What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

There is more than just this post, but this is a particularly relevant part:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallo_alpino_orientale
Unlike the works of the Western Alpine Wall and the Alpine Wall in South Tyrol , here the works are more modest in size and mostly armed with only machine guns.
ossattivo.jpg
tec_1043otto.jpg


Note Iwo Jima and Peleliu were mostly the same. Well prepared, interlocked camouflaged positions with MGs and 47mm guns that needed napalm, flamethrowers and democharges to deal with.
 

Deleted member 1487

ossattivo.jpg
tec_1043otto.jpg


Note Iwo Jima and Peleliu were mostly the same. Well prepared, interlocked camouflaged positions with MGs and 47mm guns that needed napalm, flamethrowers and democharges to deal with.
Based on the info I've found about the defenses on the border with Yugoslavia and how the effort to build up alpine defenses from 1938 on were focused on the Austrian border, plus of course the lack of more than MG nests, means that comparing the Italian line to Iwo or Peleliu or Tarawa is not even remotely possible.
 
Based on the info I've found about the defenses on the border with Yugoslavia and how the effort to build up alpine defenses from 1938 on were focused on the Austrian border, plus of course the lack of more than MG nests, means that comparing the Italian line to Iwo or Peleliu or Tarawa is not even remotely possible.
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
 
What makes you think they would be any less effective than the French, Soviet or Yugoslavian?

Communist resistance fighters were either the principal or at the very least a major part of resistance in those countries but it's hard to see them and other anti-fascist groups cooperating with Mussolini and vice versa.
 

Deleted member 1487

What makes you think they would be any less effective than the French, Soviet or Yugoslavian?
So not very effective relative to numbers?

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
The Germans punched through the petit ouvrages in France in their rough terrain.
And remember those were built up IOTL through 1942. In 1940 the vast majority of defenses were built along the French border, with the German side of things only starting to get built up starting in 1938. The Slovenian border was the lowest priority until 1941-42 IIRC.

Would you want to fight out of WW1 forts that have been neglected for 20 years? Besides those didn't even stop WW1 armies when they were state of the art.
 
What makes you think they would be any less effective than the French, Soviet or Yugoslavian?

Communist resistance fighters were either the principal or at the very least a major part of resistance in those countries but it's hard to see them and other anti-fascist groups cooperating with Mussolini and vice versa.

as long as Germany maintains their cooperation with the USSR, the left wing will be (at least somewhat) restrained in Italy and France?

and if and until Germany decides to invade the USSR they are not burning fuel at "Barbarossa levels" and could draw more grain than oil from their credit agreements with Stalin? (not saying they are overly concerned with hunger in their occupied territories, but it would be available to pacify or withhold?)
 

Deleted member 1487

as long as Germany maintains their cooperation with the USSR, the left wing will be (at least somewhat) restrained in Italy and France?
Historically that was in part the case in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...efore_Operation_Barbarossa_(1939_–_June_1941)

and if and until Germany decides to invade the USSR they are not burning fuel at "Barbarossa levels" and could draw more grain than oil from their credit agreements with Stalin? (not saying they are overly concerned with hunger in their occupied territories, but it would be available to pacify or withhold?)
There was always more options than over OTL if the Germans had been willing to keep up their side of the bargain.
 

Marc

Donor
Just a quick comment. Italian communist resistance fighters - arguably the best guerilla force in WW2 on the Western Front - were quite patriotic.
Ironically, in a supposing where the Nazi's occupied only the northern third of Italy, they might be even more effective, given a higher level of resupply and replenishment.


It is odd that hardly any of the German victory folk take into account that occupied coastal Italy would be completely vulnerable. Unless you assume that the Nazi's are able to maintain that strong a CAP over some thousand miles of coastline.
Hmmm, I'm hardly expert, but it would be interesting to see how the Regia Aeronautica stands up to the Luftwaffe.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Just a quick comment. Italian communist resistance fighters - arguably the best guerilla force in WW2 on the Western Front - were quite patriotic.
Ironically, in a supposing where the Nazi's occupied only the northern third of Italy, they might be even more effective, given a higher level of resupply and replenishment.


It is is odd that hardly any of the German victory folk take into account that occupied coastal Italy would be completely vulnerable.
They had enormous amounts of outside support and a OSS and SOE guerrilla army supporting them. Even the French resistance didn't get that level of help.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...cations/csi-studies/studies/spring98/OSS.html

http://ossinitaly.weebly.com/behind-enemy-lines.html

Occupied coastal Italy IOTL was not nearly as vulnerable as you think and that was in 1943-45 when the full weight of the US was behind the Allies.
 
The Germans punched through the petit ouvrages in France in their rough terrain.
It takes time, and men, like any other fortification.

A US example
On 25 November the 6th Armored Division and its attached battalions from the 134th Infantry were in position to begin what was expected to be the last phase in the attempt to reach and cross the Maderbach. The weather had become progressively worse and the armor was roadbound in consequence. Indeed, even the roads presented a problem. Near the frontier they were more poorly constructed, cratered by demolitions, and interdicted at frequent intervals by antitank ditches. In addition the advance was entering the old fortified zone of the Maginot Line, which though no longer a first-class military barrier provided gun emplacements, pillboxes, and antitank obstacles to slow down the attack. Under these conditions the armor could do little toward carrying the assault. In slow and painful progress the infantry, both armored and attached, had to fight to clear every foot of road, as well as to establish "bridgeheads" wherever an antitank ditch intervened. As a result the number of sick and combat fatigue cases mounted rapidly, even though officers did all that they could to provide dry socks and warm clothing for their men. Rifle strengths dwindled; as one example, Combat Team Britton (the 9th Armored Infantry Battalion reinforced) lost only four killed and two wounded on 25 November, but found it necessary to evacuate twenty-six sick and ninety-three combat fatigue cases.
That time allows the Italians to make more defensive lines, a replay of WWI with the Austrians or OTL that Mark Clark found working his way up the Boot.

