WI: Delayed Italian entry into WW2

[euromellows]

I attempted to explore a hypothetical situation a few weeks earlier where it was questioned how Italy would fare in the war with Mussolini having died shortly after Italy's entry. Now I would like to try something different:

Lets assume that on the brink of the collapse of Paris Mussolini decides against entering the war. Although historically he intended to only have a few hundred dead for a seat at the peace conference, perhaps in this timeline the unprepared state of the Italian Army is impressed upon him a little more and he reluctantly opts to sit it out.

At first he will breathe a sigh of relief because Britain, contrary to all expectations, does not surrender post the Fall of France. However Mussolini is a very opportunistic kind of guy, and while he might initially be happy with making a lot of money from being neutral, it seems likely that at some point he would want to join the war. It's also possible that he may always feel that Italy's entry in 1940 might have been enough to tip the scales to force Britain's surrender (obviously false but it's something he might believe).

So what if later on Mussolini, after watching the stunning progress being made in Russia, is determined to enter the war when it seems like German success is certain? This might be in the third phase of Barbarossa around October 1941 when Russia is at their weakest. Does the extra year and a half of preparation allow Italy to perform more competently? Will they have benefited from observing modern warfare in action and use the time to drastically implement doctrinal change?

 

[aktarian]

What happens to Greece? Do Italians still attack it? If he is keen on neutrality he might be persuaded not to as to not p/o Brits. If he thinks UK is on the ropes he might try it.

If he does and campaigh unfolds as it did OTL then Germans are less likely to come to their aid with Italy being seen as unreliable ally. But it depends on what Brits do, if they send troops to Greece as per OTL Hitler might still strike there to dislodge British from Europe.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Initially this helps Germany more than Britain. A nuetral Italy is another conduit for resources which extends the difficulty and time for Britain to make its blockade effective. There are also arguments for the German situation being better without a Africa campaign.

 

[ivanotter]

That is a good question with lots of possibilities.

If Italy is neutral, will it have the same status as Sweden and Switzerland? a safe haven for German war production?

If Italy is still a member of the "Steel pact" it will be complicated, though.

I believe that Italy depended on German coal and oil. Would that be exported?

If Italy is waiting until end 1941, they might not be interested in joining Hitler at all. That will put a spanner in the works for Allied invasion of France.

Ciano was not keen on joining Hitler and said so to his father n law, Mussolini.

Greece will be an interesting one.

Ivan

 

[lukedalton]

If Benny has a moment of clarity and decide to not enter the war immediately, i doubt that will come back on his decision later if the British continue to resist but nevertheless knowing him an OTL advance in Russia can really made him declare war to the URSS and in consequence later to the UK.
After said that, well now Italy as more than an year to continue to prepare the armed forces, sure will not real change the final outcome as the problem were too widespread at least East Africa will have more resources, the merchant marine will not be destroyed the money to upgrade Taranto base will we there and in general the equipment will be more on par or at least will suck less.
The big change is for Japan as without the African and Mediterrean theatre now the British have more resources to spare and their astonishing advance will be a lot less spectacular, the problem will be in the future as with a bigger British involvement some kind of command problems can arise with that 'diplomatic genius' of McArthur...plus no Taranto as example.
Greece will probably be left alone as was a very emotional response to Hitler not warning Mussolini of his move on Romania, Yugoslavia is a more probable target but in both case Italy performance will be much better than OTL as this time she can concentrate all her assets on a single target instead of wasting it on various front.

 

[aktarian]

Greece will probably be left alone as was a very emotional response to Hitler not warning Mussolini of his move on Romania, Yugoslavia is a more probable target but in both case Italy performance will be much better than OTL as this time she can concentrate all her assets on a single target instead of wasting it on various front.

Well, Hitler strongarmed Yugoslavia to join Axis so Italy will not attack it. Even if Pact of Steel is defunct (otherwise Italy would be attacking their own ally) Italy will not attack German ally.

Now, you might say "but there was a coup in Yugoslavia and they showed Germany the finger." True, true, but that was more result of British presence in Greece. Without Italian attack Brits are not there so coup might be butterflied away.

 

[jmc247]

What happens to Greece? Do Italians still attack it? If he is keen on neutrality he might be persuaded not to as to not p/o Brits. If he thinks UK is on the ropes he might try it.

