What if? What if Italy wasn't taken over by Mussolini, but still supported Hitler?

What if? What if Mussolini never gained power in Italy, But Italy still supported Hitler? Perhaps they would have given their soldiers more time to prepare, and had a half-decent army?
 

mowque

Banned
What if? What if Mussolini never gained power in Italy, But Italy still supported Hitler? Perhaps they would have given their soldiers more time to prepare, and had a half-decent army?

Italy has ALOT of problems ranging from lack of coal, regional strife, illiteratency and a poor population.
 
Without Mussolini, Hitler would likely have never gained power.
Have to agree that the butterflies of no Mussolini would have a huge effect on the Nazi party; at the very least, it would remove the Beer Hall Putsch, which was directly inspired by Mussolini's successful March on Rome. Without the example of a (seemingly) quite effective fascist state in Italy, Fascist parties won't seem nearly as acceptable as they became in the OTL 1930's, so Germany's conservative establishment would be far more wary of the Nazis. Even if the Nazis do manage to still take power in Germany, they will have to take a very different path from OTL, which would have a major effect on the party's development and possibly its leadership.

As significantly, Italian fascism was far more exportable and popular abroad than the Nazis ever managed. Without the Italian example, fascism might only ever manage to achieve political significance in Germany, which would add even more butterflies to the World War II.
 
Up until the Ethiopian war, Italy was a good member of the Western Allies, and almost went to war with Germany in 1934.

With out Mussolini, whe probably don't have a Ethiopian war, Italy stays in the Allies camp.
 
Up until the Ethiopian war, Italy was a good member of the Western Allies, and almost went to war with Germany in 1934.

With out Mussolini, whe probably don't have a Ethiopian war, Italy stays in the Allies camp.

Almost assured, a non fascist Italy ( i assume that it's still a democracy and not a communist state) will probably not will be keen of any annexation of Austria (unless Adolf will not sweet the deal with otrageus proposal) and regarding Ethiopia without Benny, Rome will almost surely taken the albanian approach, pratically a great economic and political penetration if they succed is another question but a war seem unlikely.
The military performace of the italian armed forces if for some reason they decide to ally with Hitler? Well i think that with all probability will be better than OTL. Mussolini squandered a lot of men, treasure and material in Ethiopia and the Spanish civil war, even thinking of give modern weapons (taken from our armed forces) to the Finnish during the winter war...all for prestige reasons; he personally taken a lot of position at the same time included the equivalente of the minister of defence and without his seal of approval very few think were done so...very little was done. Strategic plan and patience was not his strong point, basically he tell people today we invade nation x go and conquer it (see Albania and the invasion of France) and the stupid reform of the army division was done for prestige ( a lot of new division at least theoretically) and to put a blackshirts contigent in the army formation as a failsafe against trouble, so there a good change that without him the reform is not done.
 
We could expect to see lots more Royalist based groups around. Maybe some Catholic League even. Italy might support Germany, but only so long as they kept an Austrian buffer and if Austria didn't put up a fuss about ITaly taking the former Austro-Hungarian land that Serbia took after WWI.
 

Markus

Banned
Italy has ALOT of problems ranging from lack of coal, regional strife, illiteratency and a poor population.

Yet they could have had less.

Sometime in the early 30´s they decided to go from 30 triangular to 80 binary infantry divisions. That meant an increase of 70 infantry regiments(+77%) and 50 artillery regiments(+166%). Producing that much additional weapons and equipment was simply beyond Italy´s capability.

If Italy had added another ten triangular divisions only a 1/3 increase in infantry/artillery regiments and weapons for them would have been required. But I´d like to have more than an additional 1/3 of artillery. Artillery was the biggest weak spot of Italian divisions. They had two dozen 75mm guns and one dozen 100mm guns, while a UK division had six dozen 25pdrs.

