WI: Italy stayed out of world war 2

Churchill

Banned
If Italy was neutral it was far more likely it would attack Yugoslavia before Greece.
A neutral Italy could have beat Yugoslavia in 1940 without German help and without having to join the Axis powers.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Yup, certainly Yugoslavia was partly to appease German allies, but the main reason Germany allowed it to happen was becuse of fear of a Yugoslavia joining the allies. And don't forget Hungary and Bulgaria are both still in the Axis in this TL, and Germany might feel they have to help them regaining their lawful territory, and at the same time squash a potential threat to the Reich.

Italy would probably move to take Fiume during the Axis attack on Yugoslavia, but any further advance would jeopardize their neutrality.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
If Italy was neutral it was far more likely it would attack Yugoslavia before Greece.
A neutral Italy could have beat Yugoslavia in 1940 without German help and without having to join the Axis powers.

If they do that they'd most likely fail and beg Hitler to intervene, and thus join the Axis.
 

Churchill

Banned
Yup, certainly Yugoslavia was partly to appease German allies, but the main reason Germany allowed it to happen was becuse of fear of a Yugoslavia joining the allies. And don't forget Hungary and Bulgaria are both still in the Axis in this TL, and Germany might feel they have to help them regaining their lawful territory, and at the same time squash a potential threat to the Reich.

Italy would probably move to take Fiume during the Axis attack on Yugoslavia, but any further advance would jeopardize their neutrality.

I dont think Britain would declare war on Italy if it invaded Yugoslavia at this time.
German help would not be needed in taking it either.
Yugoslavia was a house of cards.
 

Chilperic

Banned
I dont think Britain would declare war on Italy if it invaded Yugoslavia at this time.
German help would not be needed in taking it either.
Yugoslavia was a house of cards.

Maybe, but against Italy alone, it would have done considerable damage to their armed forces. Britain already had its hands full with Germany which is why it overlooked Stalins invasions of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and attempted invasion of Finland (apart from sending volunteers in the last case)
 

Churchill

Banned
Maybe, but against Italy alone, it would have done considerable damage to their armed forces. Britain already had its hands full with Germany which is why it overlooked Stalins invasions of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and attempted invasion of Finland (apart from sending volunteers in the last case)

The Hungarians and maybe the Bulgarians would join the attack on Yugoslavia.
The Croat divisions would rebel.
Yugoslavia would be lucky to last a month.
 

Chilperic

Banned
The Hungarians and maybe the Bulgarians would join the attack on Yugoslavia.
The Croat divisions would rebel.
Yugoslavia would be lucky to last a month.

Hungary was still pretty weak at this point. Obviously there will be a few logistical problems with the Yugoslav army, but ultimately if the Italian alliance does defeat them, they will still have to face the mother of all resistance movements.
 

Churchill

Banned
This would leave Germany free to attack the USSR a month earlier with more men and aircraft.
In the invasion of the USSR the Axis would not have the Italian 8th Army or the Italian Air Force (for what it was worth) but they would still have a large number of Italian volunteers who would be better equiped and supplied.
Moscow would be attacked in November but would not fall and the Axis troops would suffer very heavy losses.
This however may well put Hitler off attacking Stalingrad one year later.
 

Chilperic

Banned
This would leave Germany free to attack the USSR a month earlier with more men and aircraft.
In the invasion of the USSR the Axis would not have the Italian 8th Army or the Italian Air Force (for what it was worth) but they would still have a large number of Italian volunteers who would be better equiped and supplied.
Moscow would be attacked in November but would not fall and the Axis troops would suffer very heavy losses.
This however may well put Hitler off attacking Stalingrad one year later.

Well, the war would have lasted longer. 1939 to about 1946 or 1947.
 
The Gods be damned...

Just because the US had nukes in 1945 doesn't mean they use them on Germany in 1945. First and foremost, without Italy hindering them, the Germans may have done even better in the USSR. No North Africa, no Yugoslavia, no Greece. Those are quite a few reinforcements. The Communists would have tasted quite a bit more hell from those freed up troops.

