WI Italy remains neutral in WWII?

Wolfpaw

Banned
I disagree. OVRA (Fascist Secret Police) reports, including of course some never showed to the Duce himself, showed that Italian people was more than relieved by the starting non-belligerent stance and that feelings toward Germany were not warm at all.
I don't disagree with you here. The majority of the Italian populace were unenthusiastic about war when it came, and they never really got behind it. The problem is, Mussolini has to placate the radicals in his party who are only hungrier after their rape of Abyssinia. And there are a lot of restive young people who are being inculcated with a cult of heroism, which is never good in a country with a sluggish economy.
Popularity of Fascism as many other dictatorships was strongly influenced by how the people itself felt satisfied by his everyday life, that even not being comparable with (for example) United Kingdom, was better than the former Liberal Italy era for sure. Several historians say that this would have been accomplished anyway being general momentum of history towards progress. We will never know it, anyway.
The problem is that fascist regimes are inherently unstable; they depend on momentum and machismo and were always very tense. Mussolini's regime was getting old, unpopular due to the exceptionally rampant corruption, and the radical ras were getting increasingly restive.

So the basic thing is, if the Fascist state does not go to war, it will not radicalize. Therefore, it'll more than likely fall apart due to entropy.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
At the time Mussolini popularity was very high and frankly the fact of not entering the general conflict will only improve that. Honestly for all the talking without the war and the consequent human and material loss, Mussolini regime will be pretty solid and virtually without internal opposition.
Mussolini's popularity does not translate into popularity for the regime. The Fascists were seen as aging and more and more became The Establishment; the economy wasn't awful, but it wasn't that great and it was going downhill; the ras were getting restive; Italy was politically isolated; Mussolini had to more and more yield to radical demands, both at home and in the colonies; there was a new corps of party stalwarts that had been radicalized by Abyssinia and Spain and wanted more conquest and plunder; and Germany's triumphs was directly emasculating the Fascists' ideology.
For that there is Yugoslavia, due to pregress territorial dispute and for getting more influence in the balkans, and without the need of the Afrika korps in Lybia Benny has more leeway with his plan of invasion (with enough garantee for Germany), Greece is out of the question because too close to the UK.
I agree that Yugoslavia is the most likely choice, but I'm skeptical of the Fascists' ability to defeat them. I could see them having to call in Hitler again.
 
Last edited:
Can you elaborate?

A couple books I've read on WW2 mention, when they're describing Italy, that its GDP growth was rapidly slowing down and that its economy in general was unable to keep up with the government's pushes for more expansion. Vast overspending on the military left infrastructure and raw material exploitation out in the cold. Italy was essentially moving towards a situation where its economy had no base on which it could stand.
 
I don't disagree with you here. The majority of the Italian populace were unenthusiastic about war when it came, and they never really got behind it. The problem is, Mussolini has to placate the radicals in his party who are only hungrier after their rape of Abyssinia. And there are a lot of restive young people who are being inculcated with a cult of heroism, which is never good in a country with a sluggish economy.

I believe you all that the Italian people didn't want war. But - man - the crowd went sincerely wild when Mussolini said that "the declaration of war has already been delivered to..."
The Fascists are so good in pepping crowds.,, ;)
 
Mussolini's popularity does not translate into popularity for the regime. The Fascists were seen as aging and more and more became The Establishment; the economy wasn't awful, but it wasn't that great and it was going downhill; the ras were getting restive; Italy was politically isolated; Mussolini had to more and more yield to radical demands, both at home and in the colonies; there was a new corps of party stalwarts that had been radicalized by Abyssinia and Spain and wanted more conquest and plunder; and Germany's triumphs was directly emasculating the Fascists' ideology.


Mussolini was the regime, if he is popular the regime is popular and was a master of divide and reign, even if the radicals were getting more power (and this is doubtfoul) there were just one of the numerous faction who formed that amorphous thing called fascism and not by change the more powerfull. The economy can get a boost with the war and themoment Germany begin to lose, the hothead will see their internal power crumble

I agree that Yugoslavia is the most likely choice, but I'm skeptical of the Fascists' ability to defeat them. I could see them having to call in Hitler again.