I don´t know how much artillery the Italian industry had provided but it wasn´t enough for 80 regiments IOTL. Let´s say 60. That would give each of the 40 divisions 1.5 artillery regiments, a 50% increase. Now factor in that the Italian industry needs to make far less small arms than IOTL and they could have made more artillery guns. And you can always economize. Italy´s northern borders were well protected by high mountain ranges. They could have been defended by divisions with less than average artillery and last but not least there is always the poor man´s artillery: infantry mortars.

That way you should be able to get at least ten triangular divisions with the same level of firepower as an allied division.
 
Yet they could have had less.

Sometime in the early 30´s they decided to go from 30 triangular to 80 binary infantry divisions. That meant an increase of 70 infantry regiments(+77%) and 50 artillery regiments(+166%). Producing that much additional weapons and equipment was simply beyond Italy´s capability.

If Italy had added another ten triangular divisions only a 1/3 increase in infantry/artillery regiments and weapons for them would have been required. But I´d like to have more than an additional 1/3 of artillery. Artillery was the biggest weak spot of Italian divisions. They had two dozen 75mm guns and one dozen 100mm guns, while a UK division had six dozen 25pdrs.

I don´t know how much artillery the Italian industry had provided but it wasn´t enough for 80 regiments IOTL. Let´s say 60. That would give each of the 40 divisions 1.5 artillery regiments, a 50% increase. Now factor in that the Italian industry needs to make far less small arms than IOTL and they could have made more artillery guns. And you can always economize. Italy´s northern borders were well protected by high mountain ranges. They could have been defended by divisions with less than average artillery and last but not least there is always the poor man´s artillery: infantry mortars.

That way you should be able to get at least ten triangular divisions with the same level of firepower as an allied division.

Well no adventure in Spain and Ethiopia mean a lot more resource for the armed forces, Benny really was a big spender, and even a lot of the mountain of material left in spain was obsolete it costed at lest 6 billion of lire a enourmous sum for the italian state and it's better not talking of the Ethiopian war, basically we conquered a guerrilla infested land with little worth. So with lot of more money and material (even if alot is not of prime choice) it will be possible give more weapon to the reformed division, if the reform still happen (it was due more for political reason than for pratical)
 
Italy was always more inclined to the western powers. While there was anger from their "betrayal" by not giving them the whole dalmatian coast in WW1, Italians, especially after the Albanian disasters, thought they were fighting on the wrong side of the war. Many of them felt that the Allies were closer and more trustable than Germany, and this obviously proved itself correct when Germany deported large amounts of Italian soldiers and occupied Italy.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Luke Dalton and Markus make worthwhile points.

If you wish to take a little more long-view PoD, a good way to make sure Itay gets serious about its WWII committments, notwithstanding the political leadership, is to make Italy side with the CP in WWI, but make the CP lose (say due to early US intervention for the Entente). Peace treaty losses would not harm Italy overmuch (most likely akin to OTL 1947, plus Aosta at worst), it would be able to rearm when Germany does, Germany would be seen as natural ally, the divisive presence of Ausitra-Hungary would still be gone, and there would be a rather stronger national committment to revanchism, which would easily ensure better military preparation for a rematch. During the rearmament, the Italian Army would be rebuilt from scratch with innovative weapons and tactics. Of course, it would be a different strategic role of Italy in WWII, since there would be no African colonies and a Navy as small as the German one (although quite possibly rebuilt in a more innovative way, like the Japanese did), and war effort would be more land-oriented, say a successful Italian invasion of Yugoslavia while Germany is offing Poland, then an effective combined Italo-German effort against France.
 
Was it Mussolini or just Italy in general who had been moving closer to Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria? Less for the symbolism of the Central Powers perhaps and more for the sake for having the Balkans as their hegemony. What where the "Albanian disasters" out of curiosuty? I havnt't heard of them. I certainly agree with the part on their anger at Dalmatia and the two Free Cities, while they may also have been annoyed at how they lost the chance for a sphereofinflucne/colony in Turkey. I have to agree to a certain extent about Yugoslavia, as I do believe they are partially responsible for the war by murdering an Austrian politician so that his planned positive policies to the Serbs would prevent them from their own empire. Along with them annexing their ally of Montenegro. Why did they even join the war on Serbia's side?
 
