What if Italy's military had been successful during WWII?

[jasonsnow]

What if Italy's military had been top-grade during World War II and had been able to emerge victorious from its multiple campaigns? 

Let's day Mussolini's army and air force had actually been of excellent quality, almost as good as their German counterpart, and had been able to successfully invade the various targets they set up to obtain--but ultimately failed in OTL?

This means Italy is able to invade Greece in late 1940 without the need of Hitler's bailing. This would also mean success in the North African campaign, with Mussolini invading Egypt and Sudan without German assistance. How would this play out?

[jasonsnow]

This would mean the following:

-The Italian Tenth Army is not hampered by lack of organization, supplies and other management negative effects and launches as successful invasion against British-controlled Egypt in mid-August, 1940. The weak British force in Egypt is swiftly defeated, followed by a southern invasion from Abyssinia and Eritrea into Sudan, culminating in a joint assault into Cairo and the capture of the Suez Canal.

-An Italian, 160,000-strong invasion force takes the adequate precautions and is also equally prepared as their comrades in Africa and successfully launch a coordinated invasion of Greece from Italian-controlled Albania in October 1940. The Italians overtake the mountainous terrain and swiftly penetrate Greek territory, eliminating Greek resistance and speeding towards Athens, in a massive assault backed by the Navy and Air Force. The Aegean islands are soon taken over by naval forces, crushing the last of resistance by early 1941.

The Italians fight successfully alongside the Germans in almost every front, proving to be as versatile and as powerful as the Wehrmacht.

[lordroel]

Apr 6, 2018 18:13:45 GMT jasonsnow said:

What if Italy's military had been top-grade during World War II and had been able to emerge victorious from its multiple campaigns? 

Let's day Mussolini's army and air force had actually been of excellent quality, almost as good as their German counterpart, and had been able to successfully invade the various targets they set up to obtain--but ultimately failed in OTL?

This means Italy is able to invade Greece in late 1940 without the need of Hitler's bailing. This would also mean success in the North African campaign, with Mussolini invading Egypt and Sudan without German assistance. How would this play out?

Would that POD not have to begin before the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.

[jasonsnow]

Apr 6, 2018 18:48:08 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 6, 2018 18:13:45 GMT jasonsnow said:

What if Italy's military had been top-grade during World War II and had been able to emerge victorious from its multiple campaigns? 

Let's day Mussolini's army and air force had actually been of excellent quality, almost as good as their German counterpart, and had been able to successfully invade the various targets they set up to obtain--but ultimately failed in OTL?

This means Italy is able to invade Greece in late 1940 without the need of Hitler's bailing. This would also mean success in the North African campaign, with Mussolini invading Egypt and Sudan without German assistance. How would this play out?

Would that POD not have to begin before the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.

No need. Italy easily managed to defeat the Abyssinians, so there's no problem there. The real deal starts with the failed Greek campaign, which for many was an embarrassment and a turning point for Italy's fortunes. 

[lordroel]

Apr 6, 2018 18:50:09 GMT jasonsnow said:

Apr 6, 2018 18:48:08 GMT lordroel said:

Would that POD not have to begin before the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.

No need. Italy easily managed to defeat the Abyssinians, so there's no problem there. The real deal starts with the failed Greek campaign, which for many was an embarrassment and a turning point for Italy's fortunes. 

Well Italy did have some hardware that would be decent, might it be the leadership that is the problem.

[lukedalton]

Apr 6, 2018 18:48:08 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 6, 2018 18:13:45 GMT jasonsnow said:

What if Italy's military had been top-grade during World War II and had been able to emerge victorious from its multiple campaigns? 

Let's day Mussolini's army and air force had actually been of excellent quality, almost as good as their German counterpart, and had been able to successfully invade the various targets they set up to obtain--but ultimately failed in OTL?

This means Italy is able to invade Greece in late 1940 without the need of Hitler's bailing. This would also mean success in the North African campaign, with Mussolini invading Egypt and Sudan without German assistance. How would this play out?

Would that POD not have to begin before the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.

Well no, the problem started with the invasion of Ethiopia (and following pacification and massive building project) and continued with the partecipation at the Spanish civil war...both this even not only teached at the italian military the wrong lesson but cost to the nation an enormous amount of money, and in that period Italy was a relatevely poor nation; so while the brass perfectely know that the army was lacking modern equipment and what had at the moment was scarce and of low quality...it lacked the resources to do something about.
Plus there is the fact that many  really thought that the war was already over and in the initial month when the British were at their Nadir nothing was really done or seriously planned (like operation C3 aka the invasion of Malta)

[James G]

The way I understand it, Italy went into the war expecting it to be over very soon and to gain spoils. They were unprepared. For example, so much Italian shipping overseas was interned because no forethought had been put into getting them home.
That is just one extreme example of the bad position Italy was in to fight a war in 1940. The root causes go further back and are far deeper.
Tech, training, supplies and money can make up for a lot - if Italy had any of that - but the strategic decision-making at the top was a disaster.
Remember what Mussolini did with Egypt? Declared war on the UK, invaded Italy and had his troops dig-in just inside the border sitting there saying 'attack me, please'. How stupid do you have to be!?

[stevep]

I would agree with Luke and James. In no way was Italy prepared for war in June 1940 and even if it had been delayed until ~42/43 when Mussolini was planning for a conflict I doubt they would have done that much better. Between the weak economy, the corruption and incompetence of the fascist leaderships and the poor quality of the Italian officer corp I suspect Italy would have improved its strength markedly less effectively than the other great powers in Europe. Despite all Mussolini's bluster there doesn't seem to have been any appetite for war in Italy, even less than the other powers.

[jasonsnow]

Apr 6, 2018 22:03:18 GMT stevep said:

I would agree with Luke and James. In no way was Italy prepared for war in June 1940 and even if it had been delayed until ~42/43 when Mussolini was planning for a conflict I doubt they would have done that much better. Between the weak economy, the corruption and incompetence of the fascist leaderships and the poor quality of the Italian officer corp I suspect Italy would have improved its strength markedly less effectively than the other great powers in Europe. Despite all Mussolini's bluster there doesn't seem to have been any appetite for war in Italy, even less than the other powers.

Indeed. Mussolini was as smart as his army was unprepared, militarily. Mussolini may be able to awaken Italian nationalism, but he was a terrible military leader. In many ways Italy's inefficiency actually harmed Germany, who consistently had to bail Italy out using vital resources and manpower, involving Hitler in a North African campaign (where the Germans had no ambitions previous to the Italian fiasco) and eventually opening a third front of defense, which soaked Germany's forces and hindered the advance on the Soviet Union.

However, for the sake of this TL, let's say Italy was sufficiently prepared for war and had Germany's ability to wage war, or at least 75% of Germany's power. What then? Can we see a victorious Hitler claiming victory over the USSR, or just a prolongation of the war itself?

[Deleted]

Italy wasn't an industrialised country, in the same sense that Germany or Britain was. It was a poor, rural country. Italy's small industry was unwilling to make sacrifices to support a military campaign that by mid-1941 had failed at in Greece, Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cape Matapan.

[jasonsnow]

Apr 6, 2018 23:15:39 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Italy wasn't an industrialised country, in the same sense that Germany or Britain was. It was a poor, rural country. Italy's small industry was unwilling to make sacrifices to support a military campaign that by mid-1941 had failed at in Greece, Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cape Matapan.

Gonna stop you right there, my friend. Italy may not compare to her fellow combatants but it wasn't in any way "poor" or "rural". It is true Italy faced poverty issues, and unemployment was at around 1 million by 1933. 0.5% of the population owned over 42% of all agricultural land, proving to be a serious issue and a major factor for inequality. 

However, Italy was not poor. In the 1930's Italy achieved wheat self-sufficiency through intense investment in wheat production, freeing Italy from acquiring what from the US and Canada, a major factor for Italy's future war efforts and an important economic breakthrough. 

Italy's industrial growth from 1913 to 1938 overpassed even that of Germany. Only Britain and Scandinavia's industrial growth overpassed Italy's. That's enormous, considering Germany was mainland Europe's most powerful nation in the late 30's. Italy was a true superpower, regardless of its own internal issues. It had a powerful economy and judging its military failures to deduct Italy's industrialization is like comparing somebody's hair color to deduct their ability to run. It's incompatible. 

Italy was industrialized similarly to modern Poland. It was a great economy and, at least initially, an obvious choice as an ally for Hitler.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2018 23:53:18 GMT jasonsnow said:

Italy's industrial growth from 1913 to 1938 overpassed even that of Germany. Only Britain and Scandinavia's industrial growth overpassed Italy's. That's enormous, considering Germany was mainland Europe's most powerful nation in the late 30's.

It would have to overtake Germany, and Britain, because of the low base it was starting from.

When you have a philosophy of productivism that outcome is highly likely.

Italy still lacked war-making capacity, natural resources and a competent officer class.

[stevep]

Apr 6, 2018 23:53:18 GMT jasonsnow said:

Apr 6, 2018 23:15:39 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Italy wasn't an industrialised country, in the same sense that Germany or Britain was. It was a poor, rural country. Italy's small industry was unwilling to make sacrifices to support a military campaign that by mid-1941 had failed at in Greece, Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cape Matapan.

Gonna stop you right there, my friend. Italy may not compare to her fellow combatants but it wasn't in any way "poor" or "rural". It is true Italy faced poverty issues, and unemployment was at around 1 million by 1933. 0.5% of the population owned over 42% of all agricultural land, proving to be a serious issue and a major factor for inequality. 

However, Italy was not poor. In the 1930's Italy achieved wheat self-sufficiency through intense investment in wheat production, freeing Italy from acquiring what from the US and Canada, a major factor for Italy's future war efforts and an important economic breakthrough. 

Italy's industrial growth from 1913 to 1938 overpassed even that of Germany. Only Britain and Scandinavia's industrial growth overpassed Italy's. That's enormous, considering Germany was mainland Europe's most powerful nation in the late 30's. Italy was a true superpower, regardless of its own internal issues. It had a powerful economy and judging its military failures to deduct Italy's industrialization is like comparing somebody's hair color to deduct their ability to run. It's incompatible. 

Italy was industrialized similarly to modern Poland. It was a great economy and, at least initially, an obvious choice as an ally for Hitler.

  As vH says Italy was starting from a much lower starting point so its easier making x% increase in total production.  Also note those dates.  Germany was far more heavily involved in WWI, as was Britain, in terms of the economic costs.  Germany then suffered the loss of a fair amount of territory, in the east north and west and went through a pretty rough time, with their self-generated hyper-inflation resulting in the Franco-Belgium occupation of the Ruhr, then a very deep depression after 29 and Nazi mis-management after 33.  Britain similarly had a number of problems so I'm rather impressed with its performance here.  Especially since Britain clung to free-trade until ~31 and a large degree of laissez faire policy afterwards until the war. 

  Germany was Europe's most powerful [in industrial terms which I assume is what you mean?] nation in 13 and quite possibly again in 38, at least west of the Soviet empire.  However its growth rate definitely suffered from what it went through during those 15 years.  Italy suffered a lot of casualties in WWI but I think proportionally less than the other great powers of Europe and had relative peace after that.  Even without starting from a much lower base it would be expected that Italy would gain in proportion compared to say Germany, Britain or France.

[jasonsnow]

Apr 7, 2018 11:53:55 GMT stevep said:

Apr 6, 2018 23:53:18 GMT jasonsnow said:

Gonna stop you right there, my friend. Italy may not compare to her fellow combatants but it wasn't in any way "poor" or "rural". It is true Italy faced poverty issues, and unemployment was at around 1 million by 1933. 0.5% of the population owned over 42% of all agricultural land, proving to be a serious issue and a major factor for inequality. 

However, Italy was not poor. In the 1930's Italy achieved wheat self-sufficiency through intense investment in wheat production, freeing Italy from acquiring what from the US and Canada, a major factor for Italy's future war efforts and an important economic breakthrough. 

Italy's industrial growth from 1913 to 1938 overpassed even that of Germany. Only Britain and Scandinavia's industrial growth overpassed Italy's. That's enormous, considering Germany was mainland Europe's most powerful nation in the late 30's. Italy was a true superpower, regardless of its own internal issues. It had a powerful economy and judging its military failures to deduct Italy's industrialization is like comparing somebody's hair color to deduct their ability to run. It's incompatible. 

Italy was industrialized similarly to modern Poland. It was a great economy and, at least initially, an obvious choice as an ally for Hitler.

  As vH says Italy was starting from a much lower starting point so its easier making x% increase in total production.  Also note those dates.  Germany was far more heavily involved in WWI, as was Britain, in terms of the economic costs.  Germany then suffered the loss of a fair amount of territory, in the east north and west and went through a pretty rough time, with their self-generated hyper-inflation resulting in the Franco-Belgium occupation of the Ruhr, then a very deep depression after 29 and Nazi mis-management after 33.  Britain similarly had a number of problems so I'm rather impressed with its performance here.  Especially since Britain clung to free-trade until ~31 and a large degree of laissez faire policy afterwards until the war. 

  Germany was Europe's most powerful [in industrial terms which I assume is what you mean?] nation in 13 and quite possibly again in 38, at least west of the Soviet empire.  However its growth rate definitely suffered from what it went through during those 15 years.  Italy suffered a lot of casualties in WWI but I think proportionally less than the other great powers of Europe and had relative peace after that.  Even without starting from a much lower base it would be expected that Italy would gain in proportion compared to say Germany, Britain or France.

My point is, assuming Italy was in any way poor would be an unfair assumption. No matter how proportionate your growth is, it is raw proof Italian industry was accelerating, something that, well, can't happen if you're poor. Italy fared the Great Depression better than most others, something that is remarkable nevertheless. If you add in a little bit of more German-like way of thinking, you're on the right path to something much bigger than OTL fascist Italy.

[Deleted]

Apr 7, 2018 14:48:33 GMT jasonsnow said:

]My point is, assuming Italy was in any way poor would be an unfair assumption. No matter how proportionate your growth is, it is raw proof Italian industry was accelerating, something that, well, can't happen if you're poor.

But only accelerating slowly... Agriculture still employed 48% of the working population in 1936, and in 1921 24% of the working population were involved in industry, and by 1936 this had risen to the giddy height of 28% by 1936.

Apr 7, 2018 14:48:33 GMT jasonsnow said:

Italy fared the Great Depression better than most others, something that is remarkable nevertheless.

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state–ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union where the Italian state controlled most Italy’s shipping and shipbuilding, just under half that of steel production.

Italy made 44,000 cars in 1936. Opel in Germany alone made 150,000.

It certainly wasn't the target for US investments the way Britain and Nazi Germany was - where was the Italian equivalent of Opel or AEG?