What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

nbcman

Donor
Actually the question was about resource use rather than "forces". So the elimination of the cost to Germany's merchant marine and air transport fleets would need to be considered.

What German merchant marine was used to supply AK? If you mean the MFPs, those weren't first commissioned until the spring of 1941. Otherwise, the German 'merchant marine' in the Med would only consist of whatever ships they captured from the Italy as I don't see any German merchies being able to sail past Gibraltar - so there is zero cost to Germany's merchant marine. The German air transport fleets would most likely be used up on an Merkur type attack on another Med Island such as Corsica or Sardinia in 1941 in an attempt to remove an island as a potential air base threat so there is another net zero effect.
 
If you mean the MFPs, those weren't first commissioned until the spring of 1941. Otherwise, the German 'merchant marine' in the Med would only consist of whatever ships they captured from the Italy as I don't see any German merchies being able to sail past Gibraltar
No mate the German Merchant Marine had a surprisingly huge presence in the Mediterranean. They did most of the heavy lifting for Sonnenblume.

The German air transport fleets would most likely be used up on an Merkur type attack on another Med Island such as Corsica or Sardinia in 1941
That's not the same thing as supply runs between Tunis and Sicily under allied air superiority.
 

nbcman

Donor
1)No mate the German Merchant Marine had a surprisingly huge presence in the Mediterranean. They did most of the heavy lifting for Sonnenblume.


2) That's not the same thing as supply runs between Tunis and Sicily under allied air superiority.
1)Mate, where would those German ships hide in 1939 & 1940 when there’s no neutral Italy? Turkey or Nationalist Spain? too far to get back with Allies naval dominance. Yugoslavia? oops, already been attacked in a left hook. Greece?
2) Those air ops are late 1942-43. How is that pertinent to 1940 when their air transport force was worn down after the attacks in the West.
 
1)Mate, where would those German ships hide in 1939 & 1940 when there’s no neutral Italy? Turkey or Nationalist Spain? too far to get back with Allies naval dominance. Yugoslavia? oops, already been attacked in a left hook. Greece?
Between Nationalist Spain and Southern France isn't too far.
Yugoslavia, sure if it's getting the left hook. I think a few people here have posited that they might allow German transit or even ally against Italy.
Greece and Turkey are probably the worst options, though they'd probably get the lion's share seeing as how the merchant ships were from the Deutsche Levante Line. So it'd probably be approaching zero-sum.

2) Those air ops are late 1942-43. How is that pertinent to 1940 when their air transport force was worn down after the attacks in the West.
Because I don't recall ever limiting us to 1941?
 
...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.

Thought about this. Mussolini changing sides for the reason you mention would be very surprising; on the other side, Mussolini changing sides because he thinks the other side is going to win, that would not be surprising. It might still happen in 1939.

Apart from that, you are right as to the pre-1938 POD. While that would be the long-term outlook that would make sense, it would make too much sense; i.e., after Austria is annexed, Germany would find itself in a much weaker position than in OTL. France and Czechoslovakia are allies, Britain is friendly with them, Italy is friendly with them - if not a formal military ally of France. And the Soviet Union, however peripheral and unwelcome by the others in the group, still also is an ally of Czechoslovakia. The German Sudeten imbroglio becomes much riskier, possibly too risky for the German generals to go along.
 
Thought about this. Mussolini changing sides for the reason you mention would be very surprising; on the other side, Mussolini changing sides because he thinks the other side is going to win, that would not be surprising. It might still happen in 1939.

Apart from that, you are right as to the pre-1938 POD. While that would be the long-term outlook that would make sense, it would make too much sense; i.e., after Austria is annexed, Germany would find itself in a much weaker position than in OTL. France and Czechoslovakia are allies, Britain is friendly with them, Italy is friendly with them - if not a formal military ally of France. And the Soviet Union, however peripheral and unwelcome by the others in the group, still also is an ally of Czechoslovakia. The German Sudeten imbroglio becomes much riskier, possibly too risky for the German generals to go along.
I think that him taking his position as a guarantor seriously if he believed the allies could especially with his help also if he was convinced that the germans were only really using italy and did not care about her abitions and a second to germany. If it was made clear too the moose that hitler was not going to stop and the guy was legitimately crazy and could not be controlled then i can see him switching
 
Thought about this. Mussolini changing sides for the reason you mention would be very surprising; on the other side, Mussolini changing sides because he thinks the other side is going to win, that would not be surprising. It might still happen in 1939.