And then crossing the Isonzo. The Italians know that ground very well.
 

Marc

Donor
They had enormous amounts of outside support and a OSS and SOE guerrilla army supporting them. Even the French resistance didn't get that level of help.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...cations/csi-studies/studies/spring98/OSS.html

http://ossinitaly.weebly.com/behind-enemy-lines.html

Occupied coastal Italy IOTL was not nearly as vulnerable as you think and that was in 1943-45 when the full weight of the US was behind the Allies.

I beg to disagree. I've been up and down both coasts, on land (by car) and at sea (sailboat), I know enough of the geography to be confident that a Nazi garrison force is going to have substantial problems controlling it.
Also, keep in mind that in this scenario, the Italian navy and air force are working with the British and French in the Med and Adriatic.
 

Deleted member 1487

It takes time, and men, like any other fortification.

A US example
On 25 November the 6th Armored Division and its attached battalions from the 134th Infantry were in position to begin what was expected to be the last phase in the attempt to reach and cross the Maderbach. The weather had become progressively worse and the armor was roadbound in consequence. Indeed, even the roads presented a problem. Near the frontier they were more poorly constructed, cratered by demolitions, and interdicted at frequent intervals by antitank ditches. In addition the advance was entering the old fortified zone of the Maginot Line, which though no longer a first-class military barrier provided gun emplacements, pillboxes, and antitank obstacles to slow down the attack. Under these conditions the armor could do little toward carrying the assault. In slow and painful progress the infantry, both armored and attached, had to fight to clear every foot of road, as well as to establish "bridgeheads" wherever an antitank ditch intervened. As a result the number of sick and combat fatigue cases mounted rapidly, even though officers did all that they could to provide dry socks and warm clothing for their men. Rifle strengths dwindled; as one example, Combat Team Britton (the 9th Armored Infantry Battalion reinforced) lost only four killed and two wounded on 25 November, but found it necessary to evacuate twenty-six sick and ninety-three combat fatigue cases.

Yeah the Italian forces of 1940 aren't the German forces of 1944, see below.

That time allows the Italians to make more defensive lines, a replay of WWI with the Austrians or OTL that Mark Clark found working his way up the Boot.

And then crossing the Isonzo. The Italians know that ground very well.
Yeah about that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bardia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tobruk#Capture_of_Tobruk
 

Deleted member 1487

I beg to disagree. I've been up and down both coasts, on land (by car) and at sea (sailboat), I know enough of the geography to be confident that a Nazi garrison force is going to have substantial problems controlling it.
Also, keep in mind that in this scenario, the Italian navy and air force are working with the British and French in the Med and Adriatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anzio
The combined Anglo-American-Italian forces in 1944 were vastly stronger than the Allied forces even including Italy in 1940-41. Yet the coasts didn't turn the Axis control over the peninsula.
 
as long as Germany maintains their cooperation with the USSR, the left wing will be (at least somewhat) restrained in Italy and France?

Yeah, it's hard to see the PCF and PCd'I taking a leading role in resistance activities without the Soviets being in the war, which might not happen in this scenario.

and if and until Germany decides to invade the USSR they are not burning fuel at "Barbarossa levels" and could draw more grain than oil from their credit agreements with Stalin? (not saying they are overly concerned with hunger in their occupied territories, but it would be available to pacify or withhold?)

That's true, Germany got a lot of food from Italy (as well as "guest workers" who were treated little better than forced labourers) but never anything compared to what they got from the Soviets.
 

Marc

Donor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anzio
The combined Anglo-American-Italian forces in 1944 were vastly stronger than the Allied forces even including Italy in 1940-41. Yet the coasts didn't turn the Axis control over the peninsula.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am talking about. I am not presenting the prospect of large amphibious invasions, but rather a steady hammering along the coasts that will degrade the Nazi military infrastructure in whatever parts of Italy they manage to occupy.
My prejudice, but wars are determined as much by logistics as by battles. My perspective is the Nazi's would be in for an expensive experience in that regard.

More broadly, I can't imagine the Nazi's war plans being anything similar to what they ended up employing with Italy as a hostile. This (implausible) supposing really is a major forking.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think you're misunderstanding what I am talking about. I am not presenting the prospect of large amphibious invasions, but rather a steady hammering along the coasts that will degrade the Nazi military infrastructure in whatever parts of Italy they manage to occupy.
My prejudice, but wars are determined as much by logistics as by battles. My perspective is the Nazi's would be in for an expensive experience in that regard.

More broadly, I can't imagine the Nazi's war plans being anything similar to what they ended up employing with Italy as a hostile. This (implausible) supposing really is a major forking.
And why didn't it happen IOTL when the Allied naval forces were vastly stronger than in 1940? You're overestimating the potential of the Allies in 1940-41, especially in comparison to OTL with the US navy in the Mediterranean in 1943 and on. If what you say were possible it would have been done 10x over by the Allies IOTL. There is no one that understood logistics more than the US or the impact of firepower. I mean see Operation Strangle and that didn't really do more than limit Axis casualty infliction potential:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Strangle_(World_War_II)
And that relied on overwhelming air dominance, something that won't exist ITTL 1940-41.
 
So, what eats up more German resources, OTL's Africa campaign or occupying Northern Italy and holding in a stalemate somewhere down the peninsula?

No contest - Italy would require more

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.

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?
 
Top