What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

Deleted member 1487

Yeah, but they aren't likely to take Rome and give GB a foothold in Europe itself that won't be easily pushed out. So it sucks in British troops? Fine, they aren't needed in NA anyways and Italy is more important than NA anyways.
And you base that on? After all the Germans did crush the Metaxas Line in 1941, which had not only checked the Italians, but was manned by Greeks who tossed the Italian back into Albania. And then they crushed the Brits in Greece and Crete in less favorable circumstances. Britain, which commits forces to Italy to have them ground in right after having to bail on France and lose most of their equipment, wouldn't really be in a better way that fighting in NA, which was a much better theater for them relative to the Axis.

Even if Italy doesn’t send net forces to France, can’t they trade French mountaineer forces for mobile Italian units?

Also freeing up some stuff in North Africa and changing the air war.
Would France even want Italian forces in their country until it was too late? Granted though Italy as an Allied power in 1940, even if their contribution is just attacking Austria through the Alps or even just coming into aid the French once the Germans were pushing down the Rhone valley would probably prompt the French to fight on from North Africa rather than surrender, which changes the war immensely.

Also the French had mostly stripped out any sort of combat ready force from North Africa by June 1940, so Italian entry doesn't really help them free up more, though it does mean the Italians can contribute at least their air force to fighting in France and Austria. Though given the quality of Italian air planes and their lack of performance against the British and French in 1940, I doubt they'd do more than soak up bullets.

Once you have passed the border at the Trate Pass (800 meters) and advanced for 75 kms along the narrow Idrijca valley to Kobarid, after a few more kilometers you are in this:

Note this is a part where the valley broadens a little, that's why there's the village of Stupizza. Observe how farther ahead the bottom of the valley barely can contain the road (in a tunnel), the torrent floor, and, not visible now, but existing at the time a (narrow-gauge) railroad. In places, the valley bottom is about 50 meters across, with steep wooded and rocky hillsides either side.

From Caporetto, this is the fastest and best route towards the italian plains.

As mentioned, I do think the Germans would break through - eventually. Calling this place "not mountains" can be done by someone who hasn't visited it - I have.
Good for you. If such terrain didn't stop a WW1 attacking force I doubt it would stop a WW2 one, especially given how much less prepared the Italians were in 1940 than they were in 1917 after gaining a lot of combat experience through years of war and building up their army on the British dime.

Plus the Germans did break through very quickly the Metaxas Line, which was certainly no weaker than the fortifications the Italians had built up versus Yugoslavia. Then there is the small issue of the Italians having to man the entire defensive line from Southern France to the Yugoslav border as well as potentially have troops in Southern France fighting to aid their ally.

If the Italians were friendly enough to join the war on the Allied side, the Ethiopian embargo would have been lifted prior to the start of the war and the Italians could get more steel, coal and oil from the French / UK than the Germans could ever supply. So the equipment side for Italy will not be as bad as OTL - however, their training / organization will most likely be as bad as OTL.
OP's scenario has the break between Germany and Italy happen in May 1939 when the Axis pact was signed IOTL. So until then they are dependent on Germany and embargoed, but then things can start to change from then on out, but that is more than a bit too late to change much, especially then if it means Allied resources have to go into developing Italy instead of aiding their own rearmament. In fact in that case Italy might end up proving more of a fatal drain on Allied resources if they opt to supply Italy, while then freeing up German resources! Considering the resources pumped into Italy by Germany during their 1930s-40s alliance, cutting that cord in May 1939 would mean Germany can build up faster between May 1939-May 1940 and beyond.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And you base that on?

Based on the fact the logistical situation will be much, much better than OTL. The RN and RAF don't have to worry about planes and subs coming out of Italy. Italy is much closer to GB than Greece. If Italy decides to join the Allies its defenses along the German border are going to be built up more than OTL. The Brits are likely to send at least some fighters to Italy fairly early.
 
Good for you. If such terrain didn't stop a WW1 attacking force...

So you are dropping the "not mountain" claim now, without ever acknowledging that you did not know what you were talking about, and concluding, "well, that was not all that important after all". One wonders why you made the claim in the first place, heh.
 

Deleted member 1487

Based on the fact the logistical situation will be much, much better than OTL. The RN and RAF don't have to worry about planes and subs coming out of Italy. Italy is much closer to GB than Greece. If Italy decides to join the Allies its defenses along the German border are going to be built up more than OTL. The Brits are likely to send at least some fighters to Italy fairly early.
If we are assuming that France has been beaten in 1940, whether fighting on from Italy or North Africa or not, and that means Germany has resources enough to invade Italy, in 1940 Britain has only a handful of divisions capable of use abroad assuming they feel that Germany is not going to try and invade them that year. This isn't 1941 when they had materially recovered from Summer 1940 and have access to ANZAC divisions to deploy outside the Middle East.