Apart from that, you are right as to the pre-1938 POD. While that would be the long-term outlook that would make sense, it would make too much sense; i.e., after Austria is annexed, Germany would find itself in a much weaker position than in OTL. France and Czechoslovakia are allies, Britain is friendly with them, Italy is friendly with them - if not a formal military ally of France. And the Soviet Union, however peripheral and unwelcome by the others in the group, still also is an ally of Czechoslovakia. The German Sudeten imbroglio becomes much riskier, possibly too risky for the German generals to go along.

the only plausible POD to me is an earlier pact with USSR, it certainly was an option at least on the trade front. the German army would have supported this as they had their clandestine cooperation from the 1920's onward?

still think this just moves Italy to the neutral column? only joining the Allies in the final stages of the war?
 
the only plausible POD to me is an earlier pact with USSR, it certainly was an option at least on the trade front. the German army would have supported this as they had their clandestine cooperation from the 1920's onward?

still think this just moves Italy to the neutral column? only joining the Allies in the final stages of the war?

That Italy joins the fray only when the war is about to end would reflect Mussolini's OTl intentions, so OK with that - the sticky point is guessing that the war is ending.
As to Germany remaining big friends with the Soviet Union... I don't see it. I don't feel I can venture to say that it's a deal breaker for Mussolini.
 
That Italy joins the fray only when the war is about to end would reflect Mussolini's OTl intentions, so OK with that - the sticky point is guessing that the war is ending.
As to Germany remaining big friends with the Soviet Union... I don't see it. I don't feel I can venture to say that it's a deal breaker for Mussolini.
Too my understanding and this may be wrong but hitler was really focused on the soviets with alot of retoric being aimed at them. So he would of invaded unless something really pulled him off course. If he believes if it is at least mostly safe is it safe to assume he will invade?
 
What did you guys think about after the war how do you think italy will be viewed?

Probably as an authoritarian but useful Cold War ally, similar to Franco’s Spain. However, as with Franco l suspect that the fascist government would not last long following Mussolini’s eventual death. If Italy becomes a liberal democracy then his reputation would probably be that of a thug who was supported out of necessity by liberals, a devil by the left, and a necessary strong ruler by the right - a reputation similar to Franco and various South American dictators.

One ramification of Italy not joining the Axis might be that fascism remains a more relevant political ideology, instead of being nearly totally discredited.
 

Deleted member 1487

What did you guys think about after the war how do you think italy will be viewed?
Depends how the war turns out. If the Allies go full moron like they were planning with Operation Pike and the Balkans invasion, they might be viewed as enablers that helped cause the Allies to lose.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Depends how the war turns out. If the Allies go full moron like they were planning with Operation Pike and the Balkans invasion, they might be viewed as enablers that helped cause the Allies to lose.

Can you kindly explain, even if the Allies do bomb Baku and lose a division or three in Greece, how Germany plus the Soviet Union can cause the Allies to lose.

Note the English Channel and Atlantic Ocean are a thing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Can you kindly explain, even if the Allies do bomb Baku and lose a division or three in Greece, how Germany plus the Soviet Union can cause the Allies to lose.

Note the English Channel and Atlantic Ocean are a thing.
Germany+the Soviets vs Italy+Britain+France? How does that mean the Allies lose???

