What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

my question would be does this scenario butterfly away the Battle of Britain
Going with the invasion of Italy coming in 1941, not likely. The war's air campaign would probably seem somewhat like OTL, in how Hitler tried bombing Britain before he tried bombing Malta.

Barbarossa, is probably put off until 1942. I imagine that unlike OTL's Balkan Campaign, which was a quick diversion which put Barbarossa behind Schedule, Hitler would have planned for war with Italy and likely devoted the 1941 campaign season to pushing the allies as far down the peninsula as he could.

edit:
so they would be expending less resources overall into at least 1942?
Most likely, unless one of Mussolini's hair brained vanity projects pays off in spades.
 
Last edited:
my question would be does this scenario butterfly away the Battle of Britain and the invasion of USSR? my view it would at least limit the former and at least delay the latter. (this may be incorrect as to BoB)

so they would be expending less resources overall into at least 1942?

Going with the invasion of Italy coming in 1941, not likely. The war's air campaign would probably seem somewhat like OTL, in how Hitler tried bombing Britain before he tried bombing Malta.

Barbarossa, is probably put off until 1942. I imagine that unlike OTL's Balkan Campaign, which was a quick diversion which put Barbarossa behind Schedule, Hitler would have planned for war with Italy and likely devoted the 1941 campaign season to pushing the allies as far down the peninsula as he could.

do not think Malta a relevant comparison, Italian airfields would be so much closer (if nothing else)

there was the option of Channel warfare and bombing of ports against the UK, they gambled on mass bombing campaign historically with no other active fronts.
 

nbcman

Donor
More manpower and ground assets yes, but with it being an overland campaign the German Navy, Merchant Marine, and transport plane fleet likely see less use. So I'm not sure how it balances out.
Because the Africa Corps was an insigificant portion of the German forces. Now the Germans have to garrison Italy, have a field army or armies to hold the stalemated line, and maintain enough of an airforce to keep British bombers from attacking their industry (since the scenario most likely leaves Italy & UK with the excellent bases around Foggia). Compare that to an Armored Division, a motorized division or two, and a higher quantity of trucks.
 

Deleted member 1487

Because the Africa Corps was an insigificant portion of the German forces. Now the Germans have to garrison Italy, have a field army or armies to hold the stalemated line, and maintain enough of an airforce to keep British bombers from attacking their industry (since the scenario most likely leaves Italy & UK with the excellent bases around Foggia). Compare that to an Armored Division, a motorized division or two, and a higher quantity of trucks.
No, the truck complement of the Afrika Korps was about 10% of total German truck stocks IIRC. Hardly insignificant, especially when you factor in 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe being in the Mediterranean, either in support of the Korps or the Italians and some naval forces. That said invading and occupying Italy would still require more, but less than launching Barbarossa by an order of magnitude. At most probably no more than AG-North and perhaps less, though more Luftwaffe support than they had.
 
the truck complement of the Afrika Korps was about 10% of total German truck stocks IIRC.
Rommel had the bad habit of stripping Italian units of their trucks, and then the ones they captured from the British.
stock-photo-field-marshal-erwin-rommel-watching-battlefield-1941-tunisia-in-captured-british-armoured-truck-max-mammut-12495.jpg
 
Quick question when the war begun the germans had a clear air advantage at 4,200 active aircraft. The allies held and 2,900 nearly 3,000. So there was a clear advantage but if italy sided with the allies they would of been able to deploy 2/3 of their aircraft that would of been ready while not the best i am sure they could be put to use. That would be 2,000 extra aircraft to bolster the allies if by some miracle they can get more of the fleet ready then the numbers would be far more balanced. With the allies 4,900-5,900 aircraft potentially with the germans by the end I believe by the end of the battle had managed with the italians 5,600 so i can see a bit more of a balance especially as I would suspect the german would not reach that high. But I would suspect close to it.

So, my question is how do you think this will effect the battle
 
Invading Italy from the North is troublesome from a logistics standpoint for Germany
Not much for rail links, and it's slow to expand that capacity, given the terrain
AAF-III-map_457.jpg

Though historically, invasions of Italy from the north have gone much better than invasions from the south.
 
Though historically, invasions of Italy from the north have gone much better than invasions from the south.
That is because traditionally it was other powers that were in control of the passes this is not the case here italy would be in complete control of most if not all the major paths. This means that they have to take the watershed there is no more simply moving troops through it they wiil have too capture the passes. Which will take alot. Once into the valley it is not too difficult as long as you have the numbers, it isn’t until the alpiennes that the germans will struggle with it
 
Another question I guess would be, does allied Moose make France more likely to fight on?
I would say yes as they have far more options including avenues of retreat and with a border on france they are free to make any attempts to reclaim france. It is very possible that the front actually stablises along the rhone and the front could run from switzerland to marseille which I think would be interesting though don’t know how long that would last but it does atleast give free france more legitimacy and the allies can claim france still stands but also wouldn’t be surprised if they got overrun to the border
 

Marc

Donor
Another question I guess would be, does allied Moose make France more likely to fight on?

It does depend how how worried the Teppichfresse becomes in attacking both France and Italy. My loose guess is that a bit of hysteria ensues.
We all do understand the Nazi leadership is rather insane?
 
It does depend how how worried the Teppichfresse becomes in attacking both France and Italy. My loose guess is that a bit of hysteria ensues.
We all do understand the Nazi leadership is rather insane?
It wouldnt be helped to the fact that the germans are now quite out numbered and until the war disproved it was believed that italian military was to be feared. So many collective heart attacks at moose siding with the allies also probably some shouting from a very angry maniac who actually liked the moose.
 
IDK, Moose was pretty eager to make sure Italy "showed the flag" in every operation. Something like an alt Corpo Aereo Italiano (probably with a token ground counterpart) would be sent to help France.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, once he declares war, he'll want a finger in every pie. The point I was making is that he waited June 10 in OTL to make sure Germany was really defeating France before declaring. He'd do the same here.
 
So, my question is how do you think this will effect the battle

Not as much as the numbers seem to signify.
Most importantly, having one air force coordinating its own efforts across different theaters is one thing; having several allies, each with his own agenda and own territory to defend, coordinate their air forces is enormously more difficult.
Secondly, there is the quality issue.

All that said, the reasonable scenario is the same in the air and on land. I.e., if Italy goes pro-French-and-British, this happens before 1938. Possibly, the French and the British throw Ethiopia under the bus, no sanctions are enacted, and the relations don't sour. It is even possible that this happens because Mussolini settles for something less than complete conquest of Ethiopia, which would be good for this alliance because Italy would not be spending inordinate amounts of money on that colonial adventure.

If the above happens, then no pact of steel, and in 1940 not only the French don't need to keep air units in the South; but, also, the Luftwaffe has to keep some units to face the Regia Aeronautica, partially mobilizing in Northern Italy. It's the same that would happen on the ground, with France not having to keep several divisions in Tunisia and in the Alps, and Germany having to keep some divisions in the Eastern Alps.

In the air this has less effect than on land, first because the French did not keep lots of air units facing the Italians (and those weren't the best either), second because it's faster to redeploy a fighter Geschwader than an infantry division. However, combined with the change in the balance of ground forces, it's very likely that the German offensive in the West flounders and ends with position warfare. So all the talk about a German invasion of Yugoslavia and Italy in the following year is very probably pointless.

And all of that, short of an actual entry in war of Italy.

A possible other butterfly effect is the failure of the German invasion of Norway. In OTL, it succeeded by very little, with the price being most of the Kriegsmarine surface force. In this scenario, neither Britain nor France need to keep naval assets in the Med. If the Germans have been ingloriously booted out of Norway, losing not only all of the surface Kriegsmarine but also infantry units, including some paratroopers and mountain infantry (interned in Sweden, probably), then their offensive against Belgium, Holland and France is done without the OTL aura of invincibility, and with less paras. Less Luftwaffe units, too, because they have to keep sizable air assets in Denmark.
 

nbcman

Donor
No, the truck complement of the Afrika Korps was about 10% of total German truck stocks IIRC. Hardly insignificant, especially when you factor in 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe being in the Mediterranean, either in support of the Korps or the Italians and some naval forces. That said invading and occupying Italy would still require more, but less than launching Barbarossa by an order of magnitude. At most probably no more than AG-North and perhaps less, though more Luftwaffe support than they had.

Your underlined statements wasn't what the original question was asking. The question was whether the German forces required to occupy Italy was greater than the German forces for the Afrika Corps. If one wanted to be pedantic, a single landser in Italy in 1940 is all it takes since the Afrika Corps didn't get formed until 1941. It will take multiple hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy northern Italy and to hold the stalemated line - and the Afrika Corps in 1941 wasn't more than 3 divisions.
 
@wiking
I don't understand why you consider that France's Fall is a given in a scenario with Italy in the war on the Allied side since 1939.