You do have a point about not having to worry about Italian naval/air threats, so not needing to travel around Africa, but forces from Britain in 1940 aren't really available yet and the ANZACs and Indians when they are available will be traveling just as far if not even a bit further to Italy than Greece/Crete ITTL.

Since the German border isn't feasible to attack from it is doubtful the Germans would risk attacking from there and would probably only attack Italy if they could get through Slovenia. If the Italians declare war in September 1939, there isn't a lot of time to build up forts in the Yugoslav border region, as they were already focusing on the German border. They might well end up building a bunch of useless forts along the Austria border.
 

Deleted member 1487

So you are dropping the "not mountain" claim now, without ever acknowledging that you did not know what you were talking about, and concluding, "well, that was not all that important after all". One wonders why you made the claim in the first place, heh.
Relative to the Austrian border the Slovenian border isn't really mountainous, which was my point, hence the breakthrough there in WW1 vs. the offensive efforts out of South Tyrol.
northern-italy-austria-yugoslavia-eastern-alps-hungary-vienna-times-1922-map-T2KK64.jpg



But if you really want go ahead and pat yourself on the back over your minor semantic side point.
 
If we are assuming that France has been beaten in 1940, whether fighting on from Italy or North Africa or not, and that means Germany has resources enough to invade Italy, in 1940.

That is a huge assumption considering Germany now has to worry about Italy. At the very least I would expect there to be at least some RAF units in Italy. Some would probably be heavy bombers as they aren't that useful in France. I would station some there to at least distract Germany if nothing else.
 

Deleted member 1487

That is a huge assumption considering Germany now has to worry about Italy. At the very least I would expect there to be at least some RAF units in Italy. Some would probably be heavy bombers as they aren't that useful in France. I would station some there to at least distract Germany if nothing else.
I wouldn't say huge, but it is certainly an assumption that isn't guaranteed. France isn't likely to have significant Italian forces in their country when it would matter in May 1940 and Italian ability to actually invade Austria is highly limited. Depending on the strategy the Italians might well end up smashing themselves in the mountains against 3rd line troops, who weren't doing much significant against France anyway. The big change would be how June 1940 plays out, as France has a significantly less reason to cut a deal with Germany thanks to Italy being on side. In 1940 I don't see how any RAF aircraft in Italy would be more useful than in France. In that long run yes they would be useful, but given the state of Allied preparations in 1939-40 they needed every aircraft and man in France, with Italy acting as a distraction to try and draw off German troops and of course Italy being on side meaning the Franco-Italian border could be stripped of troops and equipment for use elsewhere...though given the number of French troops in the mountains and their equipment they might well just end up trapped in the Maginot Line.

A really interesting scenario then would be the impact of a French evacuation to Italy, moving men, equipment, industry, and civilians into Italy to build up Italian war potential, assuming the Brits could keep them supplies (not sure why they couldn't, though shipping needs would compete with that Britain needed to build itself up). Then Italy would have enough reserves to check a serious attack by Germany out of Slovenia.
 
If Italy joins the Allies and there is no North Africa Campaign, here are a few knock-ons:
1. More British military might may be directed to upgrading the defense of Singapore. Studies had been done in the mid-thirties, recommendations made and approved, but that got knocked to flinders by 1940 events in Europe.
2. Gen Richard O'Connor doesn't get captured.
3. Does Monty become MONTY! ?
4. What happens to Wavell, Auchinleck, Gott, Stirling ?​

1. I don't think it matters how much you pour into Malaysia. If you read my notations on the history of ABDA, ("Those Marvelous Tin Fish") you will rapidly discover, it was not material, I conclude, that was the British problem in east Asia, it was the people in charge in local control. And don't think the Americans were not just as screwed up. In many cases, they were far worse. The Philippine Islands was a complete shambles.
2. If he is not captured in North Africa, he will be scooped up somewhere else. He led from the front. Good general, but a tad careless.
3. Depends. When does Churchill ruffle duffle and confuse things in the Middle East?
4. If I had my way, Wavell goes to East Africa to replace Michael, Auchinleck handles India instead of Wavell, Gott is sent into administration. Archie gets to do his SAS thing as OTL. Of course that necessitates having Richie where he was when he was, but that man was BLOODY AWFUL at that time and place. I mean a Carlisle gnome would have taken him (Richie) to the woodshed behind the barracks and beaten combined arms concepts into his head with a 5 x 10 x 100 cm piece of oak. Sheesh.