Without other front and able to use all italian resource, the a yugoslavian victory is not very likely (weapon, aircraft and armor even more dated than the Italian and the terrain was more favorable to the attack, big division at home and no ally to help them, now the better italian unit are used here and not in Lybia) and not counting the possibility of Bulgaria and Hungary pile up against Belgrade.
 

Esopo

Banned


Without other front and able to use all italian resource, the a yugoslavian victory is not very likely (weapon, aircraft and armor even more dated than the Italian and the terrain was more favorable to the attack, big division at home and no ally to help them, now the better italian unit are used here and not in Lybia) and not counting the possibility of Bulgaria and Hungary pile up against Belgrade.


probably we would have had a stalemate against yugoslavs, managing to win the war after one year or two. Mussolini couldnt leave undefended east africa , libya and french border, and albania was difficult to supply. He definitely needed germany to defeat any other nation but albania and ethiopia.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Mussolini was the regime, if he is popular the regime is popular and was a master of divide and reign, even if the radicals were getting more power (and this is doubtfoul) there were just one of the numerous faction who formed that amorphous thing called fascism and not by change the more powerfull. The economy can get a boost with the war and themoment Germany begin to lose, the hothead will see their internal power crumble.
Yes, but the Party leadership aging and growing complacent. Fascism was about momentum and youth and action. They'd been in power almost 20 years and nothing had really changed for the better; the economy was beginning to falter and radicalization was only gaining speed.

Mussolini was pretty up front about his own desire for war. He told Ciano, "When Spain is finished, I will think of something else. The character of the Italian people must be molded by fighting." Mussolini's own ideology trumpeted war as the sole source of human advancement. It's really hard to focus on other things when that is a driving principle of an ideological state. Mussolini believed that war would not only recapture Fascism's original spirit, but also allow him to strengthen his own control.

The whole Fascist system was built for war and the short-term rewards of plunder, jobs and power. If Mussolini tries to stop this, the whole thing will fall apart.
 
Mussolini's popularity does not translate into popularity for the regime. The Fascists were seen as aging and more and more became The Establishment; the economy wasn't awful, but it wasn't that great and it was going downhill; the ras were getting restive; Italy was politically isolated; Mussolini had to more and more yield to radical demands, both at home and in the colonies; there was a new corps of party stalwarts that had been radicalized by Abyssinia and Spain and wanted more conquest and plunder; and Germany's triumphs was directly emasculating the Fascists' ideology.I agree that Yugoslavia is the most likely choice, but I'm skeptical of the Fascists' ability to defeat them. I could see them having to call in Hitler again.

Mussolini was the regime; excluding the King, there wasn't in 1940 anyone who could have remotely clouding him in the context of Fascism. D'Annunzio? Dead. Balbo? Even if it wasn't killed in Libya, he would never have entered in an open confrontation with LUI.:)D). Badoglio? Graziani? Pavolini? Without an ASB, they were fond of their positions and happy to stay exactly where they were.

Economy downhill? SCW and Ethiopian Campaign had been two very expensive adventures, and even if the first was basically wasted money (unless you choose to consider it as an insurance payed against a Communist presence in the Med), there's no way to know if Italian economy would have climbed or crashed after the necessary, due "absorbing" phase of the expeditions.

Politically isolated? GB and France, even after Ethiopia and sanctions, actively pursued attempt to hold Italy off the War, the latter even bought to the last Italian military trucks. Even Roosevelt asked to Mussolini to stay out and the text of the message wasn't for sure an ultimatum.

Who were the radicals you are talking about? Farinacci? Pavolini? Mussolini could have dismissed them as he had done previously with Grandi.

If there was someone who seriously wanted more conquests maybe you should look at Vittorio Emanuele III, because the higher ranks of the Armed Forces were more paper tigers than daredevil hustlers (just look at how slavishly to Duce's orders the early stages of Italian War were conducted i.e. defensive stances on all the fronts were followed even when there was some chances of a successful attack).
 
