Mussolini / Italy stayed neutral?

If Mussolini had followed Franco's policy of staying out of WW2 would there have been a Mediterranean campaign? Most Italians did not want to enter WW2, particularly once the US entered the war. This was a very rash decision of Mussolini's. Would the European campaign in WW2 have remained simpler? Would a second front have opened up in 1943 in western or southern France rather than in Italy? Could the Royal Navy have focussed more on protecting the Atlantic convoys? Could the British/commonwealth army have been better rearmed for 43 and 44? Alternatively, could the Russian campaign have gone better without Italy as an ally - did the Balkan /Mediterranean campaign prove too big a distraction for the German military from the eastern campaign?

 

That actually poses some very interesting "what-if's" in it.
With no Mediterranian campaign the British could have sent more units to the Far East. What if Singapore doesn't fall, the Japanese invasion fails? Force Z manages to intercept the Japanese invasion fleet because a carrier or two was available for air cover and the invasion force is crippled at sea and overpowered on land.

Britain is faced with only the immediate possiblity of an air campaign as a means of carrying the war to Germany.

It also changes the Eastern front as well. Italian forces there are no longer available (such as they were). If Germany doesn't invade the Balkans due to Italian involvement in Greece (let's say Mussolini stays home and doesn't invade allowing the British to interviene) the mass of troops garrisoning those areas is now available for use in the East or as garrisons in the West.

 

Very good thread!

That was precisely what Mussolini should have done, but I really do not think that a gambler and a person as ambitious as Mussolini would have wasted oportunities like taking a part of France in 1940 or a part of the German Empire later on... Nor I think Hitler would have allowed his servant, Italy to remain out of the war for too long.

But in case that would have happened, Great Britain would have had a more powerful fleet and air support in the Middle East and the Atlantic, as well as Germany would have had more resources for the war in the east. It would have caused many significant changes in the war.

 

I recomment the excellent book 'Hitler's Italian Allies', by my thesis supervisor, Prof MacGregor Knox.

Italy was a huge net drain on Germany, who had to provide it with raw materiels and equipment, in particular coal and armour.

Without Italy Germany could not have challenged for control of the Med, except in the specific region of near Greece and the South of France. But on has to assume that Italy, like Spain, would have been a friendly neutral, allowing port of call for German UBoats and ships. North Africa would never have become a major theatre of war.

Though Hitler would have had fewer Italian troops in Russia (There might have ben a few Volunteers, just as there were a few Spanish volunteers) he would have had signifiantly more resources and equipment at his disposal, and would not have suffered that vast cost of transferring troops, aircraft and armour to North Africa at the height of the battles of 1943.

It is unlikely that the additional forces would have made much difference in 1943, but in late 1943 and 1944 Hitler would not have had either a North African or Italian front draining his resources, allowing for a more effective and prolonged resistance in east and West.

 

19 experienced and veteran divisions that defended Sicily and later Italy from 1943 onwards would have been a little help for the Germans, not without mentioning the 12 or so divisions lost in North Africa in 1943 and equippment of a whole Air Fleet.

Now, without having to invade the Balcans and Vichy France, a large number of experienced and some other filthy ones would have been available too, totallising some 30 divisions more, I think.

So, Italy not taking part in WWII would have given Germany an extra Air Fleet and some 61 divisions to be used in the western or eastern fronts. Much more valuable than the 20 Italian divisions which fought in the east...

 

Had Italy remained neutral, would Germany have been more successful on the eastern front in 42/early 43 with the additional resources available and concentrated focus? Would the allies - without the distraction of North Africa/mediterranean/Southern Europe - have been able to embark on an invasion of western France in '43 to relieve Russia of pressure? If so, could the war have ended in '44 with the western allies arriving first in Berlin rather than in '45 with the Russians arriving first? This would have had a dramatic impact on the post war outcome of the war.

Regarding the U boat war, without the mediterranean the Allies would have had more ships to defend Atlantic convoys.

I am not sure what would have been the impact in the Pacific/Far east but perhaps Pearl Harbour may not have happened as this was based on the successful British attack air attack on the Italian navy at Salerno, which would not have happened if Italy had not entered the war!