If the Italians were friendly enough to join the war on the Allied side, the Ethiopian embargo would have been lifted prior to the start of the war and the Italians could get more steel, coal and oil from the French / UK than the Germans could ever supply. So the equipment side for Italy will not be as bad as OTL - however, their training / organization will most likely be as bad as OTL.

1939-1940 is a bad time for Italy to be doing anything martial. They are changing their basic tactical doctrine in land warfare, changing their TOE, changing their basic combat divisional formation structures (quad to triangle to dual brigades) beginning their air force re-equipment cycle, (questionable aircraft choices like the Lynx and the Falcon, all radials all the time, etc.), are in the midst of shuffling their naval high command, juggling units in Libya, and trying to replace their worn out artillery wholesale; as well as professionalize their NCO corps in all three major branches. They were completely naddled in the numencos, (short sheeted in the shorts) and Commando Supremo knew it, which is why CS was in a state of collective shock and panic when Bennie the Moose took them all to war.
 

Driftless

Donor
1. I don't think it matters how much you pour into Malaysia. If you read my notations on the history of ABDA, ("Those Marvelous Tin Fish") you will rapidly discover, it was not material, I conclude, that was the British problem in east Asia, it was the people in charge in local control. And don't think the Americans were not just as screwed up. In many cases, they were far worse. The Philippine Islands was a complete shambles.

Entirely possible. The Allied leadership got caught flat-footed time and again (Percival and Mac especially) and too many of the Allied soldiers were green as grass. Part of my thought is that a longer fight by the Commonwealth in Malaya down to Singapore bleeds Japanese casualties and materials to the point where that has impacts in Burma, DEI, etc.
 
2. If he is not captured in North Africa, he will be scooped up somewhere else. He led from the front. Good general, but a tad careless.

To be fair to the man it wasn't his show - he had simple come forward to act as an advisor to Gen Neame (who was experiencing some difficulties with the Germans) in whose staff car he was captured (along with Gen. Neame) while Neame was looking for his HQ. So I do not think that we can assign him the moniker of careless!
 
he had simple come forward to act as an advisor to Gen Neame

YMMV and probably should. Coming forward into the recon zone and getting lost in Reggie Land is what I meant. I would happily retract the statement if he knew where he was when he was scooped up. Neame, too, of course.
 
And you base that on? After all the Germans did crush the Metaxas Line in 1941, which had not only checked the Italians, but was manned by Greeks who tossed the Italian back into Albania. And then they crushed the Brits in Greece and Crete in less favorable circumstances. Britain, which commits forces to Italy to have them ground in right after having to bail on France and lose most of their equipment, wouldn't really be in a better way that fighting in NA, which was a much better theater for them relative to the Axis.
No. As a matter of fact, not only the Metaxas Line was not manned by the Greeks who had tossed the Italians back into Albania, which were now pinned in place by the horrid logistics of Southern Albania, being entirely able to stop Italian advances but unable to retreat (even when requested to, due to the German invasion); but it was manned by the greenest of recruits, because the Greek had thrown everything and the bathtub at the Italians, keeping the Moose's embarrassment going as long as possible.


Would France even want Italian forces in their country until it was too late? Granted though Italy as an Allied power in 1940, even if their contribution is just attacking Austria through the Alps or even just coming into aid the French once the Germans were pushing down the Rhone valley would probably prompt the French to fight on from North Africa rather than surrender, which changes the war immensely.

Also the French had mostly stripped out any sort of combat ready force from North Africa by June 1940, so Italian entry doesn't really help them free up more, though it does mean the Italians can contribute at least their air force to fighting in France and Austria. Though given the quality of Italian air planes and their lack of performance against the British and French in 1940, I doubt they'd do more than soak up bullets.
Italian airplanes weren't horrid, in 1940, but they were getting obsolete fast, being at the very tail end of their usefulness cycle. Still, it would be something - if they were to aid the French directly on the line, which I do doubt is happening.


Good for you. If such terrain didn't stop a WW1 attacking force I doubt it would stop a WW2 one, especially given how much less prepared the Italians were in 1940 than they were in 1917 after gaining a lot of combat experience through years of war and building up their army on the British dime.
The Italian army of 1917 was not prepared: it was still a mess of languages, commanded by incompetent officers whose superior treatment lowered morale, and had at the head of it all a guy who was literally convinced that the beatings should continue until morale improves. You need Diaz at the head of the army to see the reforms that brought to Vittorio Veneto.

