How much did Italy produce for the Axis in WWII? Was it a strongly significant amount? That’s what I’ve heard but all searches on the web for info about Italy’s production power in WWII is fruitless. Thanks.
Not sure production wise, but in most other ways Italy seemed a negative asset to the Axis - it had to be bailed out by Germany in North Africa and Greece, tying up precious troops and possibly fatally delaying Hitlers assault on Russia. Its equipment was markedly inferior, so even if it produced lots of it it probably didn’t matter. My guess is that only food was a useful commodity - and I am not sure how much went north
If you can find a copy of World War II: A Statistical Survey by John Ellis at your local library, you can get all sorts of economic stats for Italy and the other principal participants in WWII.
There are many different tables with different stats. For the most part, Italy didn’t produce a lot of materiel needed for the war. The Germans and Japanese produced the lion’s share for the Axis.
In 1937 there was a study of different raw materials and foodstuffs that major countries had on hand. You could be rated anywhere from Surplus to Deficient.
Italy only had a surplus of bauxite, sulphur, and rice. It was rated “self-sufficient” in Lead, zinc, maize, potatoes, and sugar.
Italy was rated “deficient” in a lot of categories, most notably oil, coal, and rubber.
Unfortunately, I can’t figure out who did this particular study in 1937.
William Shirer addressed this in The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich. Apparently, Hitler supplied nealy all the war production during World War II. In 1938, Mussolini estimated Italy’s industrial base would be sufficient to wage war with Britain and France by 1947, IIRC. He may have been exaggerating, though, as a way of discouraging Hitler’s adventurism.
I think Dirty Little Secrets of WWII has production figures, and it’s a fun read for WW2 information. Overall, Italy was heavily subsidsed by Germany but did produce more than she took in. IMO Italy was pretty much a ‘breakeven’ for Germany, though a neutral Italy would stand a good chance of going non-neutral late in the war, which would probably have caused Germany problems.
Also SCM1001, the Balkan adventures didn’t significantly delay the start of Barbarossa - there was heavy flooding in the Rivers in central Russia/Poland which didn’t clear up until June, so at most Barbarossa could have been started a week eariler.
Interesting. Surely, Italy’s value was in denying territory to the Allies - worth subsidizing from Germany’s point of view.