Without Germany as a full ally to back him up if things don't go well he will be reluctant to try Greece until at least 1942 or 1943. Another thing I doubt Yugoslavia flips in such a timeline without the Greek war going on which allowed British agents to get into Yugoslavia and with a less belligerent Italy in this timeline which was the main factor that led to the flip. A neutral Italy and an axis Yugoslavia would create for an interesting scenario.

The campaign in Russia might start a week or two earlier, but probably not that much earlier. The forces Germany OTL devoted to Africa and defending the Balkans after the campaign there were far from meager. The Africa Korps was far from a full Army Group at the time, but it had a full Army Groups worth of trucks to supply it. The DAK also had 1/6th the German Air Force at the time devoted to it.

You combine the German forces in the Balkans with the German forces sent to Africa, use the Yugoslav forces to free up German troops elsewhere and you could just about fill out an entire extra Army Group for the East.

I know the limitations of the road system in Russia, but I also know that such an increase in everything from planes to trucks would speed up the tempo of operations in the Soviet Union (and the fall of Soviet cities) for the Germans in 1941 and they won't be so exhausted come the Fall.

In such a scenario I believe the fall of Leningrad is very likely in 1941 and the fall of Moscow a possibility as well. Even if both fell that certainly doesn't guarantee victory for Germany in the East or the war in general. But, it will certainly lengthen the war and give Germany a far better hand to play in subsequent years and very much change the course of the war.

Maybe Il Duce was still an MI 5 spy in 1940?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy

There will be other effects as well. Beyond the effect of having Rommel in the East a man who managed to get his divisions to move faster then almost any other general in the German Army and earned his reputation in part for getting the 7th Panzer to move so fast it was out of radio range so no one knew where the hell it was hence the Ghost Division title OTL the Commissar Order was repealed one year after it was issued by Hitler because of bitching from some of his generals that it was hurting the war effort. One can expect Rommel to lead the bitching effort earlier and far louder and at least in 1941 Rommel was one of the few generals Hitler actually would listen to and was willing to take advice from at times so I think its likely that order gets rescinded earlier then OTL, perhaps a few weeks or a couple months after its issued.

The far bigger fight between Hitler and Rommel would come in December of 1941 when the Panzer rush in Russia has ended and Rommel has a chance to notice there are SS death squads going around behind his lines mass shooting innocent people. I could imagine a few ways that would go... most of them that would end badly for Rommel.

 

[Artaxerxes]

What might be interesting is if Italy tries to buy neutrality from both Germany and Britain at the price of Greece or even Turkey.

 

[MattII]

Initially this helps Germany more than Britain. A nuetral Italy is another conduit for resources which extends the difficulty and time for Britain to make its blockade effective. There are also arguments for the German situation being better without a Africa campaign.

Helps Germany, but seriously hurts Japan, suddenly their chances of taking Malaysia and Singapore got a lot smaller, and if the British can hold Singapore, the Japanese probably have a much tougher time with the DEI, thus the Pacific War could be a lot shorter, especially if the Japanese don't get 'victory disease'.

 

[Onkel Willie]

I attempted to explore a hypothetical situation a few weeks earlier where it was questioned how Italy would fare in the war with Mussolini having died shortly after Italy's entry. Now I would like to try something different:

Lets assume that on the brink of the collapse of Paris Mussolini decides against entering the war. Although historically he intended to only have a few hundred dead for a seat at the peace conference, perhaps in this timeline the unprepared state of the Italian Army is impressed upon him a little more and he reluctantly opts to sit it out.

At first he will breathe a sigh of relief because Britain, contrary to all expectations, does not surrender post the Fall of France. However Mussolini is a very opportunistic kind of guy, and while he might initially be happy with making a lot of money from being neutral, it seems likely that at some point he would want to join the war. It's also possible that he may always feel that Italy's entry in 1940 might have been enough to tip the scales to force Britain's surrender (obviously false but it's something he might believe).

So what if later on Mussolini, after watching the stunning progress being made in Russia, is determined to enter the war when it seems like German success is certain? This might be in the third phase of Barbarossa around October 1941 when Russia is at their weakest. Does the extra year and a half of preparation allow Italy to perform more competently? Will they have benefited from observing modern warfare in action and use the time to drastically implement doctrinal change?

