No German-Italy Alliance

I'm asking whether the Axis would do better or worse without the "Soft underbelly" that they had. I know that the Balkan campaign wouldn't have happened until after russia, and there would be no North African campaign, along with no need to station troops on the Italian front. However the Italians also contributed troops and supplies to the war against Russia. So would it have hurt or helped Germany to not have been allies with Italy?
 
This is easy to get --A little less indignation in the English and French Papers over Ethiopia, followed by Italian indignation over the Austrian Invasion.

IMO a neutral Italy would be a Plus for Hitler.
No diverting troops and Equipment into the Balkan / Greek theaters.
And Neutral Fascist Italy would like Fascist Spain remain a source of resources.

Italy would still send "Volunteers" to help, even if not quite as many as OTL.
 
I'm asking whether the Axis would do better or worse without the "Soft underbelly" that they had.

It was never a 'Soft Underbelly', the Allies got stuck down there. Of course, it was because the Germans were there...
Of course, Churchill's alternate Soft Underbelly would be the Balkans. That's not soft either.
 
Italy would still send "Volunteers" to help, even if not quite as many as OTL.
Not that they were much use anyway. :D

I do agree with you, a neutral Italy would be a plus for the German war effort. An open market, friendly relations and the guaranteed security of their southern boarder. No where near enough to win the war, but might delay it by a year or so.

Post War would be interesting. Surviving fascist powers, probably either allying with America or each other, with Mussolini still running the show. Quite some possibilities there.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Plus for Hitler since he doesn't have to help Itlay with all their stupid failures. The Axis would anyway lose, and Italy would survive as a fascist dictatorship. Albania and Ethiopia would remain under Italian dominance for some time (with the other Italian colonies), in time both fascism and the Italian Empire would break down in some kind of anti- fascist revolution.
 
I think this might give some oppertunities:

I think France will still fall as OTL with Vichy being declared.
But then British might go on French colonies early on starting with Syria.
And in this TL there would be no Luftwaffe aid for Rachid Ali in Iraq. :D
Could we have a Torch-like landing in Vichy NA by 1942?

Britain would also go tough on the neutral fascists - they were quite tough on Italy in the early months of the war because of Italy importing German coal by ship. Of course Italy can just use rail transport, but that would probably tie up some German rail capacity - however limited.

And there wouldn't be much of a running the guantlet through the Med except depending on German allocation of Luftwaffe units to southern France/Corsica!

Without a North African theatre there would be a possibility of a real build-up in SEA to counter Japan - now wouldn't that be nice. ;)

Western Europe would be in Nazi-Germanys firm grib until still 1944 but then para and commando live training could happen in Norway instead of the Med?? - perhaps some in Corsica just to keep the Germans at their marks...:D
 
Plus for Hitler since he doesn't have to help Itlay with all their stupid failures. The Axis would anyway lose, and Italy would survive as a fascist dictatorship. Albania and Ethiopia would remain under Italian dominance for some time (with the other Italian colonies), in time both fascism and the Italian Empire would break down in some kind of anti- fascist revolution.

I wonder if Italy could move enough people to Libya to skew the demographics?
 
Post War would be interesting. Surviving fascist powers, probably either allying with America or each other, with Mussolini still running the show. Quite some possibilities there.

Until when I wonder? I expect the world's fed up with Fascists. Considering the fascist movement was started inside Italy, would foreign intervention to overthrow the Fascists be possible?
 
Until when I wonder? I expect the world's fed up with Fascists. Considering the fascist movement was started inside Italy, would foreign intervention to overthrow the Fascists be possible?

That would probably be tied to where the Red Army ended its advance and Tito's alike.
Then Tito might just be the one to end fascism in Italy going for Trieste at the end of WWII (if it plays out that way :D) - at least the Dalmatian coast and Istria.
 
That would probably be tied to where the Red Army ended its advance and Tito's alike.
Then Tito might just be the one to end fascism in Italy going for Trieste at the end of WWII (if it plays out that way :D) - at least the Dalmatian coast and Istria.

Would Tito even be around?

A neutral Yugoslavia means no Balkan invasion, so the kingdom isn't overthrown.
 
Would Tito even be around?

A neutral Yugoslavia means no Balkan invasion, so the kingdom isn't overthrown.

Hence my brackets!

But Hitlers souping up Eastern European allies could have an OTL like effect in Yugoslavia still causing its dissolution and promt German invasion (and then its hard to imagine no Italian entry to get another slice of Dalmatian coast) or the inner tension of the Yugoslav kingdom might have it fall apart.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Germany would attack Yugoslavia anyways, since Yugoslavia betrayed the Axis. There would be no occupation of Greece though. Rijeka (Fiume) is an interrestin questin though. Italy might have grabbed it to stop it from falling under German occupation. Then the Italian- Yugoslavian border would be an issue after the war.
 

Churchill

Banned
Even if Italy stayed neutral it still would have invaded Yugoslavia but is less likely to have invaded Greece.
 
Whether Germany gets involved militarily or not in the Balkans is debatable, the need was to protect their southern flank and especially the Ploesti oilfields. But with no British involvement with Greece - no problem.

For the Germans it means:
- no diversion of resources to aid the Italians,
- no diversion of the Afrika Korp (and Rommel) to Libya,
- no squandering of the airborne troops at Crete - now available for prime targets in Russia,
- no diversions for the Luftwaffe, which can concentrate on the Russian Front, and keeping the British busy,
- when they do meet British forces again it is without the live-training camp that was North Africa!

For the British it means:
- access to Italian equipment - engines for RN MTBs, Caproni CA 311 & 313 aircraft as trainers, and possibly the Re. 2000,
- access made easier to India through the Med.,
- the British Army doesn't get the tutorial it needs in modern war in the desert of North Africa,
- with out the distraction of the Italians the British will still do what they can to stir up problems for the Germans in the Balkans.
- likewise, without the distraction of the Italians the RN can concentrate its efforts against the U-boats, German surface ships, and Japan.
- but where are the British going to be able to bring the Germans to battle?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Mussolini had spent all Italy's money trying to create a strong Italian army in the 20s, the fun thing is in the 30s he was already broke.
 
Top