WI Italy joined the allies 1943/1944

B-Team

Banned
What if Italy stayed neutral still 1943/1944 and then joined the allies in war against Germany ,how would this change ww2?
 
What if Italy stayed neutral still 1943/1944 and then joined the allies in war against Germany ,how would this change ww2?
The UK not having to commit a lot of resources to the Med means it can actually defend the Far East, so Japan will have a difficult time there, and the Kriegsmarine will have difficulties with more RN ships in the Home Fleet. This also means the CV's Ark Royal and Eagle, along with the BB Barham, along with many cruiser's and destroyers will be available, not on the bottom, while the likes of HMS Illustrious, HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and many cruiser's and destroyers won't have to undergo massive repairs from bad damage, so the RN is a lot stronger in general.
 
So, Germany doesn't have to get involved in Italy's failing adventures, but does have a relatively safe Southern flank, at least initially? There would be no need to devote all the troops to North Africa, with the Luftwaffe support that entailed. Nor any intervention in Greece, which led to the whole Balkan diversion before Barbarossa and threw the timing off.

This could mean that Barbarossa goes ahead on schedule with even more German forces available (what role would Rommel have for example) and Germany could actually achive its aims there
 
So, Germany doesn't have to get involved in Italy's failing adventures, but does have a relatively safe Southern flank, at least initially? There would be no need to devote all the troops to North Africa, with the Luftwaffe support that entailed. Nor any intervention in Greece, which led to the whole Balkan diversion before Barbarossa and threw the timing off.

This could mean that Barbarossa goes ahead on schedule with even more German forces available (what role would Rommel have for example) and Germany could actually achive its aims there
IIRC Barbarossa was always going to be delayed because the Spring of 1941 was an exceptionally wet one in Eastern Europe and the Germans had to wait for the rivers to drop a bit and become more easily fordable.
That said, I can imagine that Rommel would not have the reputation that he has ITTL.
 
It probably gives Mussolini a free hand to invade Greece - without a declaration of war the UK couldn't afford to provoke a conflict with Italy, even if Greece is invaded (they might choose to supply the Greeks though). Interesting question what would happen in an Italy vs Greece war with no intervention. I'm guessing an armistice with Italy gaining Corfu and some Aegean islands.

I winder what would be the tipping point for Italy to switch sides. Possibly the end of the Greek war and a promise from the Allies of no repercussions for its existing Empire. Could see an alt-Anvil deploying though Italian ports into Southern France and securing the Alpine passes.
 
So, Germany doesn't have to get involved in Italy's failing adventures, but does have a relatively safe Southern flank, at least initially? There would be no need to devote all the troops to North Africa, with the Luftwaffe support that entailed. Nor any intervention in Greece, which led to the whole Balkan diversion before Barbarossa and threw the timing off.

This could mean that Barbarossa goes ahead on schedule with even more German forces available (what role would Rommel have for example) and Germany could actually achive its aims there
IIRC from looking at the issue years ago Barbarossa could start about 7-10 days earlier without the Balkans campaign thanks to the weather. That's somewhat helpful, not not necessarily decisive. However the bigger change is just how many more forces would be ready to go instead of worn down from being in the campaign in the Balkans or not available at all due to occupation duties, damage, and just ability to get out of Greece and back to Germany in time. Like 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions...though they were helpful in October when they were the only full strength panzer divisions to show up fresh and ready to go for Typhoon (not that that changed the outcome) and were IIRC about the strength of the average worn down Panzer corps each.
Here is a US Army study of the campaign and it's effects:

That said the Yugoslav invasion may well happen here ITTL because a lot of the same causes were there, but that was wrapped up by May and much easier to extract from, plus less costly than the entire Greek campaign (initially). Without Italy though it would require a fair bit of extra forces from the Germans, but it is hard seeing Italy remain 100% neutral on the dismemberment of Yugoslavia unless Mussolini is dead and even then it may well still happen, though having Britain declare war on Italy for that would probably be rather tough.

There is also the issue of Germany not controlling Greek resources, which were not insubstantial or valuable. They had chromium deposits that provided about 25% of German needs during the war:
Not only that, but food and money were big helps exploited from Greece, the former being so exploited that Britain was forced to lift the blockade of Axis Europe to allow food aid in for the people of Greece to help blunt the famine that was starting.

Certainly Germany could buy from Greece, but given the Allied economic warfare program that may well not be a viable option to get what was gotten IOTL. Though without the Italian invasion Greece might well remain pro-German. Of course that would only really matter in the long war, not the course of Barbarossa and it's direct aftermath.

