No Italian help, mean Hitler does better?

Does an Italy that stays neutral actually benefit Hitler? As Churchill stated about Italian abilities and them joining the Axis, “That's only fair – we had them last time.” The Italians dragged Germany into Greece and North Africa and then forced them to have to fight in Italy against an invasion after Mussolini was forced out. An Italy that stayed neutral like Franco's Spain would be safe from for Germany not having to worry about the Allies coming up the "soft underbelly" of Axis control, thereby freeing up divisions and resources. The only resource Italy really ever contributed would have been aluminum. Their forces were crap.
 
Does an Italy that stays neutral actually benefit Hitler? Their forces were crap.

Not necessarily. While they left much to be desired tactically, they actually offered Germany a strategic bonus via the manpower pool they could pull from for Barbarossa and Yugoslavia.

Remember Germany had massive tactical prowess against it's enemies but likewise huge strategic disadvantages so it needed allies like Romania, Hungry, Italy to make up the difference where available even when the quality of detachments they provided were low quality. (Oil, Tin, Manpower, etc)
 
A neutral Mussolini probably would benefit Germany, yes.
As you said, Germany repeatedly had to bail out the Italians-not sure about the numbers of troops Germany used (and lost) to subdue Greece and delay the fall of North Africa, but they were considerable. Sparing Germany these losses almost certainly outweighs any Italian contributions to the war. Its safe to assume Germany has over 250,000 more troops available for Barbarossa, for example, between those not in Libya and those not killed trying to take Crete. I don't know that it's enough to tip the scales against the Soviets, but its nothing to sneeze at.
Of course there would be fewer British troops and ships tied up as well, so it might go worse for the Axis in, say, the battle of Atlantic or for Japan in the Pacific theater. Britain might act against Vichy France earlier in North Africa. It could even lead to an earlier D-day, though that's more dependent on American preparations than anything else. And there's always the possibility that Mussolini-who didn't much care for Hitler-jumps in against Germany if it looks like the allies are winning.
 
Last edited:
A neutral Mussolini probably would benefit Germany, yes.
As you said, Germany repeatedly had to bail out the Italians-not sure about the numbers of troops Germany used (and lost) to subdue Greece and delay the fall of North Africa, but they were considerable. Sparing Germany these losses almost certainly outweighs any Italian contributions to the war. Its safe to assume Germany has over 250,000 more troops available for Barbarossa, for example, between those not in Libya and those not killed trying to take Crete. I don't know that it's enough to tip the scales against the Soviets, but its nothing to sneeze at.
Of course there would be fewer British troops and ships tied up as well, so it might go worse for the Axis in, say, the battle of Atlantic or for Japan in the Pacific theater. Britain might act against Vichy France earlier in North Africa. It could even lead to an earlier D-day, though that's more dependent on American preparations than anything else. And there's always the possibility that Mussolini-who didn't much care for Hitler-jumps in against Germany if it looks like the allies are winning.

Ah, so what are the butterflies if Italy (a fascist country with a relatively strong monarchy) joins the Allies? If he joins BEFORE Pearl Harbor is it enough where the US isn't really needed in Europe and America doesn't have to do "Europe first" and just concentrates on Japan? You now have two fascist dictatorships after WWII, Spain and Italy, and on top of that both have monarchies in place as well. How does this shape Europe post-war?
 
Quite a few big gains for the UK if Italy stays out of the war:
  • No North African campaign. While the forces involved weren't huge, those required to support them were. That frees up huge forces for the UK to use elsewhere.
  • Suez remains open - that has huge impacts elsewhere because it allows the UK to use the available shipping tonnage a lot more efficiently. The practical amount they can move from Europe to the Far East just doubled.
  • Lots more troops and more shipping to move them about? Singapore, Malaya and Burma just got a huge boost. The Japanese are going to have big problems moving westwards - particularly as the RN will be able to spare a lot more ships.
 
What are the British doing if they aren't occupied in North Africa?
They can adequately garrison Singapore and still support some action in Norway or a BEF in the USSR.

With no Axis troops in Libya, Algeria might be Free French instead of Vichy. A much larger piece of the French Navy may join the Allies too.

More Lend-Lease to USSR through the Middle East as well.
 
Top