Italy survives WWII

I don't really think that it's impossible to take Yugoslavia and Greece.

It's mainly a question of time. If Mussolini attacks Yugoslavia in 1940, he won't have enough time to invade Greece too. The italian army was still an infantry army and wasn't structured for a blitz like war. This mean at least a year long war. After that Mussolini would have to spend another year to reinforce the army. But by the 1942 he would surely be pressured into war by the british...

The Italians tried this IOTL, and they lost. This wasn't a terrorist campaign, the Italians were actually driven out of most of the interior.

But the italians could prepare better in this timeline and they won't have to bother with the british...

The Soviet Union can probably ensure that the Greek partisans are better equipped than the Italians as well.

Are you sure? I think that russians will have enough troubles with germans to look into the "side-show" of Greece

It's an old military truth that getting there it's the easy part, staying there it's the tricky one.

The problem of puppet goverments and partisans depends mainly as the actual conquest is managed. If the italians are smart enough to avoid "SS behaviour", they could avoid the worst of a resistance movement. After the war, Italy will retain at best few territories (Dalmatian ports or islands) while Yugoslavia and Albania would become indipendent democratic nations with strong "ties" to Italy. There's the possibility of a communist insurgence right after the war, but after that I don't think that Stalin would risk nothing more he did IOTL.

This was the same complacent Greece that IOTL was rearming as fast as it could afford to and only the premature Italian invasion stopped it from having superior equipment to them - who they had long planned to fight.

The greek equipment wasn't superior to the italian one and Mussolini hadn't prepared anything: it was largely a thing made up on the moment to imitate the germans conquests. IRRC the whole invasion was decided three weeks before the first attack...

If Mussolini's been fighting Balkans wars, he's not had the time or resources to modernise his armies, and they will have learned exactly the wrong lessons about modern warfare. The Germans will slaughter them even if they're falling back on other fronts and on their last legs. There ill be no strategic gains to be had as he'll have contributed nothing to the real war effort and these humiliating defeats will mean he gets nothing at the bargaining table.

Wrong for two reasons. First they would be fighting on mountains, where germans tanks and planes are of little help, while the italians had a lot of experience (for the matter, IOTL in 1945 an italian mountain division , Monterosa, stopped and forced to retreat the 92 american division).
Second Mussolini didn't have to advance in german territory at all: he would just to keep them on the border, while american and british troops would pour on italian ports. If this happens in 1943, there won't be any need of operation overlord, since the strike to Germany could easily pass through Austria.

Italy can't be neutral, and they won't have a domain. The Soviet Union was good at running guerilla movemewnts, and the Italians wil be expelled from the Balkans post haste, particualry as their regular forces will be largely destroyed by the Germans towards the end of the war in this scenario and need to be completely rebuilt.

The post war situations would largely depends on how succesful is the red army in this ATL, but if the war ends an year before, as I think probable, USSR would have a smaller "empire" this time. Anyway the idea that the Balkans would fall to the communist after the war is wishful thinking: without the red army this is not going to happen. And remember: IOTL Nor Greece, Austria or Turkey felled to their communist movememnts and Yugoslavia was indipendent from Moscow.
 
It's mainly a question of time. If Mussolini attacks Yugoslavia in 1940, he won't have enough time to invade Greece too. The italian army was still an infantry army and wasn't structured for a blitz like war. This mean at least a year long war. After that Mussolini would have to spend another year to reinforce the army. But by the 1942 he would surely be pressured into war by the british...

This is true. I'm also doubtful that Yugoslavia would be completely wrapped up within a year.

But the italians could prepare better in this timeline and they won't have to bother with the british...
Suprisingly, this is not really ther case. In both Albania and North Africa, the limits on the Italians were logistical - the Italians had significant surplus men and material they just couldn't deploy. Thus, not fightingthe British dosen't help that much.

Are you sure? I think that russians will have enough troubles with germans to look into the "side-show" of Greece
I was talking about post war. They'll flood surplus arms to the guerillas.

It's an old military truth that getting there it's the easy part, staying there it's the tricky one.
That's true, and even getting there is hard enough for the Italians.

The problem of puppet goverments and partisans depends mainly as the actual conquest is managed. If the italians are smart enough to avoid "SS behaviour", they could avoid the worst of a resistance movement.
The Italians tried this OTL and it didn't work, they were still driven out of the interior.