Most importantly, Speer made most factories underground or secured. Nuke the cities. So what? Slave labor and underground factories would continue to churn out jets and tanks and so on. Unlike Japan, you will have to occupy Germany as long as Hitler lives. With only two nukes, Hitler would have seen the US bluff and proven it just to be that.

Prepare for a guerilla mwar.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Like Italy would have a chance beating "cough" "mighty Yugoslav army". They had large problems with the Greeks, I don't see why they wouldn't fail in conquering another mountainous Balkan country, with a large army (even though quite disunited). No, Italy would have to jump on the German wagon to get anything. And Germany would most likely invade Yugoslavia to hinder it from becoming an allied base. Also Hungary and Bulgaria are Axis powers eager to get some lost territory (which they wouldn't be able to take without German support). If Italy during an axis invasion of Yugoslavia go to far, they would have been recognized as an Axis power, however I think seizing Fiume, to save "ethnic Italians" would have worked very well.
 

Churchill

Banned
Hungary was still pretty weak at this point. Obviously there will be a few logistical problems with the Yugoslav army, but ultimately if the Italian alliance does defeat them, they will still have to face the mother of all resistance movements.

Not really as they would only occupy the West of Yugoslavia.
Croat,Albanian and Montenegran areas.
 
Personally, I think that would have been highly unlikely to happen. Italy was a key player in Fascism and Geopolitics. I think Italy would have been in the War and Allied themselves with Germany. Just my two cents.
 
This would leave Germany free to attack the USSR a month earlier with more men and aircraft.

I've read this remark about 5 times in this thread.
As far as I know it's not true.
Barbarossa couldn't start any earlier then it did in real life, thanks chiefly to the weather. By attacking before the rasputiza (or rasputitza or any other spelling) is gone, the German armies, who have much to gain by moving fast, will be moving much slower.
This would mean much more of the Soviet armies get to escape encirclements they didn't get out IRL.

IIRC the only advantage the Germans have in this timeline is some of their equipment could be in a better state, but even that's debatable.

In the invasion of the USSR the Axis would not have the Italian 8th Army or the Italian Air Force (for what it was worth) but they would still have a large number of Italian volunteers who would be better equiped and supplied.
Why would the Italian army suddenly be better equipped or supplied?
If anything, without facing Brits like O'Connor in the Desert War, the Italians (read Mussolini) will overestimate themselves even more then IRL.

Moscow would be attacked in November but would not fall and the Axis troops would suffer very heavy losses.
This however may well put Hitler off attacking Stalingrad one year later.
Not logical. The fighting in Stalingrad didn't stop the Germans from fighting in other cities later, like Warsaw.
If anything, the Germans will get that much-needed experience sooner.
How the Germans are going to suffer worse casualties then they did when several 100 000 people got encircled isn't logical IMHO.


Just because the US had nukes in 1945 doesn't mean they use them on Germany in 1945. First and foremost, without Italy hindering them, the Germans may have done even better in the USSR. No North Africa, no Yugoslavia, no Greece. Those are quite a few reinforcements. The Communists would have tasted quite a bit more hell from those freed up troops.
The British and the Americans started their nuclear program before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
If anything the nukes were developed to be thrown at Germany. If necessary, if Britain had fallen launched from CONUS with B-36's.

Besides, in WWII nukes are seen as just a bit more powerfull bomb, not in a seperate category with biological and chemical weapons like today, which most of the belligerants didn't dare to use during WWII.
Most importantly, Speer made most factories underground or secured. Nuke the cities. So what? Slave labor and underground factories would continue to churn out jets and tanks and so on. Unlike Japan, you will have to occupy Germany as long as Hitler lives. With only two nukes, Hitler would have seen the US bluff and proven it just to be that.

Prepare for a guerilla mwar.
No way Speer could have gotten the entire German industry protected against nuclear bombs or spread out without decimating the industrial production.
Once the German factories stop churning out weaponry, either by bombing or by some weird plan it's over for the Germans.