1. The Allies have far more units on Theater than OTL :​

The French have the units from the Armée des Alpes (it's two Corps and five first line Infantry Divisions even if you disregard the four Forteresse Sector and the F-17 tank battalion) and from the Armée d'Afrique (Without the forces in Morocco and the garrison troops, it's two Corps, four or five second line Infantry Divisions, one Cavalry Division, a number of Cavalry regiments and two D1 tank battalions).
The UK have, at least, one more Infantry Division from the Middle-East and they might have the 1st Armoured operational by taking personnel and equipment from what will become the 7th Armoured.
I don't know what the Italian will sent for sure, but I think a five division expeditionary force is a minimum with one Armored, one Celere and three Infantry Divisions in two Corps.
That's a non trivial amount of forces (16+ Divisions) and most will be in strategic reserve.

In the air, the French will have more units in Northern France, kipping only reequipping units in the South. It's not much, but it's something.

2. The German forces are more stretched than OTL :​

Even if, like you said, the German don't need much forces to cover Austria, they will still need to deploy more forces there. It will be probably five to ten Infantry Divisions, mostly third line with maybe one or two first line.

Plus, the Luftwaffe will need to cover Austria. With 20/20 incite, we know that the Italian Air Force was a paper tiger, but the Luftwaffe don't know that for sure (They might suspect it). So that's some Fighters (maybe 1 or 200) staying in Austria.

That's some (minor) more forces tied up outside of the Western Front. It's not much, but those will be missed, specially if the French Front isn't pierced immediately.

3. You can't squeeze much more forces on the Dyle-Breda Maneuver :​

OTL, the British were already making noise that they didn't have enough terrain to deploy correctly with the 7th French Army on their left.

4. The Allied reserves will be more effective :​

OTL, the French reserves were split in four parts : 1 to support the forces in Belgium, 1 to support the Maginot Line, 1 to cover the Swiss option and 1 central in Champagne.

OTL, the Luftwaffe effectiveness against the reserves was magnified by two factors.
First, the French reserves came piece-meal. It's a strategic and doctrinal mistake from the French High Command which might only be change on the margin : with more reserves directly at hand, Gamelin and Georges might be more willing to engage more rapidly and massively the reserves.
Second, after the first few days of fighting, the reserves came form afar (mostly from the Maginot and the Swiss pools). They were dropped disorganized at some train station, needed to concentrate and reorganize, and then walk into the front threw predictable path. All that under the total air dominance of the Luftwaffe.

I suppose that the "new" ITTL reserves will mostly be deployed in Champagne, including the Italian Expeditionary Force. It's central and it have the military infrastructure to accommodate those forces (OTL, the 7th Army was stationed there before the Breda variant was chosen).

5. It can snow ball :
I'm aware of the advantages of the 1940 German Army OTL, but even with them OTL, the Battle of France was far from a walk in the park with some very close calls (the Landser who took an unfinished bunker in Sedan making it possible to roll the line, the two survival of Rommel, the multiple times were German generals disregarded the orders to stop during the Sickle Cut, ...).

If you take into account all those changes, the German breakthrough is not a given at all, simply because the Allies have organized reserves in place.



On the Norway Campaign, the major change I can see is that the Allies have even more naval assets. After all, the Mediterranean Fleet and the French Fleet were deployed to deter Italy OTL.
So I can see ITTL an even bigger Home Fleet, possibly reinforced by the French Force de Raid, deployed in three squadrons of two battleships and one aircraft carrier and the two battlecruiser squadrons.
By adding some ships, you dramatically increase the chances of interception of the German ships, specially for the Trondheim and Narvik invasion groups.


Edit :I agree with your last post @Michele, but I think a 1938 POD is too soon and it might butterfly WW2 with no Anschluss and no Munich. I'll prefer a POD in 1939 with Mussolini taking seriously his role of guarantor of the Munich Accords and, when the Nazi take Prague, he goes pro-French and pro-British and guaranty Poland. Like you say, the price might be Ethiopia and economic and commercial support.
 
Last edited:
@wiking
I don't understand why you consider that France's Fall is a given in a scenario with Italy in the war on the Allied side since 1939.

1. The Allies have far more units on Theater than OTL :​

The French have the units from the Armée des Alpes (it's two Corps and five first line Infantry Divisions even if you disregard the four Forteresse Sector and the F-17 tank battalion) and from the Armée d'Afrique (Without the forces in Morocco and the garrison troops, it's two Corps, four or five second line Infantry Divisions, one Cavalry Division, a number of Cavalry regiments and two D1 tank battalions).
The UK have, at least, one more Infantry Division from the Middle-East and they might have the 1st Armoured operational by taking personnel and equipment from what will become the 7th Armoured.
I don't know what the Italian will sent for sure, but I think a five division expeditionary force is a minimum with one Armored, one Celere and three Infantry Divisions in two Corps.
That's a non trivial amount of forces (16+ Divisions) and most will be in strategic reserve.