After the war, Italy will retain at best few territories (Dalmatian ports or islands) while Yugoslavia and Albania would become indipendent democratic nations with strong "ties" to Italy. There's the possibility of a communist insurgence right after the war, but after that I don't think that Stalin would risk nothing more he did IOTL.
He only backed down in Greece in OTL because the British were pouring in resources and because he didn't want to piss off the Western Allies. He would have won there, as he did everywhere else in the Balkans, if he had really wanted too. With only the Italians as opposition, it's a sure thing.

The greek equipment wasn't superior to the italian one and Mussolini hadn't prepared anything: it was largely a thing made up on the moment to imitate the germans conquests. IRRC the whole invasion was decided three weeks before the first attack...
The equipment that the Greeks had on order from the West was more modern than the Italian stuff. The preparations I was referring to were Greek ones, in reponse to the point about Greek complacency. Sorry about using confusing articles. IOTL Mussolini had been focused more on Yugoslavia than Greece.

Wrong for two reasons. First they would be fighting on mountains, where germans tanks and planes are of little help, while the italians had a lot of experience (for the matter, IOTL in 1945 an italian mountain division , Monterosa, stopped and forced to retreat the 92 american division).
Second Mussolini didn't have to advance in german territory at all: he would just to keep them on the border, while american and british troops would pour on italian ports. If this happens in 1943, there won't be any need of operation overlord, since the strike to Germany could easily pass through Austria.
If he wants influence into Hungary, as suggested in the post up thread, then he's going to have to send his troops out into open country, where they'll be mauled. Yes, the Italians should be able to hold the Germans at the border, but that dosen't strike me as Mussolini's objective.

The post war situations would largely depends on how succesful is the red army in this ATL, but if the war ends an year before, as I think probable, USSR would have a smaller "empire" this time. Anyway the idea that the Balkans would fall to the communist after the war is wishful thinking: without the red army this is not going to happen. And remember: IOTL Nor Greece, Austria or Turkey felled to their communist movememnts and Yugoslavia was indipendent from Moscow.
I disagree strongly here. If Italy had been fighting in the Balkans it won't be much help in the war, and the Germans can defend in the Alps as easy as the Italians can. Austria wasn't communist because the Red Army withdrew voluntarily, Turkey wasn't in the war, and Greece had a major civil war that required massive British and American aid for the "democrats" to win. The main point is that Italy can't afford to fight a major insurgency for a decade in the entire western and southern Balkans when the guerrillas have easier logistics to more supplies than they hae.
 
perhaps a 1960's lil' "Fascist block" of Greece, Italy, Coatia, Chetnik Serbia, Spain, and Portugal? Turkey? FRANCE??? RAISE THE FASCES HIGH...!

I tend to follow and agree with your version of events unfolding. But ... would you not say that such a 'block' would be able to resist falling into either camp during the cold war? Much like Austria managed to do but for different reasons. Creates a real Med. coastal alliance that if France possible takes some part in (after opting out of NATO control or something) would be able to do some power brokering between the two supers. How would such a block effect NATO (or the formation of) and the War Pact?
 
Alratan,
Maybe i wasn't clear enough, but I think that the timeline above was too optimistic. Anyway, Yugoslavia could be invaded in a year by italian army. There were many plans regarding such invasion and gaining the absolute control of Adriatic sea was an old italian objective. So I would say that if Italy doesn't join the Axis, Mussolini is going to target Yugoslavia.

As for the logistical problems, you are right, but you are also forgetting that not having to fight the british means that the italian navy would have complete freedom of action, while IOTL she never did since the british superiority.

As for the resistance problem, I don't think that could be avoided at all, but its severity could be mitigated by a smart italian behaviour. Besides, I'm not aware of any atrocity commited by italian troops before 1943 in occupied zones. (Besides, if Italy joins the allies, the resistance movements would considered pro-Axis?)

For the post war development, I would say that a lot depends by the actual zone of occupations and the strenght and political alignment of the various resistance movement. Considering Yugoslavia, since it seems to be the only realistic target for Italy before joining WW2, I can picture the state being divided in a pro-western Croatia (including Slovenia) and a pro-Russia Serbia (including Bosnia). The long standing cultural and religious divisions would easy such division. Anyway I think you are wrong when you imagine just Italy facing URSS influence in the Balkans. By the end of the war Churchill would send help (as he did OTL) and after FDR death, so would do the USA. The fact is that after the war Italy would surely be enlisted by the west for the coldwar.
 
Top