For all of Hitler's faults, I don't see him hiding a la Saddam Hussein to keep a war going. I also don't see the German population supporting a guerillawar if that means starvation for them, which it would.

On the offchance Germany withstands both conventional strategic bombing and 2 nuclear bombs, it's just a matter of time before the next nuclear bombs drop.
 
This is a fun WI, Italy staying out of World War 2 really has some potential to change WWII, though the Axis is still sure to lose.

Without Italy in the war the Germans never go to North Africa, and likely never go to Greece either, though Yugoslavia will probably still happen due to the coup. Obviously without those side shows Germany can launch Barbarossa earlier and has more men and supplies to fight with in the west and east that aren't wasted in the south. Still, Barbarossa doesn't change dramatically. It's commonly said that without the Balkan campaign Barbarossa would've started 6 weeks earlier, allowing Germany to get further before the winter sets in, but actually the weather would still have a forced some delay so Barbarossa would only have gotten a few weeks head start at best.

The air war goes as scheduled and little difference is made as regards Barbarossa, although one possible result of an extra week or so would be hideous sub-zero temperatures and many German divisions involved in street fighting in Moscow just as Zhukov's divisions attack. Yikes!
This is definitely worth considering. As someone else mentioned just because the Germans get to Moscow doesn't mean they take it quickly. It's pretty common to think that an earlier Barbarossa helps Germany a lot but it is interesting to consider this possibility, where a bit of a head start and more men just gets a big German force stuck in Moscow when Zkukov's counteroffensive begins, resulting in a big blow to the Germans.

With Italy not in the war the allies don't go for the "soft underbelly of Europe" and instead target somewhere else. Norway makes sense as others have discussed. I admit I'd have to do a little reading up to comment on how that would go in comparison to OTL's southern front.

The Axis still loses in this TL but the postwar map of Europe may be different. If the changes cause the eastern front to go better or worse (see above) the Soviets can end up with more or less of Europe. Again I'm not really familiar enough with how Norway would to speculate as to whether or not the allies could get into Germany and end the war first. With the Axis having more men and some supplies to use in the east against the Soviets and/or in north/west Europe against the allies this may prolong the war a bit, making it take longer for someone to get to Berlin. If the Nazis aren't defeated by Summer of 1945 then the atomic bomb will probably be used on Berlin (which was the original plan OTL).

Fascist Italy's status in the post-war world is also interesting. It will still occupy Albania and its African colonies. If it has communist nations on its borders (Yugoslavia quite likely) then it will likely have lots of tension with them, with the communist bloc perhaps supporting insurgents in Albania. Cold War politics will cause the US to eventually develop friendlier ties with Italy, as it did with Franco's Spain OTL. Closer ties even, if Italy borders an eastern bloc country.

I can see Italy trying to hold on to its colonial empire longer than most of Europe like Portugal tried to. Libya will become very valuable when oil is discovered there. By 1940 OTL Italians formed 12% of Libya's population, and with decades of time, and eventually an oil industry, Italians will likely come to form a very large portion of the population, making decolonization all the harder. Though it won't be able to expand its empire in the postwar world its possession of Libya may lead to conflict. In the 50s and 60s, in the age of decolonization and pan-arabism, there were rebellions in Algeria and Yemen and other areas against the French and the British, and these were supported by independent Arab countries like Egypt (and were a big source of Anglo-French hostility to Egypt which was a factor in the Suez crisis). Italy's Libya bordering Nasser's Egypt may cause some problems, as Nasser is likely to support rebels in Libya. A consequence may be an altered Suez crisis and/or Italian friendship with Israel.