In the air, the French will have more units in Northern France, kipping only reequipping units in the South. It's not much, but it's something.

2. The German forces are more stretched than OTL :​

Even if, like you said, the German don't need much forces to cover Austria, they will still need to deploy more forces there. It will be probably five to ten Infantry Divisions, mostly third line with maybe one or two first line.

Plus, the Luftwaffe will need to cover Austria. With 20/20 incite, we know that the Italian Air Force was a paper tiger, but the Luftwaffe don't know that for sure (They might suspect it). So that's some Fighters (maybe 1 or 200) staying in Austria.

That's some (minor) more forces tied up outside of the Western Front. It's not much, but those will be missed, specially if the French Front isn't pierced immediately.

3. You can't squeeze much more forces on the Dyle-Breda Maneuver :​

OTL, the British were already making noise that they didn't have enough terrain to deploy correctly with the 7th French Army on their left.

4. The Allied reserves will be more effective :​

OTL, the French reserves were split in four parts : 1 to support the forces in Belgium, 1 to support the Maginot Line, 1 to cover the Swiss option and 1 central in Champagne.

OTL, the Luftwaffe effectiveness against the reserves was magnified by two factors.
First, the French reserves came piece-meal. It's a strategic and doctrinal mistake from the French High Command which might only be change on the margin : with more reserves directly at hand, Gamelin and Georges might be more willing to engage more rapidly and massively the reserves.
Second, after the first few days of fighting, the reserves came form afar (mostly from the Maginot and the Swiss pools). They were dropped disorganized at some train station, needed to concentrate and reorganize, and then walk into the front threw predictable path. All that under the total air dominance of the Luftwaffe.

I suppose that the "new" ITTL reserves will mostly be deployed in Champagne, including the Italian Expeditionary Force. It's central and it have the military infrastructure to accommodate those forces (OTL, the 7th Army was stationed there before the Breda variant was chosen).

5. It can snow ball :
I'm aware of the advantages of the 1940 German Army OTL, but even with them OTL, the Battle of France was far from a walk in the park with some very close calls (the Landser who took an unfinished bunker in Sedan making it possible to roll the line, the two survival of Rommel, the multiple times were German generals disregarded the orders to stop during the Sickle Cut, ...).

If you take into account all those changes, the German breakthrough is not a given at all, simply because the Allies have organized reserves in place.



On the Norway Campaign, the major change I can see is that the Allies have even more naval assets. After all, the Mediterranean Fleet and the French Fleet were deployed to deter Italy OTL.
So I can see ITTL an even bigger Home Fleet, possibly reinforced by the French Force de Raid, deployed in three squadrons of two battleships and one aircraft carrier and the two battlecruiser squadrons.
By adding some ships, you dramatically increase the chances of interception of the German ships, specially for the Trondheim and Narvik invasion groups.


Edit :I agree with your last post @Michele, but I think a 1938 POD is too soon and it might butterfly WW2 with no Anschluss and no Munich. I'll prefer a POD in 1939 with Mussolini taking seriously his role of guarantor of the Munich Accords and, when the Nazi take Prague, he goes pro-French and pro-British and guaranty Poland. Like you say, the price might be Ethiopia and economic and commercial support.
I find this post sums up my view. However i do think we will see france fall just because I suspect that they are very likely to make the same mistakes. however, we will see one major difference the cost it will cost the germans alot more especially with the disadvantages set against them. It might be bad enough for it too also remove their capability to go on any major offensive against say italy or russia for a while. Which is the real killer as it buys the allies time to prepare and move industry into safer areas it also means you won’t see as large as bombing campaigns.

My question is do you think germany will still be bold or crazy enough to take russian on if france does manage to fall? Or will they focus on italy?
 

Deleted member 1487

Your underlined statements wasn't what the original question was asking. The question was whether the German forces required to occupy Italy was greater than the German forces for the Afrika Corps. If one wanted to be pedantic, a single landser in Italy in 1940 is all it takes since the Afrika Corps didn't get formed until 1941. It will take multiple hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy northern Italy and to hold the stalemated line - and the Afrika Corps in 1941 wasn't more than 3 divisions.
I know what the original question asked, I was just pointing out how the resulting number of forces would prevent Barbarossa and on balance mean that invading the USSR would become unfeasible entirely and not just in 1941.
 
Top