 

Unlikely. While some more forces would have been available, there were simply not that many troops allocated to those regions in 1942, not when compared to the vast army which moved against the USSR. Looking at how things progresses, it would have taken significantly more mapower, and materiel to make any kind of serious difference on the Eastern Front. By the time huge forces WERE deployed in Italy/NA, the war in the east was already a lost cause, it just took a while for the Germans to realise it.

No. keep in mind the allies chose to go into Italy and the Med primarily because they realised an Atlantic landing was not feasable in 1943. Fllowing that decision, and under pressure from Churchill, who favoured the less risky Southern strategy, the allies went to the Med.
ps to defend Atlantic convoys.

Now THAT is an interesting idea I had not considered, you are correct that it was the attack against Italy (Taranto, not Salerno I believe) that demonstrated that arial torpedo attacks were possible against ships in a shallow harbour, and allowed the Japanes eto make the necessary modifications to their torpedoes. I wonder if, failing a reasonable chance at PH, the Japanese would have reverted to their original strategy of luring the US fleet across the pacific into a major confrontation? At that point, Battleships would have remained the staple of both fleets for several more years, dramatuically changing the face of naval war in the Pacific...

 

Very good posts, gentlemen!

I only wanted to point out that those 61 divisions available without a MTO would have helped the German war effort, if not substantially enough to change the tide of the war in the east. But 61 divisions are 61 divisions with all their equippment and an air fleet! Which remainds me that all those transport aeroplanes lost in Crete and as transports in North Africa would have been of great help in the eastern front. Again, not enough to win the war. To do so, it would have been necesary not 61, but 261 divisions and three more air fleets. But as Napoléon said: "I can't manufacture troops!"

And I never thought about Taranto raid either... The lack of it would have had an important impact on the PTO. Supossing that the Japanese wouldn't have come with the idea themselves...

But a major fleet versus fleet battle would have happened most likely. A Jutland in the Pacific which would fascinate all battleship buffs. But I think that the aircraft carriers would have been the ones to turn the tide of that battle.

 

Gentlemen, even though I agree with your point of view in general, it seems a little *too* lopsided to the disadvantage of Italy.

Even though Italy performed poorly, very poorly, in this war (law of averages ), the war in Africa did not only cost the Germans casualties. The British troops lost there would have been engaged the Germans anywhen, anywhere else... maybe as supply troops in Russia... maybe in an invasion attempt... anyway the British would have resupplied with American help...

Further, it was not destination for the Italians to lose. Anyone with better qualification than Graziani would maybe have defeated the British without German help.

 

I am not sure of that. The only advantage the Italians had in the Mediterranean was numerical superiority - in air, sea and land - but there was the most severe problem that can affect any armed forces and made them useless. And that is bad leadership. And I am not only talking about senior officers, but the average regimental and division commanders did not have experience or nerves enough to fight a war. Most military posts in fascist Italy were granted because of political or financial (bribes) help. Men got into the armed forces because they didn't do much and they had big salaries. You can add this a dumb supreme commander as was Mussolini, who unlike Hitler didn't had any idea of what a war was. Not to mention corruption inside many of Italy's weaponry factories.

Whether Italian junior COs, NCOs and soldiers were brave - which they were - they were poorly tarined and leaded because the Italian military forces had been invaded by fascist chancer and corruption.

Even if in Libia there were 350.000 Italians fighting 33.000 British and dominion troops, there couldn't have been a great victory precisely because of Italy's caothical and corrupt chain of command. The equippment of Italian armed forces in almost every case was very bad and with that chaos, they couldn't have overcome the logistical problems in North Africa.

 

Again, I refer you to 'Hitler's Italian Allies', I cited above. Actually, Itally pretty much was destined to lose. Apart from terrible leadership, they also had very poor training and appauling equipment.

Early war Italian aircraft had a habit of falling out of the sky at Random (thats How Mussolini's son died).

Early war Italian tanks were rivited together an appaulingly bad idea, which caused them to disassemble whenever struck by a hard impact, even if the hit did not penetrate.

Early war Italian AT weapons could not penetrate drywall.

Early war Italian ships were good, but with terrible gunnery optics, and of course in a famous decision the Italian high command refused to consider putting radar on their ships, as they felt it would serve no purpose whatsoever.

There were no trucks, no jeep-type vehicles, few transport aircraft (they too tended to randomly plummet to earth) and no resources for the troops.

Italy was a logistical nightmare, with poor organisation and no strategic vision. They lost against Greece, and they were most certainly destined to lose against Britain, given time.

[ 05. December 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Vermillion ]

 

Hmmm, ok, this sounds pretty convincing, even though... a 10:1 superiority, this is no sh*t. Neither were the British fully equipped when Italy started attacks.

So was the Czech TNHP tank, which served the Germans very well in Poland and also France. But of course, being riveted was not the only fault of these rolling trash cans...

 

Thanks Vermillion for the info on Italian militeria - Italy really should have stayed out of WW2!!!!

 

Some interesting data:

From Wikipedia

One might not consider Italian industry to have equalled more than 15% of what was seen in France or Britain should one compare the number of automobiles in Italy (~372,000) to those of Britain and France (~2,500,000) ( at the start of the war? ). The lack of a stronger automotive industry made it difficult for Italy to mechanize its military.

Bierman and Smith state (p. 13-14) that the Italian regular army could field only ~200,000 troops at the start of WWII. They estimate the Regia Aeronautica could field ~1,760 aircraft, of which only 900 are considered to be "front-line machines".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_military_history_of_World_War_II

-----------

The British commander in Africa, General Wavell, was correct in arguing that Mussolini's pride would ultimately cause him to enter the war. Wavell would compare Mussolini's situation to that of someone at the top of a diving board, "I think he must do something. If he cannot make a graceful dive he will at least have to jump in somehow; he can hardly put on his dressing-gown and walk down the stairs again."

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Italian-military-history-of-World-War-II

Some Italian formations were excellent, particularly the alpine and Bersaglieri regiments ( not to forget the Decima MAS ), but the bulk of the infantry, who were badly paid, fed, and cared for, had no heart in the war, which they did not see as serving the country's interests.

http://www.expage.com/army14

 

The Regia Aeronautica could deploy some good quality and modern aircraft at the start of the war. Not to mention that the RAF in the Mediterranean in 1940 had even elder and more obsolete aircraft in use than the Regia Aeronautica and of course, had numerical inferiority of 15 to 1...

The Navy was quite amazing. But bad optics, lack of radar and bad admirals made it useless...

The infantry was almost all ill-equipped. Many still used rifles and carabines which dated of 1870. And many very good arms factories like Beretta had to low down their quality standards because of Mussolini's insistance of quantity at the cost of quality.

Italy's industrial base for WWII was even far worse prepared than the other countries'. Their poor performance is explained by this and fascist chaotic administration system.

 

To think Mussolini promised Italy would be ready for war if necessary 1942-43...No way by themselves anyway!

 

Like what? As far as I know ther only fighter the Italians ever deployed which was in any way semi-modern and of quality was the Mc205, deployed in 1943 near the end of the war for Italy. Before that, their aircraft were either antquated and obsoluere, biplanes, unservicable or more dangerous to the pilot than t the enemy.

 

Macchi 202 'Folgore' and even Fiat 50 were quite modern aeroplanes in 1940, if not very impressive. But certainly they could have very easily defeated 3 Gloster 'Gladiators' defending Malta...

 

According to my sources, the Mc202 indeed was an excellent fighter, modern, very fast and agile, even though weakly armed. But it did not see action before the end of '41. And still, it needed a German DB601 engine, as the Italians had no suitable motor. The improved Mc205 was basically an updated Mc202 with the advanced DB605 engine.

[ 06. December 2003, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

Knight, thanks for posting that about the Macchi 202. I wasn't sure of its introduction date. But I am sure that the Fiat 50 was available and even if it had a very weak armour and guns, some 20 of them could have performed quite nicely against Malta's and other British defences in June 1940, which were as ill-prepared for war as Italy's...