Italy Doesn't Enter World War II on the Side of the Axis

[futurist]

What if Italy doesn't enter World War II on the side of the Axis Powers in 1940?

How does World War II, Italy's fate, and the fate of Italy's various colonies develop after 1940 in this scenario?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[spanishspy]

The big thing is that the Germans don't get caught up in North Africa. That would mean more divisions available for both Germans and British in France.

If WWII ends roughly as OTL, Italy would probably be courted by the West a la Franco's Spain. Their colonies would last for a while but eventually be lost in Portugal-style colonial wars, in which they might go Communist.

[stevep]

Jun 19, 2016 4:56:10 GMT spanishspy said:

The big thing is that the Germans don't get caught up in North Africa. That would mean more divisions available for both Germans and British in France.

If WWII ends roughly as OTL, Italy would probably be courted by the West a la Franco's Spain. Their colonies would last for a while but eventually be lost in Portugal-style colonial wars, in which they might go Communist.

  I think this would be a much bigger bonus for Britain than for Germany as the latter deployed relatively minimal forces to N Africa until after the Torch landings.  Also it means that the Med isn't closed to British and allied shipping.  While there is the danger that those extra resources might be largely wasted, say by a larger bomber campaign or even earlier landings in N France but it would give Britain much more chance to say secure the Atlantic earlier and possibly to block the initial Japanese attacks in Malaya, which would greatly change the war in the Far East.

  Germany would avoid the OTL commitments in N Africa and later Italy and probably also the OTL commitments in Greece and Yugoslavia [presuming Mussolini avoids doing anything stupid].  This would help but weather conditions in the east are unlikely to mean they attack much earlier and like Britain, especially with Hitler's misleadership their likely to quickly waste the additional resources.  Presuming it doesn't prove crucial in 1941 against Russia, which I suspect would be the case, German gains from Italian neutrality would be far less.  You might even get it becoming a disaster for Germany if a somewhat more successful 41 campaign meant they were dragged into an enlarged Stalingrad in Moscow in winter 41 which could mean the virtual destruction of much of AGC.

[deltaforce]

Assuming things otherwise go largely historical, it seems likely that Italy would enter the Cold War as a powerful neutral. It might then swing towards the French, British, and United States as the 1950s and 1960s go on and tensions rise near Libya and Somalia. Relations with them would probably be similar to France's relationship with the other NATO powers or Imperial Iran's relationship with them. It could get a lot of influence pursuing an independent foreign policy, especially with its Libyan petroleum and natural gas reserves and the strategic location of Libya and Somalia. Italy could sell energy and armaments to Israel, technology and expertise to the Soviet Union, Imperial Iran, South America, etc.

[1bigrich]

If Italy stays out, the Mediterranean becomes a highway for the British Empire. