What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

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.

My understanding is that they knew exactly where they were but while Neame had been running around trying to get a grip of his command, the HQ due to the rapid Africa Korps advance had in the meantime been obliged to bugger off

One of the risks in war.

Rommel had twice nearly been killed during the Battle of France - once when his command tank was hit and again when his staff car was shot up - he also spent considerable time in the front lines at one point fighting off a tank attack by manning a machine gun and directly assisting/bullying the Sapper/Engineers building his bridge across the Meuse including getting wet.

He then raced off with just his divisional vanguard into the then shattered II Fr Corps area taking many 1000s of Prisoners for relatively light losses. The rest of his division indeed the rest of the German army had no fcuking clue where he was

Had their been any sort of resistance the 'Good German' might have simply been a foot note to history

I have a great deal of admiration for Rommel but there is a thin line between his Military genius and O'Conners/Neames Carelessness ;)
 
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.

trying to imagine the Soviet POV under this scenario? UK-France-Italy are lining up together (or to be more accurate Italy seems to be wavering in their support of Germany, shades of WWI), the proposed Pact of Steel has fallen apart, with Japan taking a pass because it was not sufficiently anti-Soviet enough?

seems as though the USSR would be more receptive to cooperation with Germany here? invasion of Poland closely tracking historical events. the Soviets' "winter war" to gain the territory from Romania they gained historically in 1940? (to preempt Italy)

seems Yugoslavia would not need to be invaded by Germany (at least as long as the Nazi regime was cooperating if not allied with USSR) but they might even try to evict Italy from Albania or more?
 

Ian_W

Banned
trying to imagine the Soviet POV under this scenario? UK-France-Italy are lining up together (or to be more accurate Italy seems to be wavering in their support of Germany, shades of WWI), the proposed Pact of Steel has fallen apart, with Japan taking a pass because it was not sufficiently anti-Soviet enough?

seems as though the USSR would be more receptive to cooperation with Germany here? invasion of Poland closely tracking historical events. the Soviets' "winter war" to gain the territory from Romania they gained historically in 1940? (to preempt Italy)

seems Yugoslavia would not need to be invaded by Germany (at least as long as the Nazi regime was cooperating if not allied with USSR) but they might even try to evict Italy from Albania or more?

What happens in the Aegean is irrelevant for the Soviet Union. And if Germany is fighting the Entente is to the advantage of the Soviet Union.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
Nevertheless it was breached despite being defended, was more built up than the Italian defensive lines, and was breached quickly.

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.
In 1940 biplanes were obsolete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42
This was the expeditionary force fighter that the Italians sent to fight in the Battle of Britain.

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.
If the Italian army of 1917 was not prepared, do you think the Italian army of 1940 was?

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.
Agree to disagree, though armor is not going to be the primary attack force to open up the plains beyond; once on the plaines tanks of any size are fine. Truck logistics is just fine, that worked very well for the Italians in 1918 on the attack.
Mobile artillery, aircraft, and communications, not to mention lighter MGs, mortars, infantry guns, etc. are big changes over WW1.

Again though I don't know why you think Germany would attack Italy and France at the same time, no one is arguing for that. Germany would have to deal with France first and then Italy (or vice versa) because splitting the effort isn't going to work and everyone knows that, plus Germany did not try and do anything else IOTL until arguably Barbarossa.

I've already replied about the Metaxas Line. The line wasn't weaker; the garrison certainly was.
Sure, but it was still breached quickly and it was a tougher line than what the Italians had against Yugoslavia and Germany.

And OP's scenario doesn't make a lot of sense: it sees neutral Italy, at the very best.
Yeah probably.

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
Yet Germany held off the Wallies via those rail lines with a large army for years, a much tougher opponent than attacking the Italians of 1940.

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.
There is no way there would even be a plan to invade the USSR until the continent was secured, so until Italy could be dealt with there isn't a thought of dealing with the USSR, especially if France has decided to fight on from Italy/North Africa.

trying to imagine the Soviet POV under this scenario? UK-France-Italy are lining up together (or to be more accurate Italy seems to be wavering in their support of Germany, shades of WWI), the proposed Pact of Steel has fallen apart, with Japan taking a pass because it was not sufficiently anti-Soviet enough?

seems as though the USSR would be more receptive to cooperation with Germany here? invasion of Poland closely tracking historical events. the Soviets' "winter war" to gain the territory from Romania they gained historically in 1940? (to preempt Italy)

seems Yugoslavia would not need to be invaded by Germany (at least as long as the Nazi regime was cooperating if not allied with USSR) but they might even try to evict Italy from Albania or more?
For the Soviets this is their ideal scenario, the Fascists are fighting the Imperialists in an extended campaign and even if mainland France falls Germany is tied down in an extended campaign against the Allies. So they'd be doing what they could to keep things going, probably including letting Germany slide on payment, as they'd be less concerned about Germany defeating France and pushing the British out of western Europe.

I wonder if Hitler might be more willing to work with Stalin if he was going to be faced with an extended campaign in Europe and no chance to actually fight Stalin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

La la la la la don't see this Swordfish la la.

Remember, if you name yourself after an SS Division, you can rely on the Triumph of the Will and not see conflicting evidence.
I didn't name myself after an SS division, in fact I was using this handle before I knew much about WW2 in general, but then it is the hallmark of a poor argument to try and attack the person instead of the point. So if you have anything constructive to add go ahead, but please refrain from personal insults.

The Swordfish was able to operate in an uncontested naval aerial environment, but suffered like the Stuka when faced with modern fighters.
And per it's own wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish
The type was in frontline service throughout the Second World War, but it was already considered obsolete at the outbreak of the conflict in 1939.
.....
In February 1942, the shortcomings of the Swordfish were starkly demonstrated during a German naval fleet movement known as the Channel Dash. Six Swordfish led by Lieutenant Commander Eugene Esmonde sortied from Manston to intercept the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as they traversed the English Channel towards Germany.[20] When the Swordfish formation arrived and commenced an initial attack run coming astern of the ships, the Swordfish were intercepted by roughly 15 Messerschmitt Bf 109 monoplane fighter aircraft; the aerial battle was extremely one-sided, quickly resulting in the loss of all Swordfish while no damage was achieved upon the ships themselves.[20] The lack of fighter cover was a contributing factor for the heavy losses experienced; only 10 of 84 promised fighters were available. Thirteen of the 18 Swordfish crew involved were killed; Esmonde, who had previously led an attack on Bismarck, was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously.[20]

And for the Cr.42 itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42#Operational_history
Following the Fall of France, an Italian air group of CR.42s and BR.20 bombers operated from Belgium during October and November 1940. This task force flew some offensive operations during the later stages of the Battle of Britain, but incurred a high loss rate. Cattaneo speculated that the light losses experienced during the Battle of France had persuaded the Regia Aeronautica that the type was considerably more effective that it was against the modern frontline fighter aircraft that it would be coming up against, and thus had encouraged this brief deployment.[28]

.....
Notwithstanding these successes, it became increasingly evident that the Fiat CR.42 was unable to operate effectively against the more modern monoplanes of which increasingly larger numbers were being fielded. Over time, the type was able to rely only on its considerable manoeuvrability and Regia Aeronautica piloting skills as potential advantages against its opposition. Italian losses were, however, stemmed when the more advanced Macchi C.200 and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Messerschmitt Bf 110 of Luftflotte 4, arrived in the theatre during April 1941. The CR.42s were progressively relegated to performing ground-attack operations instead, leaving interception duties to the more capable monoplanes.[52]
 
Nevertheless it was breached despite being defended, was more built up than the Italian defensive lines, and was breached quickly.
Well, first of all I can see it wasn't even breached, but surrounded: the border with Yugoslavia wasn't well defended (even by the standards of anything that wasn't the frontline in Albania), the Germans drove down to Thessaloniki, isolated most of the line, and forced a surrender. Attempts to break through the line before that failed, despite the extremely meager garrison of sixty thousand or so reservists and green recruits. This is what you're comparing the weakest part of the Italian defenses to: something that stopped dead the German attack while being manned by the scraped bottom of the barrel.

In 1940 biplanes were obsolete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.42
This was the expeditionary force fighter that the Italians sent to fight in the Battle of Britain.
That was the writing on the wall, but it did not stop nations from introducing biplanes up to the end of the Thirties or so. The Gladiator was brought in in 1937, the I-15 saw extensive use in all phases of the Spanish Civil War, and the Swordfish has reached memetic fame, to this point. There was a push to move to monoplanes, though, and Italy was not that far behind on that: the Macchi and Gabrielli series planes were already around by that time, the Reggiane Re.2000 were starting to come out, and so on.

If the Italian army of 1917 was not prepared, do you think the Italian army of 1940 was?
Woefully unprepared, as far as equipment went; in far better shape when talking about doctrinal preparation and morale (for this specific purpose, I should add: if the Moose decides they can and should smack the Poseur and take Austria pronto, God help them).

Agree to disagree, though armor is not going to be the primary attack force to open up the plains beyond; once on the plaines tanks of any size are fine. Truck logistics is just fine, that worked very well for the Italians in 1918 on the attack.
Mobile artillery, aircraft, and communications, not to mention lighter MGs, mortars, infantry guns, etc. are big changes over WW1.
The valleys are killboxes, mostly. Passing through is going to exact extreme costs on the German army, and it's not like one go is going to be enough.

Again though I don't know why you think Germany would attack Italy and France at the same time, no one is arguing for that. Germany would have to deal with France first and then Italy (or vice versa) because splitting the effort isn't going to work and everyone knows that, plus Germany did not try and do anything else IOTL until arguably Barbarossa.
I just don't think Germany can floor France while keeping Italy in check. OTL was an extremely close and chancy thing already.

Sure, but it was still breached quickly and it was a tougher line than what the Italians had against Yugoslavia and Germany.
It wasn't thougher, it wasn't well manned, and it still wasn't breached.

Yeah probably.
It just doesn't make sense for Italy to jump side wholesale at any point after 1938 or so, not when it has already helped Germany win several diplomatic battles. At most, it's going to sulk on the side. If it's solidly on the Allied side, then it's been so since the Stresa Front times, probably by taking Hoare-Laval, being gentler in Ethiopia, or even just containing its representatives to the LoN not to be absolute assholes.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The Swordfish was able to operate in an uncontested naval aerial environment, but suffered like the Stuka when faced with modern fighters.

So. When the guy on a history board who randomly keeps the name of a SS division says "obsolete", he means "as effective as any other torpedo bomber".
 

Deleted member 1487

So. When the guy on a history board who randomly keeps the name of a SS division says "obsolete", he means "as effective as any other torpedo bomber".
Considering that we're talking about how land based fighter planes would do against more modern land based fighter planes, your non sequitur point and personal attacks add nothing to the conversation and really are just trolling derailments because of what I can only assume is a personal grudge.

Well, first of all I can see it wasn't even breached, but surrounded: the border with Yugoslavia wasn't well defended (even by the standards of anything that wasn't the frontline in Albania), the Germans drove down to Thessaloniki, isolated most of the line, and forced a surrender. Attempts to break through the line before that failed, despite the extremely meager garrison of sixty thousand or so reservists and green recruits. This is what you're comparing the weakest part of the Italian defenses to: something that stopped dead the German attack while being manned by the scraped bottom of the barrel.
So mountain troops flanked a fortress line, isolated 60,000 men and forced them to surrender. Sounds like a model of how things would operate along the less fortified Italian-Yugoslav border. Especially considering the Italian defenses were the least built up in that area and weaker than the Metaxas Line. Why bash your head against a heavily defended point that won't fall easily without heavy losses when it was flank-able and able to be forced to surrender from behind?

That was the writing on the wall, but it did not stop nations from introducing biplanes up to the end of the Thirties or so. The Gladiator was brought in in 1937, the I-15 saw extensive use in all phases of the Spanish Civil War, and the Swordfish has reached memetic fame, to this point. There was a push to move to monoplanes, though, and Italy was not that far behind on that: the Macchi and Gabrielli series planes were already around by that time, the Reggiane Re.2000 were starting to come out, and so on.
And all were replaced ASAP by monoplanes, as they fell victim quickly to the faster more modern aircraft as soon as enemy pilots figured out tactics to fight them. In terms of the Soviet biplanes and monoplane version of them the I-16, see how they did during Barbarossa even after the Soviets realized they were at war.
The Italian monowing planes were coming, but were only introduced in 1940; in fact the Re.2000 was IOTL rejected by the Italian air force and only kept in production initially for foreign orders. 80% of total production went to foreign countries in the end. The Macchi C.200 only entered combat in June 1940 and in their debut lost one aircraft in combat with no kills in return.

