Greeks are stupid, they'll probably hit the Italians in the rear whilst the Yugoslavs are still fighting. The inevitable delay compared to OTL is very important, the Greeks will have finished rearming with modern weapons whilst the Italians are stuck with out of date ones.

Whilst the British may not intervene militarily, they will almost certainly impose an oil embargo, which essentially gives the Italians a choice of joining the Axis to get access to German controlled oil supplies, making a humiliating peace, or suffering an even more humiliating defeat.

Speaking of exploiting ethnic strife, I don't think the Croatians liked the Italians that much.

A neutral Italy scenario is enough of an Italian wank as it is without any territorial aggrandisment in the Balkans. When the war ends Italy will be the only European power that hasn't had its industry devastated, and is ideally placed to jump in at the end of the war and steal a piece of Austria. Even without that, it should have made a fortune selling to both sides, and will almost certainly replace France as the number two continental western European power.

As a note, without British intervention in Greece then Germany won't hit Yugoslavia, as it dosen't need to assemble an anti-British alliance to protect Romania from British bombers.

An interesting scenario, for me, is one where Italy Mussolini does manage to restrain himself and they and the Balkan powers all pile in when it becomes clear that the Germans are loosing in 1944. If Romania and Hungary are liberated by a coalition of British backed Balkan powers, and Austria by a newly rearmed Italy, then you could get a very interesting post war world. Stalin would be fuming, as his share of the spoils would be much smaller, and Facism wouldn't be discredited. If Mussolini played his cards right, Italy could become the leader of a substantial Fascist block.

This would produce Europe effectively divided three ways. The UK, France, West Germany, the Benelux countries, Norway, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia in one camp, a Fascist block of Italy, Portugal, Spain, Austria and Romania, and a Communist block of the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland. The former two will probably be loosely allied.
 
I strongly suspect that the Italians would loose (or at least fail to win) any ATL Italo-Greek war, particularly in the wake of an Italo-Yugoslav war.

I disagree. In both cases Italy could bear all her army against one of the two targets. In this scenario there would be no war in the desert to siphon off some of the best usnits and the italian navy could act freely without fear of the rather more powerful british navy. Besides, Italy considered the Adriatic as her own and very detailed plans had been laided for a war in that sea.
It wouldn't be a lighting war, but I think that Italy could win both.

Whilst the British may not intervene militarily, they will almost certainly impose an oil embargo, which essentially gives the Italians a choice of joining the Axis to get access to German controlled oil supplies, making a humiliating peace, or suffering an even more humiliating defeat.

The British would not intervene, nor impose an embargo. Doing otherwise would send Italy into alliance with Germany. Point is that a neutral Italy would be far worthier than a neutral Greece, for Britain.

The main POD, anyway, would be if Italy declared war on Germany later. An Italy sided with the allies would make fascism a respectable and acceptable form of goverment and the cold war would seal that definitly.

If I may suggest a POD, I would substitute Mussolini with Balbo in 1937. Balbo was the second in command, popular among the fascists and quite famous abroad as pilot. And he was rabidly anti-german.
With him at the helm there would be no steel pact (and no racial laws, since they were passed only after the pact). Besides, since Balbo liked the States a lot, you could devise some interesting USA-Italy relationship...
 
I disagree. In both cases Italy could bear all her army against one of the two targets. In this scenario there would be no war in the desert to siphon off some of the best usnits and the italian navy could act freely without fear of the rather more powerful british navy. Besides, Italy considered the Adriatic as her own and very detailed plans had been laided for a war in that sea.
It wouldn't be a lighting war, but I think that Italy could win both.

I don't doubt that the Italians could be very successful at sea, however given the logistical limits, the need to retain forces in north Africa as a detterent against British intervention, the rather hostile Balkan terrain, and the projected technological inferiority of Italian arms by this point compared to the Greeks. I think you are taking a very optimistic view of Italian success. I don't think the desert war actually had that much of an effect on the Greco-Italian war, as the two wars needed very different resources and infrastructure limits in both areas meant that the Italians couldn't reinforce to their full strength anyway, so they didn't compete.

The British would not intervene, nor impose an embargo. Doing otherwise would send Italy into alliance with Germany. Point is that a neutral Italy would be far worthier than a neutral Greece, for Britain.
To be honest, the British wouldn't even need an official embargo. Given the war, there is no spare oil to go around that Italy could buy that isn't British/American controlled.

The main POD, anyway, would be if Italy declared war on Germany later. An Italy sided with the allies would make fascism a respectable and acceptable form of goverment and the cold war would seal that definitly.
Fiven Mussolini's opportunism, that seems quite likely at some point.

If I may suggest a POD, I would substitute Mussolini with Balbo in 1937. Balbo was the second in command, popular among the fascists and quite famous abroad as pilot. And he was rabidly anti-german.
With him at the helm there would be no steel pact (and no racial laws, since they were passed only after the pact). Besides, since Balbo liked the States a lot, you could devise some interesting USA-Italy relationship...
That would work. Do you know what his Balkan policy was, as per the previous disscusion? Perhaps, as I suggest above, a Balkan adventure goes wrong and Mussolini getrs the chop.
 
...sorry...

Seryozha1987, I'm sorry about the improbability. It's an intriguing idea. I agree that an Italy that stayed out of the war would do noticeably better; if nothing else, it'd hand onto its African colonies, and not be invaded itself, as Alratan pointed out, unlike so many of its neighbors. But I don't see it doing THAT well.

Urban fox wrote:
Yeah, I see Italy going after Greece regardless and after a few initial debacles annexing it Italy would beat Greece in a war it would only be a matter of time and II Duce wasn’t squeamish about losses. ... the conquest of Ethiopia was strongly supported my the people for example so Italians would willingly fight if they saw good reason or gain for their nation.
Yeah, it must be right, since you and Cornelius say so. That Churchill dude, of course, was just a flake who knew nothing about this stuff. ;-)

You know, yeah, Italy had its good moments in the war, like the disabling of several British capital ships. BUT, when it came to big things like invasions, where MANY things have to go right, they had a horrid record, fortunately. The technologically inferior, worse-trained, smaller-economied Ethiopia was a HARD MATCH for them. They had to fight long and hard, losing many men; they could've lost.

You're saying they could've unquestionably invaded and won against a technological peer, with the added complication and coordinations of sea landing?????????

No, it's not quite impossible. But likely...???????? No.

What Alratan said about Balbo, though; that seems pretty plausible to me.
 
Top