What if Italy remained neutral during World War II?

What if instead of instead of invading France in 1940, Benito Mussolini's Italy followed Spain's lead and remained neutral during World War II?
 

orwelans II

Banned
Then it doesn't attack Greece, does it? That means that Bulgaria and probably Yugoslavia don't get involved either. Germany doesn't send men and equipment to North Africa. There's no soft underbelly for the Allies to invade in the Med (aside from maybe southern France). With no Italian Royal Navy, a larger invasion in southern France could be doable in the hopes that the Vichy regime would fold like the Italian one did IRL. Perhaps it can be combined with a landing in northern France as well. Less problems for British shipping in the Med. As for the Eastern front, the Axis gain the divisons that would have been tied to the Balkans and Africa, but lose the Italian ones.
This could also mean that the Fascist regime in Italy has a fate similar to that of Franco's. It could mean that the House of Savoy remains in power. It would also probably mean that less countries fall under Soviet domination after the war.

Edit: An interesting consequence could be the approach a surviving Fascist regime in Italy has towards decolonisation. My guess is that it would try to pull the same crap that Portugal did.
 
COULD Italy remain neutral? From what I gather they were already embroiled in colonial wars in Libya and Abyssinia. How long until they would threaten the British interests in Egypt, in particular the Suez canal, and be forced to choose sides?
 
By 1940 it was already too late for Mussolini to back off. He had to do it, the country was going bankrupt and he had already sold his soul to Hitler. The only way you can get a neutral Italy is to have a coup happen. a coup timed prefectly with the invasion of France.
 
The Axis military alliance was a defensive one, that is why Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was a choice not an obligation. Likewise Mussolini was not obligated to declare war on France. Had things gone less well for the Germans than OTL, even if France still falls Mussolini might see Germany as less a sure winner and stay out. His wars in Africa and Albanian efforts etc were tolerated by the British and others. If Benny does not attack the UK, and does not go in to Greece, he can stay neutral and survive. A neutral Italy, like a neutral Spain, can get imports from the USA, western hemisphere, or even the British Empire (as a sweetener to stay neutral).
 
Would there even be any war in the med? Afaik, the whole med campaign was caused by Italy's eforts. It it remains out of the war, I doubt the overtaxed UK would "rock the boat", concerning Italy's african activities...
 
This may be the third thread on this question here, just this year. One of the most oft raised question for WWII, & perhaps one of the most poorly researched.

Would there even be any war in the med?

Not as we know it. Without a ally or conquered territory there the Germans can only intrude with token forces.

Afaik, the whole med campaign was caused by Italy's efforts.

Largely yes.

It it remains out of the war, I doubt the overtaxed UK would "rock the boat", concerning Italy's african activities...

The 'Churchill' version is one of Mussolinis blundering & perfidious backstabbing. A lot of English language historians follow that narrative. A few years ago I skimmed some remarks and other material from some Italian historians. While they dont excuse Mussolini they also point to some serious British missteps in dealing with italy between Sept 1939 & June 1940. Their point is Chuchills approach was more stick than carrot which soured the efforts of Italian diplomats and did nothing to sooth Mussolini. Perhaps some experts can weigh in on this?

Then it doesn't attack Greece, does it? That means that Bulgaria and probably Yugoslavia don't get involved either. Germany doesn't send men and equipment to North Africa.

Not necessarily. Mussolini was somewhat unpredictable. he might feel he missed out on the conquest of France & attack Yugoslavia or Greece. In this case the Brits might hesitate to intervene as they are not year at way with Italy. Their hands full with Germany & all that.

There's no soft underbelly for the Allies to invade in the Med (aside from maybe southern France). With no Italian Royal Navy, a larger invasion in southern France could be doable in the hopes that the Vichy regime would fold like the Italian one did IRL. Perhaps it can be combined with a landing in northern France as well. Less problems for British shipping in the Med. As for the Eastern front, the Axis gain the divisons that would have been tied to the Balkans and Africa, but lose the Italian ones.
...

The really big difference is in forces available for the Asian/pacific theaters. i.e.: No large scale ioss of the long range T class submarines in the Med. A full size Asiatic fleet vs the undersized Force Z. Modern aircraft & trained/experienced crew vs Buffalos & Whirlwinds. I could keep going on, but the point should be clear.

Absent the drain of the Mediterranean theatre the question is where does Churchill focus in 1941 - 42? Adventures in Norway? A more decisive intervention in Iraq, Syria, ect... Earlier invasions of Madagascar & NW Africa, i.e.: The GYMNAST operation instead of the much later TORCH Op? Corsica is not Italian occupied, so will the Allies try to pick it off in 1942?
 