Woefully unprepared, as far as equipment went; in far better shape when talking about doctrinal preparation and morale (for this specific purpose, I should add: if the Moose decides they can and should smack the Poseur and take Austria pronto, God help them).
Doctrinal preparation? I don't recall the Italian army being in particularly good shape there, especially in terms of training; after the debacles of 1940 they had to extensively retrain, which admittedly worked out very well despite being materially hampered throughout the war. Besides, didn't someone else already point out they were in the midst of a OOB reorganization when Mussolini declared war? And yes attacking Austria in 1939 through the Brenner Pass isn't going to go well for them, same as Germany trying to go the other way.

The valleys are killboxes, mostly. Passing through is going to exact extreme costs on the German army, and it's not like one go is going to be enough.
Based on? WW1 demonstrated otherwise repeatedly. Plus the Germans were able to flank the Metaxas Line via a valley without issue.

I just don't think Germany can floor France while keeping Italy in check. OTL was an extremely close and chancy thing already.
How many men do you think would be required to check Italy at the Brenner Pass? It was selected by Italy as the border because of how defensible it was, which applies from the other side as well. It probably could be held by 3rd line reservists as well. Again, on either side, so it's not like the Germans could successfully storm it either, hence all the talk about the Yugoslav side of things. And to be fair to the Italians in 1940 going through the French side isn't really a good option either.

It wasn't thougher, it wasn't well manned, and it still wasn't breached.
From what I've been able to find about the Italian border defenses, the Metaxas Line was stronger than what the Italians had built up against Yugoslavia or even Germany as of 1940, as the Italians had plowed nearly everything into the defenses against France until 1938. Well manned in relative, but given the mileage and number of men it was pretty well defended given that the entire point of the position was that it was easily held by troops not fit for a field army until the field army could show up if needed.
And to whether it was breached, you're right, frontally it wasn't, but it was flanked, so it fell anyway. Since the Italian defenses in the area we were talking where the invasion would come were even less well developed there was plenty of options to flank defenses. BTW since you brought up valleys as death traps it doesn't seem like it was for the German mountain corps that flank and defeated the Metaxas Line...

Also the Germans did breach the Aliakmon Line defended by the British:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vevi_(1941)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kleisoura_Pass

It just doesn't make sense for Italy to jump side wholesale at any point after 1938 or so, not when it has already helped Germany win several diplomatic battles. At most, it's going to sulk on the side. If it's solidly on the Allied side, then it's been so since the Stresa Front times, probably by taking Hoare-Laval, being gentler in Ethiopia, or even just containing its representatives to the LoN not to be absolute assholes.
Agreed. So much would have to change pre-1939 that if anything WW2 might well end up not being able to happen, at least as we know it, in this scenario. Plus if the Brits and French allow for Austria to be taken over per OTL then Italy might well end up defecting from the Allies anyway out of frustration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian_W

Banned
Considering that we're talking about how land based fighter planes would do against more modern land based fighter planes, your non sequitur point and personal attacks add nothing to the conversation and really are just trolling derailments because of what I can only assume is a personal grudge.
.

*sigh* Speaking of land based fighter planes, Gloster Gladiators were a thing, and they were okay in 1940-41. Not good, just okay - obsolescent rather than obsolete.

And it's cute how - in this context - you now rapidly claim it's about land based fighter planes. It's almost like you're arguing in bad faith.
 
The first one i have no idea, the second one really depends on the situation at the time, like we have to remember decolonization, which OTL were the reasons why numerous totalitarian, specifically the fascist portuguese government in the 70s, were toppled. It also depends if the monarchy is still around, i feel like if Mussolini and the Fascist Party gain a lot of respect and honor after the war, they could probably abolish the Monarchy in secret.
cianco as a horthy style figure perhaps?
 

Deleted member 1487

*sigh* Speaking of land based fighter planes, Gloster Gladiators were a thing, and they were okay in 1940-41. Not good, just okay - obsolescent rather than obsolete.
The Gladiator was rated as a better aircraft than the CR.42. And what does that have to do with the topic at hand: the utility of the mainline Italian aircraft for a war on the continent and in defense of their homeland?

And it's cute how - in this context - you now rapidly claim it's about land based fighter planes. It's almost like you're arguing in bad faith.
We were talking about the utility of the Italian air force in land based combat and you started in on carrier based torpedo bombers. And you have the nerve to accuse anyone else of arguing in bad faith?
 