Yes, but the Party leadership aging and growing complacent. Fascism was about momentum and youth and action. They'd been in power almost 20 years and nothing had really changed for the better; the economy was beginning to falter and radicalization was only gaining speed.

Mussolini was pretty up front about his own desire for war. He told Ciano, "When Spain is finished, I will think of something else. The character of the Italian people must be molded by fighting." Mussolini's own ideology trumpeted war as the sole source of human advancement. It's really hard to focus on other things when that is a driving principle of an ideological state. Mussolini believed that war would not only recapture Fascism's original spirit, but also allow him to strengthen his own control.

The whole Fascist system was built for war and the short-term rewards of plunder, jobs and power. If Mussolini tries to stop this, the whole thing will fall apart.

Nothing really changed? For sure Fascism didn't realize all his promises, but damn Italy in 1918 and Italy in 1940 were two different countries. And many public operas by Fascism are still around in 2011. Mussolini was an habituè of saying one thing and then the next day change his mind. There are many stories about it :)
 
A post war block with a strong and whealth Italy,Greece,Portugal,Spain,and Iugoslavia can be interesting.
In this case NATO colud born?
And the "light fascist" block are on side of the West or is non allineate?
 
probably we would have had a stalemate against yugoslavs, managing to win the war after one year or two. Mussolini couldnt leave undefended east africa , libya and french border, and albania was difficult to supply. He definitely needed germany to defeat any other nation but albania and ethiopia.

East Africa yes, after all even in OTL was considered lost and was impossible to supply (and frankly the only one who can attack are the people who most want avoid bring Italy in the war).
The French border don't need too much resource, as the italian army struggled to get even an inch of territory the same goes to the contrary as any push by Vichy/Nazy can stalled by the fortification due to the terrain. Lybia don't have to be heavily reinforced except one thing that Vichy want attack and the risk is low.
Italy armed forces even if not the most modern or better lead are enough powerfull to take alone Yugoslavia even if not quickly as the germans and only by concentrating all the possible asset
 
A post war block with a strong and whealth Italy,Greece,Portugal,Spain,and Iugoslavia can be interesting.
In this case NATO colud born?
And the "light fascist" block are on side of the West or is non allineate?


Probably fancies themselfs to be non allineate and that their are the 'third way' but in reality heavily on the side of the west. Decolonization will be a 'little' more interesting now.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Why do we just assume that the Fascists will do well against Yugoslavia? Better weapons doesn't win them the war. Look how difficult it was for them to conquer Ethiopia even when they were technologically leagues ahead of their opponents. And if anything, Mussolini's little romp into Albania is going to delude the Fascists just as much as it did OTL.

An Italo-Yugoslav War would have a much more limited front than the Axis Invasion of OTL. If it hadn't been for the Germans rolling into Belgrade from the East, Yugoslavia would likely lasted a lot longer, especially since Italy will be limited to attacking from Slovenia (containable, though the Croats might bug out and join the Fascists); the Adriatic Coast; easier said than done, a couple of islands won't win the war, still a tough slog into the Serb heartland; and Albania which is garrisoned by victory-diseased troops and mountains crawling with partisans.

The main example we have IOTL of an actual scuffle between Yugoslavia and the Fascists is during the Yugoslav offensive into Albania, wherein they were kicking Italian ass until the Germans jumped on their backs.
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
Mussolini was the regime; excluding the King, there wasn't in 1940 anyone who could have remotely clouding him in the context of Fascism. D'Annunzio? Dead. Balbo? Even if it wasn't killed in Libya, he would never have entered in an open confrontation with LUI.:)D). Badoglio? Graziani? Pavolini? Without an ASB, they were fond of their positions and happy to stay exactly where they were.
More like De Vecchi or Ciano or Marinelli, and it's not like Balbo was without ambition. Everybody was fine with their position when things were going well. But what happens when Mussolini bumbles into a truly disastrous war (as he did ITOL) or when the economy starts going to pot? The Ethiopia adventure ended in apartheid-wracked chaos and colonial brutality that would've made Leopold of Belgium blush; it was purely a prestige project/release valve for fascist radicalism.