Last edited:
The Axis military alliance was a defensive one, that is why Hitler's decision to declare war on the US was a choice not an obligation. Likewise Mussolini was not obligated to declare war on France. Had things gone less well for the Germans than OTL, even if France still falls Mussolini might see Germany as less a sure winner and stay out. His wars in Africa and Albanian efforts etc were tolerated by the British and others. If Benny does not attack the UK, and does not go in to Greece, he can stay neutral and survive. A neutral Italy, like a neutral Spain, can get imports from the USA, western hemisphere, or even the British Empire (as a sweetener to stay neutral).

he couldn't. He was already standing at the edge with everyone watching him. Can't turn back then and pretend it never happened. Not without loosing major face, and Mussolini didn't want to lose face, thats what his power was build on.

Italy was already committed to war by attacking Ethiopia and annexing Albania. They were right there with it, no point in pretening they could be as neutral as Spain, who didn't expand itself but was embroiled in a civil war. Italy had build up to war, backing up now would weaken the nation and Mussolini wasn't the only fascist Italian.
 
Germany doesn't send men and equipment to North Africa. There's no soft underbelly for the Allies to invade in the Med (aside from maybe southern France).

Absent the drain of the Mediterranean theatre the question is where does Churchill focus in 1941 - 42? Adventures in Norway? A more decisive intervention in Iraq, Syria, ect... Earlier invasions of Madagascar & NW Africa, i.e.: The GYMNAST operation instead of the much later TORCH Op? Corsica is not Italian occupied, so will the Allies try to pick it off in 1942?

my question would be does Germany continue their collaboration with USSR in absence of Italy as ally? and effects of THAT on any pact with Japan?

an interesting situation could develop if Italy goes for Vichy France territory? French Somaliland and others.
 
There is a Pod you can use for that

"The Little Annoying Austrian" first state visit as Fürher to Italy ended almost in diplomatic disaster !
So why not ending it as a diplomatic disaster and Mussolini still consider "The Little Annoying Austrian" as brute barbarian without education...
under this settings, Mussolini could take a Neutral position for Italy together with franco Spain, while the Nazi ravage over Europe...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
my question would be does Germany continue their collaboration with USSR in absence of Italy as ally? and effects of THAT on any pact with Japan?

an interesting situation could develop if Italy goes for Vichy France territory? French Somaliland and others.
There is a Pod you can use for that

"The Little Annoying Austrian" first state visit as Fürher to Italy ended almost in diplomatic disaster !
So why not ending it as a diplomatic disaster and Mussolini still consider "The Little Annoying Austrian" as brute barbarian without education...
under this settings, Mussolini could take a Neutral position for Italy together with franco Spain, while the Nazi ravage over Europe...
That opens the question of the time od the PoD the OP intends.
What if instead of instead of invading France in 1940, Benito Mussolini's Italy followed Spain's lead and remained neutral during World War II?
IMO it sounds, as if the qustion should comes on Bennys table during the german invasion of the lowlands and France ... or even at the invasin of Poland and the allaround DoWs, when he geclared Italy to be "non-belliraganza".

At that point Italy was already deep into debt and bound to germany, in economical terms AIUI. But he might have gone away with it. But with it also his chances of getting a piece of the (assumed free to grab) cake of France.
However, IF some measure of Franco's reason is somehow pored into Bennys head, there's no italian invasion into Egypt in September 1940 at least. But will he still be "reasonable" enough to stay away from the greek adventure ? If so and still stays as Franco "friendy neutral" to Hitler-Germany, than I can't see anything than a big bonus for Hitler.
No "drain" of forces for the Afrika-Korps, no drain and diversion to the Balkans, more forces for Barbarossa on the onset, less delay for Barbarossa, one or two weeks more for getting better positions for Taifun to start. (Though these might still be no Barbarossa-winners, but could make it much more probable.)
And a whole bunch of other possible butterflies, not only related to the eastern theatre as well as economic developments. All in all I would say :
For Italy, whatever the outcome (now more "open"), it would/could be a "winning" position.
Keeping also facsism as a "third way" with Franco and its inventor Mussolini alive for quite some time after the war (assumed at some point Hitler-Germany finally folds).

I don't think it would have had any or at least much of an effect regarding Japan.
Too far away at that moment to be of much interest or help. And the japanes made "their own thing" anyway.


With a PoD as proposed By @Michel Van , the "build-up" to war would have look veery different IMO.
No "Steel"-pact, very probably no austrian "Anschluß", very, very probably no "Munich"-agreement, as he would in such a TL lean much more to the wallies than IOTL.
 
Does France (or at least the French government) throw in the towel and sign the Bordeaux Armistice if Italy remains neutral, or does France keep on fighting, from Algeria?

Probablly. OTL only about 80 Deputies, out of over 500 total were willing to remove to Africa with Reynauds government. His cabinet was shaky, with perhaps half the members unenthusiastic. Maybe a armistice is delayed a couple more weeks, with more material evacuated to Africa.

It is a intriguing idea tho, a rump French government with perhaps 20% of the Deptuties seated in Algiers & no coherent leadership remaining in France. Eventually the Germans would find collaborationists. But, without any legal connection or broad support its going to be far less useful than the Vichy government of OTL.
 
Top