If Mussolini has a moment of clarity and decides against joining the war, I don't see him changing his mind about it later on. He might try to buy neutrality from the British though and I could see Churchill going along with that. Remember, no one knows Italy is in reality a paper tiger and, moreover, the Italian navy was seen as a serious challenge by the Royal Navy. In the meantime, Germany can do better on the Eastern front with the Africa Corps' forces and the forces otherwise needed to occupy the Balkans being available.

 

[Dustin]

Wouldn't this be good for the nazis? The were th only reason that Germany got involved in Greece, and north Africa, so the Germans would be able to send all of those men to the eastern front and possibly overwhelm the soviets. And if the soviets get knocked out of the war the war with Britain could possibly end in a stalemate before the Americans enter the war.

 

[aktarian]

Another change is that Manstein can't use Italians to keep Hungarians and Romanians separated.

But seriously, no Italian forces in SU would have impact on 1942 offensive, assuming it unfolds as per OTL (likely). Italians were used to guard flanks so if they are not there Germany can either demand more troops from Romania and/or Hungary or keep Germans there. With overall less troops 6th Army might stall in Stalingrad completly since part of forces that OTL were in the city are now stationed on the flanks. However it's possible Germans will have different positions, so Romanians are where OTL Italians were and germans are where OTL Romanians were and where Uranus will kick off.

 

[Julian]

Germany's defeat in Russia in 1941 was due to a combination of factors which extra trucks and an extra corps will not alleviate.

 

[aktarian]

Germany's defeat in Russia in 1941 was due to a combination of factors which extra trucks and an extra corps will not alleviate.

It might even make it worse since extra troops will put greater strain on already shaky logistics, strain extra trucks might not make up for.

 

[Julian]

It might even make it worse since extra troops will put greater strain on already shaky logistics, strain extra trucks might not make up for.

Extra trucks will actually be even worse. More trucks means more breakdowns means more replacement parts used up, parts which Germaby already had a shortage of. It'll just wear itself out even faster.

 

[MattII]

But seriously, no Italian forces in SU would have impact on 1942 offensive, assuming it unfolds as per OTL (likely). Italians were used to guard flanks so if they are not there Germany can either demand more troops from Romania and/or Hungary or keep Germans there.

Or use the Germans who OTL were in the desert of NA.

Extra trucks will actually be even worse. More trucks means more breakdowns means more replacement parts used up, parts which Germaby already had a shortage of. It'll just wear itself out even faster.

Except that those were the trucks Germany OTL used in Africa, which they were supporting anyway. Also, with only one front to focus on they don't have to worry about keeping the stuff supported in both freezing mud and dusty deserts, so the things should actually be slightly more reliable rather than somewhat less.

 

[AdA]

Extra trucks will actually be even worse. More trucks means more breakdowns means more replacement parts used up, parts which Germaby already had a shortage of. It'll just wear itself out even faster.

Finally, someone agrees with Budenny
You either really enjoy walking long distances with very heavy backpacks, our you're considering the wrong trucks...
The breakage ratio to make more trucks cause less tranport capability would require trucks to have the reliability of racing cars and the load capability of motorcycles.
Three facts: Russia is big, walking is tiring and horses are fragile creatures...

 

[MattII]

So did the trucks break down any faster in Russia than in the desert? Not that it really matters, if you're not sending spare parts to Africa you can send them to Russia instead, so your logistical position is going to be better. Unless you don't keep the extra troops back but instead send them to the front, putting even more strain on an already strained logistics system.

 

[AdA]

So did the trucks break down any faster in Russia than in the desert?

The Germans had a fantastic truck 6x6 design in the 30s, the Universal diesel, that had great off roading capability and was very reliable. it was also expensive. The german and italian military trucks (Opel Blitz, Mercedes, FIAT-SPA etc) were reliable. The use of large quantities of civilian trucks of all makes and sizes, most of them not built for military use, was what caused the general logitical mess. Given enough trucks, more rational use could have been made and better maintenance procedures implemented. When you're always one truck short and one day late you have to overload the wrong trucks...

 

[ivanotter]

Obviously great to see a different take.

... But I don't get it: Are we claiming that more trucks is a disadvantage?

I am not sure the SA troops in East Africa would agree on that. That, btw, was the only 100% motorised army.

It is true that instead of sitting in a truck and idle away, being out in the fresh air for a nice walk is better. Agree.

Ivan