Yet Germany held off the Wallies via those rail lines with a large army for years, a much tougher opponent than attacking the Italians of 1940.
But by 1943, they had complete control of those lines, and had them intact. This ATL, they won't have Brenner Pass, where most of the transportation was done, just the line going into Yugoslavia, that hadn't been upgraded any since the Austrians ran the place. There just isn't the interchange needed in the Julian Alps at this time to ship the freight needed.
 

Deleted member 1487

But by 1943, they had complete control of those lines, and had them intact. This ATL, they won't have Brenner Pass, where most of the transportation was done, just the line going into Yugoslavia, that hadn't been upgraded any since the Austrians ran the place. There just isn't the interchange needed in the Julian Alps at this time to ship the freight needed.
True, for the initial invasion. But they have the roads and truck supply, which they didn't have in WW1. It served them just fine in the really bad logistics situation around Eastern Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. Plus they can base their aircraft out of Austria and depending on the scenario southern France and still cover the whole of Northern Italy. Actually come to think of it how did the Axis sustain Yugoslavian campaign all the way down into Greece if the rail situation was that bad?

You're right in that the logistics situation will be tough until they can flank the Brenner and open that area up, while rail damage will cause problems too, but given that they were able to operate three army groups in the USSR in 1941 after dealing with the Balkan situation and the Finnish situation, plus North Africa all at once, so long as France has been dealt with the situation should be surmountable. Of course if the French are able to support the Italians, either through evacuating forces into Italy after France is defeated or due to Germany going after them first before France, then that changes the situation, because then the Allies will have the reserves and equipment to make invasion via Slovenia too difficult and costly.
 
I dont often attack Italy with German armies. But when i do I alway use maximum air forces and airborne corps. The Italians fold like a bad poker hand.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yup. It also helps to make the left hook, but massive air assault for several weeks is helpful whatever the ground game.
Is that just a function of the game model or do you think the would work similarly in a real campaign?
 
trying to imagine the Soviet POV under this scenario? UK-France-Italy are lining up together (or to be more accurate Italy seems to be wavering in their support of Germany, shades of WWI), the proposed Pact of Steel has fallen apart, with Japan taking a pass because it was not sufficiently anti-Soviet enough?

seems as though the USSR would be more receptive to cooperation with Germany here? invasion of Poland closely tracking historical events. the Soviets' "winter war" to gain the territory from Romania they gained historically in 1940? (to preempt Italy)

seems Yugoslavia would not need to be invaded by Germany (at least as long as the Nazi regime was cooperating if not allied with USSR) but they might even try to evict Italy from Albania or more?


For the Soviets this is their ideal scenario, the Fascists are fighting the Imperialists in an extended campaign and even if mainland France falls Germany is tied down in an extended campaign against the Allies. So they'd be doing what they could to keep things going, probably including letting Germany slide on payment, as they'd be less concerned about Germany defeating France and pushing the British out of western Europe.

I wonder if Hitler might be more willing to work with Stalin if he was going to be faced with an extended campaign in Europe and no chance to actually fight Stalin.

yes, agree with your speculation. Germany would basically have no allies, and Hitler does not have a string of military successes, the Nazi regime might need cooperation with USSR to reassure the German army?

my understanding the major obstacle to Axis USSR (other than mutual hatred LOL) was German resistance to Soviet influence in Bulgaria? if they consented to that it might involve the Soviets in a shooting war with Italy and/or the other Allied Powers?
 

Deleted member 1487

yes, agree with your speculation. Germany would basically have no allies, and Hitler does not have a string of military successes, the Nazi regime might need cooperation with USSR to reassure the German army?

my understanding the major obstacle to Axis USSR (other than mutual hatred LOL) was German resistance to Soviet influence in Bulgaria? if they consented to that it might involve the Soviets in a shooting war with Italy and/or the other Allied Powers?
IOTL the bigger issue was that Hitler didn't trust Stalin over taking more territory than agreed on and resisting the deal to get them involved in the Middle East instead of the Balkans. Bulgaria was another issue on top of the general Balkan issue, as the Soviets and Nazis both considered it their backyard, the Soviets because of traditional Russian desires for the warm water port access to the Mediterranean, the Nazis for their economic exploitation not dependent on another great power, which is what Stalin was offering.

So Hitler would have to make a counter offer, but that probably was an unbridgeable gulf between their foreign policy interests in terms of a full scale military alliance. Though antagonism would probably not be quite as bad without the Axis pact of OTL being in effect.
 
Top