Anyways, the Ethiopian adventure ended by '36, but then Mussolini gets the Fascists involved in the SCW without skipping a beat. The SCW alone winds up costing the Italian government almost 20% of her annual expenditure.

So what does Mussolini do then? Put things back in order at home? My no. Why, within a week of the SCW ending, the Fascists waltz into Albania.

Then comes the Fascists first fair dust-up and they can't pull it off. But hey, it's Greece; the terrain favors defenders. Only later on, the Italians--using this same highly-defensible terrain--get the crap kicked out of them by the Yugoslavs. Guess who has to bail them out (again)? The Germans.

Again we come back to the underlying theme; the Fascists had been significantly radicalizing since the invasion of Ethiopia, and this ever-mounting spiral of war is eventually going to cause the Fascist state to self-destruct, either economically, militarily or--as was the case IOTL--politically.


Who were the radicals you are talking about? Farinacci? Pavolini? Mussolini could have dismissed them as he had done previously with Grandi.
You mean the same Grandi who later led the charge against Mussolini? So long as there is a king, the Duce is not the final source of authority in political reality. How did Mussolini placate rivals and dissenters? He sent them off to monitor the fighting in faraway locales. Without that fighting, where is he going to send them? He can't really isolate them either because they're too powerful among local and party factions. So he has to get rid of them somehow. That means cracking down. Which is radicalization that is going to ruffle feathers. All of this and more on top of an increasingly disconcerting economic forecast.

Mussolini had two choices: war and radicalization at the Front, or passivity and entropy at home.

If there was someone who seriously wanted more conquests maybe you should look at Vittorio Emanuele III, because the higher ranks of the Armed Forces were more paper tigers than daredevil hustlers (just look at how slavishly to Duce's orders the early stages of Italian War were conducted i.e. defensive stances on all the fronts were followed even when there was some chances of a successful attack).
The Army had rarely been proponents of military adventure, which is precisely why Mussolini was very careful about giving them authority. Notice how the Italian invasions of Ethiopia and Spain were not led by the Army and its conservative Establishmentarian officers, but by leaders of the Fascist Militia. One of the huge propaganda aspects of the Ethiopian venture was that it was a Fascist Victory, not a military or even royal or Italian victory, but a Fascist one.
 
Last edited:
Why do we just assume that the Fascists will do well against Yugoslavia? Better weapons doesn't win them the war. Look how difficult it was for them to conquer Ethiopia even when they were technologically leagues ahead of their opponents. And if anything, Mussolini's little romp into Albania is going to delude the Fascists just as much as it did OTL.

Because with better weapon here we had a much better logistic situation, not even comparable with that of Ethiopia.

An Italo-Yugoslav War would have a much more limited front than the Axis Invasion of OTL. If it hadn't been for the Germans rolling into Belgrade from the East, Yugoslavia would likely lasted a lot longer, especially since Italy will be limited to attacking from Slovenia (containable, though the Croats might bug out and join the Fascists); the Adriatic Coast; easier said than done, a couple of islands won't win the war, still a tough slog into the Serb heartland; and Albania which is garrisoned by victory-diseased troops and mountains crawling with partisans.


The Yugoslavian armed forces were full of problem, from division between ethnicity to few and obsolete weapons (even worse than Italy), their navy not a factor and their aviation numerically and qualitately outnumbered so yes for the Regio Esercito and Aviazione will not be a easy fight, but it's very likely that in the end Yugoslavia will lose and here the armored division Ariete and Trieste and the parachute divisione Folgore can be used instead to be sacrificed in North Africa. And the partisan activity in Albania before the fall of the fascist goverment was so low to be negligible

The main example we have IOTL of an actual scuffle between Yugoslavia and the Fascists is during the Yugoslav offensive into Albania, wherein they were kicking Italian ass until the Germans jumped on their backs.


The italian troops here were still occupied with the Greeks, here there is not this problems
 
I suppose if Italy had remained neutral during WWII, Mussolini may have prevented his own deposing and death. However, who is to say that neutrality would have prevented Germany from taking offense to Italy? After all, with the rampage he was on, Hitler would probably have lusted after Italy and targeted the Italian Jews one way or another.
 
Top