Even with Yugoslavia still being invaded, this time without Italy, but not Greece Germany would gain vs OTL quite a bit especially without a Mediterranean campaign. Depending on Italian leanings they could well help Germany by selling/bartering with them for a lot of stuff, while Germany is absolved of effectively gifting them resources to run their war effort. Reading a published diary by a White Russian ex-noble living in exile in Berlin Italian restaurants were extremely popular and potentially vital to German diets in 1939-40 before Italian entry into the war because they were not subjected to rationing at all as they sourced their food from Italy, which was not rationing at the time. Given how much rationing hit Germany hard before the victory in France gave a temporary respite when they were plundered, this would be a pretty big help to the average German longer into the war. Not only that, but Italian workers would find plenty of employment in Germany the longer the war goes on and were quite a substantial part of the workforce in Germany throughout the war IOTL; here they may well even be a bigger one.

In terms of forces something like 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe was committed to the Mediterranean in 1941, though this fluctuated during Barbarossa, which would be a big help in the East. The biggest help is the extra several hundred Ju52s not lost during Crete/Greece and not retained to help Rommel in the desert. Not just that, but the forces saved from the Desert Campaign are available in the East, which IIRC ended up being something like 10% of German trucks in 1941, though to be fair a substantial chunk of their logistics were provided by purchases of French trucks in Tunisia and provided by the Italians. Perhaps Italy starts selling Germany trucks ITTL? A lot depends on where the extra forces are applied ITTL; per Halder's diary and other sources it seems that only AG-North has the logistics, thanks to Balkan shipping as well as the road and the rail net in the Baltic states to handle the extra forces and trucks, which when coupled with the extra Ju52s could well generate strategic benefits over OTL that might be enough to push the Soviets over the edge. Hard to say for sure, so many variables.

However Britain also gains a lot too. Italy being neutral saves them pretty huge shipping and manpower resources, though to be fair they lose a lot of the experience they gained IOTL in the desert and Greece. This likely means that they might well try and invasion somewhere in Europe in 1941 or '42 because of lack of anything else to do. It will probably go about as well as Dieppe if not worse, but provide important lessons for later and may well be repeated in 1942 or sooner. Hard to say on balance what that would mean for them, though the savings in forces probably really helps in Asia and the Pacific, while helping the economy by maintaining easier contact with the Empire. They could also get themselves in trouble when and antsy Churchill gets them into 'adventures' during the years before the US is ready to help. Though IMHO assuming the US comes in at the same time a 1942 invasion of France is basically a lock...with all that entails.
 
Would German paratroops have been used in offensive airborne operations in Barbarossa if there had been no Crete? I know they fought on land a lot afterwards, but coupled with the extra Junkers 52s, and not having been so badly mauled that Hitler got antsy, was there anywhere that a massive airborne landing could have had a decisive effect? Leningrad?
 
What if Italy stayed neutral still 1943/1944 and then joined the allies in war against Germany ,how would this change ww2?
Edit: The war would end faster. Italy keeps its colonies for a while longer. East Africa may still be gone but Libya has potential to remain Italian. If the Libyans don't start guerrilla warfare like Algerians of course.
 
Last edited:
Would German paratroops have been used in offensive airborne operations in Barbarossa if there had been no Crete? I know they fought on land a lot afterwards, but coupled with the extra Junkers 52s, and not having been so badly mauled that Hitler got antsy, was there anywhere that a massive airborne landing could have had a decisive effect? Leningrad?
I've said it several times in similar threads, if used in AG-North to seize Riga in a coup de main they could have destroyed the Soviet 8th Army, which retreated through the city, which then opens Estonia to rapid exploitation rather than the long hard slog it was IOTL that ultimately resulted in their wrecked shale oil industry and a bunch of atrocities by the Soviet destroyer battalions who tried to scorch earth the country during their retreat (only partially successful thanks to the efforts of the 'Forest Brothers' and Erna Long Range Recon unit, a Finnish/Estonian exile SF group, which had it's own potentially criminal actions, fighting back).

When I say coup de main I mean dropping behind the city/Dvina river to seize the airfields there and fly in the rest of the division and heavier assets to take the city, which at that time was help by Soviet police, as the small NKVD division was mostly outside the area on an anti-guerrilla mission. Thanks to extra panzer divisions ITTL they could then race on the city to relieve the paratroopers and trap the 8th army. IOTL the Germans had to cut off their efforts to race on the city, because of the lack of mobile units and the speed of the retreat of the Soviet 8th army.

After Riga they would have been invaluable in seizing the Baltic islands, which would have opened it to shipping months earlier, while helping prevent the need to invest Tallinn in August and shift a lot of air strikes and other forces to trying to stop the Soviet evacuation of Estonia (partially successful and very helpful for holding Leningrad despite the losses suffered by the Soviets in the effort).
This Russian language article is pretty helpful in understanding what was going on:

The Ju52s, if more were available for supply runs, could have allowed the Panzer divisions to cut loose and run on Leningrad rather than wait for the infantry and ground supply to catch up. They were constantly pausing to allowing everything to catch up and in doing so repeatedly allowed the Soviets to rally and delay them time after time.
Good gif here that visualizes it:

Also early on with more air units available the early, costly delays around Raseiniai could potentially been averted.
 