Luke Dalton and Markus make worthwhile points.

If you wish to take a little more long-view PoD, a good way to make sure Itay gets serious about its WWII committments, notwithstanding the political leadership, is to make Italy side with the CP in WWI, but make the CP lose (say due to early US intervention for the Entente). Peace treaty losses would not harm Italy overmuch (most likely akin to OTL 1947, plus Aosta at worst), it would be able to rearm when Germany does, Germany would be seen as natural ally, the divisive presence of Ausitra-Hungary would still be gone, and there would be a rather stronger national committment to revanchism, which would easily ensure better military preparation for a rematch. During the rearmament, the Italian Army would be rebuilt from scratch with innovative weapons and tactics. Of course, it would be a different strategic role of Italy in WWII, since there would be no African colonies and a Navy as small as the German one (although quite possibly rebuilt in a more innovative way, like the Japanese did), and war effort would be more land-oriented, say a successful Italian invasion of Yugoslavia while Germany is offing Poland, then an effective combined Italo-German effort against France.

Italy would not have Dalmatia, South Tyrol, or Istria. They would need to argue with the Germans over that, as Germany would still want to unify with Austria. You also need to remember that the alliance the Italians had with Austria-Hungary and Germany was a defensive one, and Austria and Germany were technically responisble due to their invasions. The Italians also feared the French and British shooting at them. However this would be very interesting as you would manage to get the Germans, Jews, Italians, Poles(?), and Italians of the American electorate on one side.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Italy would not have Dalmatia, South Tyrol, or Istria. They would need to argue with the Germans over that, as Germany would still want to unify with Austria.

Are you speaking about German-Italian interwar irredentist claims or the price that Italy would ask from Austria to side with the CP in WWI ? From your last line, it seems the former. Well, in that case, sure, Italy would likely not have South Tyrol (most likely, the Entente awards it to Austria) but then it would not be a serious issue of contrast between Germany and Italy. It was never seen as a serious irredentist claim by Italy, mainly an issue of strategic security. If Germany is seen as a long-standing ally, the strategic issue becomes much less meaningful. As far as Italy is concerned, Germany can have Austria and South Tyrol if it backs Italian claims on Yugoslavia. There were no meaningful interwar German irredentist claims on Dalmatia or Istria whatsoever.

You also need to remember that the alliance the Italians had with Austria-Hungary and Germany was a defensive one, and Austria and Germany were technically responisble due to their invasions.

True, but something like Austria accepting to cede Trento (not South Tyrol), Gorizia-Gradisca (not Trieste) and optionally at most perhaps a western Istria exclave (none of such cessions harming Austria in any significant way), plus a solid German guarantee about fulfillment of Italian irredentist claims on France at the peace table (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia) may get Italy on the CP boat.
 
Was it Mussolini or just Italy in general who had been moving closer to Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria? Less for the symbolism of the Central Powers perhaps and more for the sake for having the Balkans as their hegemony. What where the "Albanian disasters" out of curiosuty? I havnt't heard of them. I certainly agree with the part on their anger at Dalmatia and the two Free Cities, while they may also have been annoyed at how they lost the chance for a sphereofinflucne/colony in Turkey. I have to agree to a certain extent about Yugoslavia, as I do believe they are partially responsible for the war by murdering an Austrian politician so that his planned positive policies to the Serbs would prevent them from their own empire. Along with them annexing their ally of Montenegro. Why did they even join the war on Serbia's side?

During the CP period Italy was close to Germany, there were lot of German investment in the penisula and they were respected the problem were with A-H (we declared war on Germany only in 1916) and even after there were close relations. Bulgaria and Hungary were intended as ally against Yugoslavia (basically to pile up and divide the spoil). Italy join the war for the lavish promise of Britain and France not to help Serbia (who was seen as a rival for balkan influence) and even during the conflict the relations between Rome and Belgrade were frosty, a planned offensive was aborted because the two command were not talking with each other.
 
