Wacky WWII hypothetical - Italy sits it out.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Reading about the horror show that was the Italian front in WWII and the hellish fighting that the ‘D-Day Dodgers’ went through, at Anzio and Monte Cassino among other places.

But what if all of it had been avoided? What if Il Duce had more foresight rather than trying to cash out by jumping in what he thought was the winning side in a short conflict, playing vulture to Germany’s lion and France’s fallen gazelle?

So let’s say that one night in early 1940 while Mussolini is pondering Italian entry in the war he is visited by Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan who shows him an incredibly vivid dream of things to come if war comes to Italy, dragged out of a car on a backroad, put against a villa wall and riddled with submachine gun fire then strung up upside down, as is tradition for infamous hangings, from a half-built gas station in Milan before having his remains mutilated and spat on.

After changing his drawers Mussolini instantly commits Italy to strict neutrality at all costs. What are the effects on the wider war? Obviously the Italians have it a lot better, with no war raging up the Italian peninsula and no bombs dropped on their heads, no sons sent to their deaths.

Another obvious massive change - no North African campaign, no reason to fight through Italian Libya. The effects of this I think would be enormous for the British, who after Dunkirk as Churchill knew there was no chance of engaging Germany in France. Without North Africa providing a fair opportunity of engaging the Axis and walking away victorious, where do they fight? Perhaps Churchill steps up the Norway raids, but they were a bit of a debacle as it was so I don’t know there would be much chance of turning the tide there, likewise it suffers from the big problem in invading the continent - no landing craft.

Another theatre favoured by Churchill was the Balkans, so maybe the British put up a better fight in Greece with no desert to fight in. Problem is it would be a lot easier for the Germans to take care of logistic problems than it would be to ship men and materiel across the Med. It would also free the Germans of the obligation of propping up their faltering Allies, so they have the 10th and 14th Armies to deploy somewhere else, not to mention one of their most capable generals, Kesselring.

But that’s just me spitballing, please correct me if I’m wrong on what we could expect the impact to be on the war if Italy did what Spain did - wisely waited the whole mess out?

2

I can’t see much of a difference. The resources used to fight in Italy and North Africa would be committed to the mainland. Both theatres were a sideshow compared to the main event in Russia and (later) Normandy. Knowing Hitler, he probably just would have tossed those extra divisions into the Barbarossa meat grinder.

3

I think the war would have been over quicker. While the Italians may not have been on par with the Germans, they did represent a large army that would have been missing from Axis efforts in the Soviet Union. And without the diversion of the Mediterranean Theater, there probably would have been an Anglo-American cross-channel invasion in 1943.

Mussolini would see which way the wind was blowing and would declare war on Germany in the final months of the war. Italy would go on to become a founding member of NATO. Mussolini would live a long life and Chevy Chase would make jokes about him after he died.

4

This sounds like something you could simulate pretty well in Hearts of Iron IV - play Italy and stay out of trouble. Would result in a boring game for the player but possibly interesting alternative history.

5

Yeah, extremely unlikely. The Pact of Steel committed Italy to war alongside Germany and the Italians stayed out of it in Sep 1939 since they were not yet ready.

There is little chance of the Germans allowing Italy to remain neutral for long.

6

Another effect of Italy’s participation was less of the British fleet available to try to deter the Japanese or contest their early conquests. And along with that were British Empire land and air forces, for example those of Australia/NZ, heavily committed to the Mideast that would also have been available in the Far East. It’s hard to say if that would have definitively changed Japan’s plans or success but would have been a noticeable difference: the weakness of British forces in the Far East in 1941-2 was more a function of forces committed to the Mideast than just what was required to hold the British Isles, fight the U-boat war and contain the small German surface fleet.

7

Australia and NZ manpower was high quality, but too small to effect much. The Empires contribution to the War against Japan was always going to rest most heavily on (as it did in real life) the British Indian Army.

The Indian Army which garrisoned Persia and Iraq (5 divisions) alone was larger than the entire AUS NZ land forces combined.