This could mean that Barbarossa goes ahead on schedule with even more German forces available (what role would Rommel have for example) and Germany could actually achive its aims there
Delayed by weather, and what the DAK was, would be swallowed up and not noticed in say, Army Group South.
 
Oh well, I thought I knew stuff, but apparently not. Seems to happen all the time now.
There is always somebody who knows more, and that rule is on everything.
Some of us have been doing this Alt-History for a long time(I started on USENET back in the '90s), but I'm still learning stuff.
And the only way people find new things out, is to do postings- so keep it up! You know things I may not.
 
Parts of Italy will still get occupied. Italy may lose the colonies regardless as they lost them earlier and the allies have a huge advantage. But with parts of the Italian Army alongside the Allies, Italy may be liberated faster. Not sure if this will save Mussolini. Seems like not.
Occupied by who? Where are they losing their colonies?
 
Delayed by weather, and what the DAK was, would be swallowed up and not noticed in say, Army Group South.
Weather only delayed things up to about June 10th. Thereafter the problem of getting forces refitted and back into place after the Balkans operation delayed things to the 22nd. The VIII Fliegerkorps wasn't even fully in place after Crete when Barbarossa started.

AG-South couldn't sustain any more forces due to logistics, it would have to be AG-North or Center and even Center probably couldn't logistically handle them either due to the limited number of roads, which means AG-North is the most likely candidate. However since there is no need to expand forces without the North African campaign there probably wouldn't be the OTL divisions that made up the Afrika Korps in 1941, but rather 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions and the rest more fully fitted out and better logistical support. They might not convert the 33rd infantry division into the 15th Panzer division and instead motorize them to support 2nd and 5th Panzer to flesh out a new panzer corps.
 
Last edited:

33k7

Gone Fishin'
A single grain of rice can tip the scale. One man may be the difference between victory and defeat.
Operation Barbarossa happens with the full might of the German military. at the same time you're removing the Italian forces in the Eastern Front even without the Italian forces I thinking you're bringing about a hundred thousand more Germans to the Eastern Front the butterflies have the rest all I know for sure is there are going to be a lot more dead people in the Eastern Front
 
A single grain of rice can tip the scale. One man may be the difference between victory and defeat.
Operation Barbarossa happens with the full might of the German military. at the same time you're removing the Italian forces in the Eastern Front even without the Italian forces I thinking you're bringing about a hundred thousand more Germans to the Eastern Front the butterflies have the rest all I know for sure is there are going to be a lot more dead people in the Eastern Front
Probably quite a bit more than 100k men. The Afrika Korp's entire support apparatus was quite large to sustain such a small motorized/mechanized force far from home in an area with pretty poor logistics and an extreme operating environment that the soldiers were not really experienced with or adapted to.
Given the enormous problems the Italians had in Russia (I'm reading an account now and it is bleak even at the period of their greatest successes, they really don't get enough credit for what they had to overcome in terms of lack of equipment, lack of good equipment, supply problems, command issues, etc. and still managed to achieve) adding in the relatively speaking elite German units that were tied up in the Mediterranean and Greece to the East would be a huge gain vs. having the Italians there. If anything it would probably help the logistics not having the Italians there in 1941, especially as they had to rely heavily on German logistical support rather than bringing their own trucks. That not even factoring in the economic gains of not having to sustain the Italian economy.
 
Weather only delayed things up to about June 10th. Thereafter the problem of getting forces refitted and back into place after the Balkans operation delayed things to the 22nd. The VIII Fliegerkorps wasn't even fully in place after Crete when Barbarossa started.

AG-South couldn't sustain any more forces due to logistics, it would have to be AG-North or Center and even Center probably couldn't logistically handle them either due to the limited number of roads, which means AG-North is the most likely candidate. However since there is no need to expand forces without the North African campaign there probably wouldn't be the OTL divisions that made up the Afrika Korps in 1941, but rather 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions and the rest more fully fitted out and better logistical support. They might not convert the 33rd infantry division into the 15th Panzer division and instead motorize them to support 2nd and 5th Panzer to flesh out a new panzer corps.
I'd argue the two weeks could be decisive, given that 32nd Rifle only managed to beat the 2nd SS Panzer Division to Borodino by a single day; this allowed them to fix up defenses enough to delay the Germans, preventing them from using the all weather road there to directly advance upon Moscow at the same time Stalin was contemplating an abandonment of the city with no real troops in the city. Likewise, there is some debate about the issue of the 12th Army and Army Group South:

Operation Barbarossa 1941: Army Group South
Army Group South's initial plan envisioned a double envelopment during Phase 1, employing First Panzer Group in the North and 12th Army coming out of Rumania. Hitler soon decided against this course of action, and besides in April he ordered 12th army to Yugoslavia and Greece. Eleventh Army took over duties in Rumania but these combined forces would not be ready for 22 June 1941, giving Barbarossa its staggered start in the south. Therefore von Rudenstedt would fight mainly a frontal war, punctuated by occasional penetrations and except for Kiev relatively small encirclements.
 
Top