True, but something like Austria accepting to cede Trento (not South Tyrol), Gorizia-Gradisca (not Trieste) and optionally at most perhaps a western Istria exclave (none of such cessions harming Austria in any significant way), plus a solid German guarantee about fulfillment of Italian irredentist claims on France at the peace table (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia) may get Italy on the CP boat.

Only if the entire Austro-Hungary leadership is stroke by a lighting and suddenly become reasonable and logical
 
What if? What if Mussolini never gained power in Italy, But Italy still supported Hitler? Perhaps they would have given their soldiers more time to prepare, and had a half-decent army?

Really difficult. Pratically impossible.

Had Vittorio Emanuele ordered to the the army to wipe out the fascist rabble, probably Italy would have had a conservative goverment for several years, bent on solving the economic problems (good luck!). There wouldn't have been any military adventure. Probably there would have been a lot of less spending for the army than OTL. So in the end the italian army could be even worse ITTL.

As for getting into an alliance with Hitler, you should craft a situation where Italy has everything to gain and nothing to loose standing with the germans. Not easy, if you consider that even OTL the italian intervention was in doubt till the last moment.

True, but something like Austria accepting to cede Trento (not South Tyrol), Gorizia-Gradisca (not Trieste) and optionally at most perhaps a western Istria exclave (none of such cessions harming Austria in any significant way), plus a solid German guarantee about fulfillment of Italian irredentist claims on France at the peace table (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia) may get Italy on the CP boat.

It's not only a matter of "compensations". In order to have an Italy firmly entrenched into the CP's camp you have to:


  • Solve the diplomatic problems between Italy and A-H (a bit of common sense would have helped both of them a lot)
  • Get the economic war between Italy and France far worse than OTL.
  • Add some colonial troubles. For example France supporting Turkey during the Libyan war.
  • Make the french diplomats really dumb, since they were actively trying to separate Italy from Germany.
 
True, but something like Austria accepting to cede Trento (not South Tyrol), Gorizia-Gradisca (not Trieste) and optionally at most perhaps a western Istria exclave (none of such cessions harming Austria in any significant way), plus a solid German guarantee about fulfillment of Italian irredentist claims on France at the peace table (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia) may get Italy on the CP boat.

For the deleted part, I would have to say that South Tyrol had a strong symbolic value as it would have meant they had gotten the last of the flat lands up to the Alps. I dont see Italy being offered the lands exactly as payment for joining, though it could come into play. I recently found that Austria had been willing to give up Galicia to Russia if Germany agreed to call it quits early on, though the situation there would have been different due to the shere size of Russia. Plus even Prussia had found itself willing to give up a large chunk of Poland to Russia around the time of Napoleon's defeat.
Considering how the Hapsburgs had more or less abandonded or given up their possessesion in Parma, Lucca, Tuscany, I would say they could de willing to rid themselves of some people, just so long as it didn't start tipping things to a point where the Hungarians collectively outweighed everyone else. They also let Lombardy-Venetia go, with one given to the French with the understanding that they would give it to the Italians. The French got Nice and Savoy(though some say Italians say they did infact want to join France) in exchange for giving it up to Italy. I think the ITalians took Venetia afterwards anyways.
If the Italians were promised those lands during WWI then things would be shaken up a lot. The entire Balkans would have basically fallen to the Central Powers as there would be no distractions. Still the problem about Austri lacking a costline entirely. With the possible excpetion of that Bosnian port. What if the Austrians offered to put referendums in their territories, which the Slovenes and Croats wanting to stay with Austria, along with the assurance that no matter the results Austria got to keep Carinolia, Carinthia, the Hungarian-Croatian Coast, and the coast outside Montenegro? Still, not as if the Italians could offer much. They would go better asking for Albania and Crete. Not that it matters though it would mean that Italy itself would be broken up no doubt. More land to France, the islands both independent, independent Kingdoms set up...
 
Top