8

The Italian campaign really never amounted to anything except to train the allies on how this war was going to be fought and waste a lot of men and material. By that I mean taking italy didn’t serve any strategic purpose that made Hitler easier to conquer. (nobody was going to cross the alps to get to Germany)

9

I believe Italian participation on the Eastern Front materially weakened Germany – under-armed and ill-prepared Italian forces collapsed at the beginning of Zhukov’s Stalingrad counteroffensive, leading to the German 6th Army being surrounded, a blow from which Hitler himself admitted he never recovered.

Sure, the Germans would have been in desperate straits even without the Italians, but I think the availability of the Italians led the Germans to fool themselves and perhaps take risks they otherwise wouldn’t have.

On the flip side, the Anglo-American offensive up the Italian peninsula was entirely to Germany’s advantage. The Allies attacked at the strongest and most-in-depth possible defensive position, suffering terrible losses and enduring great delays, for the golden prize of…what? Knocking a by-then-militarily-inert Italy out of the war? One look at the terrain should have persuaded anyone on the Allied side not to do that.

10

Or what? Would Germany waste resources invading Italy? Conquer the Po valley and leave the rest?

While promises are nice, unless there’s a will to follow through, or credible threat to enforce them, they’re not worth much.

How did Mussolini and Franco get along? Perhaps with a little Spanish encouragement, Italy could’ve taken the neutral approach as well.

11

Yes good point but I was also thinking of air units where there were some experienced Australian one in the ME (though in fairness, because there was a ME theater for them to gain experience). In the Far East and Australia itself there were just a few combat useful RAAF light bomber (Hudson) units, and essentially zero fighter strength (the Wirraway was only a credible fighter under an assumption of low capability of Japanese fighter units which proved delusional). In the key air/sea/land, island/peripheral campaigns in Pacific large numbers of infantry divisions weren’t the constraint (relatively little of the large Japanese Army was used in them either). Air superiority was to allow sea operations and one needed the ships to get the troops there, which might as well be highest quality since there couldn’t be many of them.

But you’re right about the one largely continental campaign involving the British in the Pacific War: Burma/India. In that case numerous additional infantry divisions could have been employed if available, assuming also the logistical set up support them by ocean from Britain to India as far as military equipment (easier with no Italian foe in Med), from within India for food etc, and to move all the stuff over land within India and into Burma. And that would have been mainly the Indian Army, true.

The Malaya/Singapore campaign was technically fought mostly on the Asian mainland, but functionally more like an island campaign from the start.

12

The Germans would have been able to invade 15 May , instead of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) if it hadnt been for the Balkans. It’s *just possible *that another month of attacks before winter set in would have caused the Soviets to collapse. John Keegan thinks this.

*Importance

It does seem they could have launched the invasion in late May or early June. Military historians generally agree that given a few more weeks of good weather that the Germans could have taken Moscow which would not only have been of propaganda importance, but was a critical communications center. *

13

It means that the air attack by the British at Taranto would not have occurred.

It was this successful engagement that caused the Japanese to formulate an air attack on Pearl Harbour. Would this have prevented the Pearl harbour attack? Maybe not but there is a chance that the attack on the US fleet would have been significantly different.

What is known is that the Japanese closely scrutinised this attack, sent military delegates to Italy to find out more.

14

Eh, what’s a little pact breaking between friends?

15

What about the European theater? Wouldn’t a freer Med allow for another avenue of attack (a land invasion in the south of France)? Granted, it’d be logistically more difficult and harder to disguise, but still doable.

16

It might be tough if Italy was neutral. You’d have to use Algeria as your supply base and source of air support.

17

Hmm, interesting point.

18

So what would have happened if Italy had joined the Allies? The Stressa Front doesn’t break down, the press doesn’t discover the Hoare-Laval agreement, and Britain, France, and Italy all agree to take a stand against German expansionism.

19

Ernest Borngine wouldn’t have gotten to play a duel role when the McHale’s Navy gang moved to the European theater.

20

It could have happened. There were anti-communists in London and Paris (including Churchill) who admired Mussolini in the early days. And when Hitler originally tried to annex Austria in 1934, it was Mussolini who made him back down with threats of war.