Soviets invade the Middle East and dismantle the British empire, while supplying Germany will all the raw materials it needs to fight the war, no eastern front for Germany, French belligerence in the Balkans doesn't exactly make them popular in the neutral world, while the Soviets set their various communist parties internationally against the Allies more so than even IOTL, while with France and Italy pushing into the Balkans (with more than 3 divisions actually, the French talked about trying to get up to 100 divisions there at some point, so between Italy and France they might well get some 20 or more divisions into Yugoslavia, with or without Yugoslav consent) they move forces away from the decisive front in France, which Britain probably also has to strip forces from to prevent the Middle East from collapsing, which allows Germany to have an even easier time there. Basically multiple fatal diversions of manpower, which collapse the Allied positions on the continent and in the Middle East/Asia, while then the Soviets could send a large aerial expeditionary corps to operate against Britain when TTL's BoB play out and the Soviet Baltic Fleet comes out to threaten the UK. The Soviets did after all have a strategic bomber fleet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8
which if the Germans helped provide engines for them to alleviate the Soviet issues with theirs, the British would have a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian_W

Banned
Germany+the Soviets vs Italy+Britain+France? How does that mean the Allies lose???

Find the person who quoted "If the Allies go full moron like they were planning with Operation Pike and the Balkans invasion, they might be viewed as enablers that helped cause the Allies to lose." and make sure they don't have access to your account.
 
These photos from Slovenia.
Not all that different from the French Petit ouvrages. Interconnecting tunnels , steel and concrete lined with armored firing ports.

And as the Italians fall back, they can sit in the same strongpoints along the Isonzo that their fathers fought from. Much of that stuff is still there, today
trench.jpg

I notice the lack of overpressure breaks such as you find in the Wallies and Germans trench systems that are in France. I also note no grenade dump/sump or firing step you would find in US trenches from their civil war forward, but do notice the mortar bomb overheads provided. this is very indicative or a MAJOR difference in how artillery was viewed, as well as snipers. Are we sure that is not a ravelon?

trench2.gif


5e3dc501338098cba51cb12d59c1b3e8--ww-history-military-history.jpg


Trench+Warfare.jpg


More Information here.

Very complex subject; it is; trenches, terrain field fortification. No front, no nation, heck, not many units did it exactly the same way in many armies.

So comparing Pelelieu to the Italian defenses in the eastern Alps may be deceptive.
 
the only plausible POD to me is an earlier pact with USSR, it certainly was an option at least on the trade front. the German army would have supported this as they had their clandestine cooperation from the 1920's onward?

still think this just moves Italy to the neutral column? only joining the Allies in the final stages of the war?

That Italy joins the fray only when the war is about to end would reflect Mussolini's OTl intentions, so OK with that - the sticky point is guessing that the war is ending.
As to Germany remaining big friends with the Soviet Union... I don't see it. I don't feel I can venture to say that it's a deal breaker for Mussolini.

do not disagree as to how far the Germans-Soviets could go down the road, only that with Soviet designs on the Balkans and Med, if Germany could stomach it, would drive Italy away?
 
Germany+the Soviets vs Italy+Britain+France? How does that mean the Allies lose???

Soviets invade the Middle East and dismantle the British empire, while supplying Germany will all the raw materials it needs to fight the war, no eastern front for Germany, French belligerence in the Balkans doesn't exactly make them popular in the neutral world, while the Soviets set their various communist parties internationally against the Allies more so than even IOTL, while with France and Italy pushing into the Balkans (with more than 3 divisions actually, the French talked about trying to get up to 100 divisions there at some point, so between Italy and France they might well get some 20 or more divisions into Yugoslavia, with or without Yugoslav consent) they move forces away from the decisive front in France, which Britain probably also has to strip forces from to prevent the Middle East from collapsing, which allows Germany to have an even easier time there. Basically multiple fatal diversions of manpower, which collapse the Allied positions on the continent and in the Middle East/Asia, while then the Soviets could send a large aerial expeditionary corps to operate against Britain when TTL's BoB play out and the Soviet Baltic Fleet comes out to threaten the UK. The Soviets did after all have a strategic bomber fleet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8
which if the Germans helped provide engines for them to alleviate the Soviet issues with theirs, the British would have a problem.

1. Russia invades? No. Whenever someone says Russia can do something in the Middle East or southwest Asia I look at the rail and road nets and the air base infrastructures and who is in the way. The Russians, for all they claim that they are masters of "The Great Game" in practice have never learned how to cross 1600 kilometers of deserts and mountains.; The British have. The Russian attempt would end in disaster. HAS ended in disaster... repeatedly.
2. France, with hiccups, (Syria and Algeria) has remarkably maintained good relations with the Arab states. If one asserts differently, I would ask, please provide evidence to the contrary?
3. The Petlyakov Pe 8 was a disaster. Her tail wobbled in flight, the AM-34FRNV went out of serial production for a time (seize up, engineers were buffaloed trying to solve it.). AM-35A and Mikulin AM-35A engines were installed in line production units while e VVS officials evaluated both the Charomskiy ACh-30 and Charomskiy M-40 aircraft Diesel engines as substitutes. The armament layout with gunners firing from the inner engine nacelles was both weird and impractical. (How would you liked to be cooked by an AM-35?). The bomber was the first to carry a "grand slam" type of bomb, the FAB-5000 bomb. As an "earthquake" bomb at 5000 kg it would have been a Murphy send to hammer bridges. Did I mention the Pe-8 was a lousy drop-platform. She side shimmied and threw a side shove into any stick she dropped. So not only over and short (Anglo Americans, Germans and French), but wide left. (It was the Japanese who were wide right.)

Balkans invasions?

Invasion of Yugoslavia

Not that easy.

YMCV. (^^^) Just wanted to show that it is not handwavium. There are real problems for Germano_Russians, some of them insoluble.
 

Deleted member 1487

1. Russia invades? No. Whenever someone says Russia can do something in the Middle East or southwest Asia I look at the rail and road nets and the air base infrastructures and who is in the way. The Russians, for all they claim that they are masters of "The Great Game" in practice have never learned how to cross 1600 kilometers of deserts and mountains.; The British have. The Russian attempt would end in disaster. HAS ended in disaster... repeatedly.

What does the Anglo-Iraq war have to do with Russia's ability to power project into the region? And in that case there were some rebels with anemic support from the Axis that the British crushed with a handful of division. That says nothing about their ability to fight the Soviets and quite a bit about the potential for the Iraqis to screw the Brits if the Soviets invade.

This was the ability of the Russians to power project in WW1:
M_115_carte_de_la_Perse_front_Caucase.JPG



And the WW2 invasion of Iran in 1941:
iran3.jpg



And the OTL Soviet study into invasion plans for the Middle East:
iran2.jpg



2. France, with hiccups, (Syria and Algeria) has remarkably maintained good relations with the Arab states. If one asserts differently, I would ask, please provide evidence to the contrary?
I'd ask you to prove they had good relations first since you made the positive claim.

3. The Petlyakov Pe 8 was a disaster. Her tail wobbled in flight, the AM-34FRNV went out of serial production for a time (seize up, engineers were buffaloed trying to solve it.). AM-35A and Mikulin AM-35A engines were installed in line production units while e VVS officials evaluated both the Charomskiy ACh-30 and Charomskiy M-40 aircraft Diesel engines as substitutes. The armament layout with gunners firing from the inner engine nacelles was both weird and impractical. (How would you liked to be cooked by an AM-35?). The bomber was the first to carry a "grand slam" type of bomb, the FAB-5000 bomb. As an "earthquake" bomb at 5000 kg it would have been a Murphy send to hammer bridges. Did I mention the Pe-8 was a lousy drop-platform. She side shimmied and threw a side shove into any stick she dropped. So not only over and short (Anglo Americans, Germans and French), but wide left. (It was the Japanese who were wide right.)
And yet they were still used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8#Wartime_use


Balkans invasions?

Invasion of Yugoslavia

Not that easy.
YMCV. (^^^) Just wanted to show that it is not handwavium. There are real problems for Germano_Russians, some of them insoluble.
Yeah, because the Axis didn't roll over the Balkans like it was nothing? I don't know what point you're arguing here? The Allies could have done the same in reverse with Italy on side since their naval projection ability and land connections would allow them to use the infrastructure in place just the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top