I can't see Fascism lasting to the present though, it will likely fall some day and transition to democracy as happened with the other rightist dictatorships in Europe like Spain, Portugal, and Greece.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Pretty much my thoughts, Italy would struggle to keep Albania and colonies. With a high possibility of Italy having seized Fiume during the German invasion of Yugoslavia, the border between Italy and Yugoslavia would be hectic. Tito and Mussolini would hate each other's guts (chance of Italo- Yugoslavic war in the 50's??) And Nasser would do anything to undermine Italian influences in Africa. Egypt would support rebel movements in libya, while the USSR probably would suppoert movements in Italian Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. Italy would probably be an irritation for the US and allies, since the Italians just barely are able to hold of communism inspired revolutions in their colonies. Also Albania would probably have a communist guerilla. And there could even be a strong Communist underground in Italy proper.
 

Churchill

Banned
I've read this remark about 5 times in this thread.
As far as I know it's not true.
Barbarossa couldn't start any earlier then it did in real life, thanks chiefly to the weather. By attacking before the rasputiza (or rasputitza or any other spelling) is gone, the German armies, who have much to gain by moving fast, will be moving much slower.
This would mean much more of the Soviet armies get to escape encirclements they didn't get out IRL.

IIRC the only advantage the Germans have in this timeline is some of their equipment could be in a better state, but even that's debatable.


Why would the Italian army suddenly be better equipped or supplied?
If anything, without facing Brits like O'Connor in the Desert War, the Italians (read Mussolini) will overestimate themselves even more then IRL.


Not logical. The fighting in Stalingrad didn't stop the Germans from fighting in other cities later, like Warsaw.
If anything, the Germans will get that much-needed experience sooner.
How the Germans are going to suffer worse casualties then they did when several 100 000 people got encircled isn't logical IMHO.



The British and the Americans started their nuclear program before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
If anything the nukes were developed to be thrown at Germany. If necessary, if Britain had fallen launched from CONUS with B-36's.

Besides, in WWII nukes are seen as just a bit more powerfull bomb, not in a seperate category with biological and chemical weapons like today, which most of the belligerants didn't dare to use during WWII.

No way Speer could have gotten the entire German industry protected against nuclear bombs or spread out without decimating the industrial production.
Once the German factories stop churning out weaponry, either by bombing or by some weird plan it's over for the Germans.

For all of Hitler's faults, I don't see him hiding a la Saddam Hussein to keep a war going. I also don't see the German population supporting a guerillawar if that means starvation for them, which it would.

On the offchance Germany withstands both conventional strategic bombing and 2 nuclear bombs, it's just a matter of time before the next nuclear bombs drop.

Originally Posted by Churchill
In the invasion of the USSR the Axis would not have the Italian 8th Army or the Italian Air Force (for what it was worth) but they would still have a large number of Italian volunteers who would be better equiped and supplied.

Why would the Italian army suddenly be better equipped or supplied?
If anything, without facing Brits like O'Connor in the Desert War, the Italians (read Mussolini) will overestimate themselves even more then IRL.

They would be better quiped becauce unlike OTL he wont be sending more men than equipment as they will be volunteers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Churchill
Moscow would be attacked in November but would not fall and the Axis troops would suffer very heavy losses.
This however may well put Hitler off attacking Stalingrad one year later.

Not logical. The fighting in Stalingrad didn't stop the Germans from fighting in other cities later, like Warsaw.
If anything, the Germans will get that much-needed experience sooner.
How the Germans are going to suffer worse casualties then they did when several 100 000 people got encircled isn't logical IMHO.

Very logical.
After heavy losses in Moscow Hitler wont be keen to attack another city.
Warsaw was a defensive battle.
 
If Italy stays neutral then Germany will do a bit better in the war. North Africa was a logistical nightmare for the Germans and not having to fight there will be useful. Not being forced into so many adventures with their Italian allies will save manpower and supplies. Would Germany be able to win the war in this stronger state? Not a chance. The allies will still drown the Germans under their industrial might. The new soft underbelly of Europe would probaly have vichy take Italy's place. Germany would still fall, perhaps a little later than OLT though. Japan is the first target for nukes though. By the time the nukes are ready to be used I'd imagine the allies are already withing sights of the German borders. With Germany already on its last legs it would be wiser to use the nukes on Japan first to save all those lives that would be lost in the invasion of the home isles. Anyone have the estimated casualty numbers that would be?
 
Top