Moreover, I'd point out that Alpine logistics are perhaps less fitting to a heavily armed 1940 army than a 1917 one: tanks over the size of tankettes are right out, for one. Heavy artillery is a mess to position and use. You want light artillery, machineguns, and a slow and methodical approach. Planes are the big difference, here, and Germany needs either to concentrate its airforce to slap down France (as OTL, which is the scenario presented) or divide it between the two fronts. It's still not great.

Plus the Germans did break through very quickly the Metaxas Line, which was certainly no weaker than the fortifications the Italians had built up versus Yugoslavia. Then there is the small issue of the Italians having to man the entire defensive line from Southern France to the Yugoslav border as well as potentially have troops in Southern France fighting to aid their ally.
I've already replied about the Metaxas Line. The line wasn't weaker; the garrison certainly was.

OP's scenario has the break between Germany and Italy happen in May 1939 when the Axis pact was signed IOTL. So until then they are dependent on Germany and embargoed, but then things can start to change from then on out, but that is more than a bit too late to change much, especially then if it means Allied resources have to go into developing Italy instead of aiding their own rearmament. In fact in that case Italy might end up proving more of a fatal drain on Allied resources if they opt to supply Italy, while then freeing up German resources! Considering the resources pumped into Italy by Germany during their 1930s-40s alliance, cutting that cord in May 1939 would mean Germany can build up faster between May 1939-May 1940 and beyond.
And OP's scenario doesn't make a lot of sense: it sees neutral Italy, at the very best.
 
If our hypothetical ‘Good-Mussolini’ has taken a more isolationist path in the 1930s there might not have been an Ethiopian campaign and thus relations could have been better with the UK and France. This could mean that Italian border defences are a bit weaker along the French border and stronger nearer Germany/Austria. Perhaps starting in 1938 the Italian government decides the greatest threat is from that direction.

In 1939 the war starts in Poland, but takes a slightly different turn in France and Italy. Italian attacks probe the border and the French feel more comfortable being aggressive with the Italian border secured. Germany wins in Poland but is forced to retake ground against Italy and France during the winter months, weakness in the French army are identified. With most of the mountain troops busy securing the border with Italy there is no invasion of Norway, only Denmark.

The German focus is upon France, but some forces are by necessity diverted to protecting Austria. France is able to form a larger reserve than historically and experience from the winter campaign leads to modest improvements in the command structure and communications speed. At considerable cost the German offensive is halted and the Western front stabilises with an allied counter offensive. In 1941 the balance of industrial power slowly shifts towards the allies and the German economy starts running low on resources (especially after Norway joins the Allies).

Mussolini is seen as a controversial but impressive figure in the history books, up there with great Gamelin and Petain.
 
...
Mussolini is seen as a controversial but impressive figure in the history books, up there with great Gamelin and Petain.

A minor nitpick. Gamelin was past his expiration date, having been extended in his position extra months. Even before the Norwegian fiasco Renaud was fed up with Gamelin & determined to replace him in March 1940. It took extra time to accomplish the political maneuvering as the Norwegian brawl was a distractor, and Renaud was down with a cold for part of April. Had Gamelin been replaced even a couple weeks before the big battle of 1940 he'd be known only to specialists in the 1940 historical narrative. Had the collapse not occurred both Weyland and Petain might have remained figures the Great War & incidental to the battles of 1940.
 
If our hypothetical ‘Good-Mussolini’ has taken a more isolationist path in the 1930s there might not have been an Ethiopian campaign and thus relations could have been better with the UK and France. This could mean that Italian border defences are a bit weaker along the French border and stronger nearer Germany/Austria. Perhaps starting in 1938 the Italian government decides the greatest threat is from that direction.
I mean, I'd point out that Mussolini had been barking about Hitler being dangerous since his rise to power, he tried to block him at any possible turn, and it took the Moose seriously pouting about being embargoed due to the Abyssinian War to start approaching Nazi Germany. "Hating Hitler" was the base condition, and allying them was the realignment.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I remember a German quip that said "With Italy as an ally, we need seven divisions to reinforce them. With Italy as an enemy, we would need seven divisions to conquer them".

I can easily see France falling on schedule, then the 1941 Balkans campaign involving overruning the Slovenian-Italian border and heading west to trap most of the best Italian troops (and British reinforcements) in the Alps followed by an advance on Rome and Italian surrender ... in other words, the Greek 1941 campaign redux.

I'd imagine that, even if they initially stayed neutral, the smaller Balkan powers would fall into line under Germany soon after.

However, this leaves the Allies in undisputed control of North Africa, as well as having some of the remnants of the Italian armed forces and the Italian fleet.

It also leaves Germany short on time to conduct a 1941 invasion of Russia.

The Allies might retain control of Sardinia, which means Corsica is going to fall into Allied hands.

On the plus side for the Germans, there's a bunch of extra trucks available. On the minus side, they'll need to use Germans rather than Italians to garrison Yugoslavia.

On balance, it's better for the Allies, but it doesn't change the war that much.
 
well this has been a very enjoyable read both sides bring up good points. now my personal view is quite similar to the side of germany ha dashed all hopes of success by allowing the italians to side with the allies. i say this because there is without a straight miricle wuld be unable to to smash through the alpes they could probably through a long slog with say the support of yugoslavia could breach the alpes but they would likely be blunted at the Apennine mountains. the sheer manpower drain will certainly effect germany in the long run so you can kiss germans hopes of the invasion of russia good bye. they are alsogoing to need a fair occupying force in the north as the italians are certainly not going to be friendly. this is not the italian people being dragged into a war by their dictator this is them fighting for the percieved survival of their country they will be backing the war all the way and will fight like vicious dogs to do so.

now assuming that they don't break through the alpes as i predict then your going to see much different behaviour from france they are likely not going to surrender like OTL so your going to still see the french army fight like all hell to slow or even stop the germans at that point they will just end up rolling over the french but what is important is that this will consume even more manpower and reasorces. you will see far fewer colonies give into germany. t is likely you see the french army in the south slowly retreat into italy. at which point the germans are no longer just facing italy but the remanants of the french army with any suppplies they can bring. now it would be IMO that they would send the mountaineers first into italy as that is what will be most needed.
all in all i suspect that the italians would be able to stalemate the germans as the core thing is that up until the later half of the eithopean war the italian military built its plans around a war in the aples against germany or austria with some side plans against france. now the clear ineptitude of the italians means that any real offensive out side of mere prodding will be a failure. however, their ability to defend will be very high as nearly all the details work in their favour, they control the watershed, the fortifications and they have the elite troops for it. so stalemate in the alps is a likely case, outside of that i suspect you would just have a more bloody french campaign and maybe more british troops being saved as well as possibly more french which could then be shipped to italy. likely because the germans would be required to put reasources into combating the italians and southern french.

now the war will start to change with the stalemate finally formed i suspect that hitler wll still want to invade russia and if yugosavia decides to take a chunk out of italy and too my knowledge was quite pro german at the start, will have troops to maintain that stalemate if the allies and axis don't do any major offensives. this applies more to the axis then i don't see any mjaor reasource drain for them they also don't have the NA or greek campaign and with possible assistance from surrendered french and yugoslav military then it should permit a similar sized force to invade. now i would say if hitler mabe decided to focus on italy and britain then it could go a variety of ways but for the sake of my brain i will assume the crazy moustache goes for otl invasion of russia i see that going similar to OTL.
now with that in force we can look at what would likely happen in italy, with allied cash and reasources i will believe that the italians for the risk of bombing start build up southern industry to ompansate so good the south i guess. I suspect that the blitz in britain will be much weaker as they would have to apply to reasources to italy. but if they stick some to britain then that means the attacks on italy will be smaller, possible all but gone for when the war with russia starts, likely only going too see enough to limit counter attack by the allies. now italy also has access to the allied tech so i will see that fuure planes, tanks and weaponry will be of far higher quality, and if the damage to the northen industry in minimal and the attempts to build southern are successful then we are going to see a much more compentant italy that will eventually work out the kinks in its army its navy can also greatly reduce the damage the uboats inflict. i predict that once italy thinks it is built up enough it will go on the offensive in yugoslavia if they join as that is where it is likely they will have the greatest success, they could also attack the french alpes and maybe try to liberate them i know the french would surely support that action so you could easily get them involved. i would say america is a wild card as it depends on what the japanese do.
 
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
 
I remember a German quip that said "With Italy as an ally, we need seven divisions to reinforce them. With Italy as an enemy, we would need seven divisions to conquer them".

...

It also leaves Germany short on time to conduct a 1941 invasion of Russia.

Good points there, overall.
However, I don't think seven divisions does it; and I think the operation can be done in 1941 but no time is left for the Soviet Union that year.
A mention was made that the obstacle was crossed by a WWI attack. Yes, that was the right part in an otherwise uninformed position, and the same obstacle would be crossed in this case too, even if it would be much deeper - in the same modality, i.e. as one slow infantry advance after another for those some 90 kms of Slovenian hills and narrow valleys, and then down across similar landscape for another 20 kms until the plains.
Then finally you'd have a panzer-speed advance - down to below Bologna.
Then you're back to snail pace across one Apennines line after another.
If the Germans can make it to Rome - or to some place where eventually the Italian will to fight breaks anyway - it will be the fall of 1941.
 
Top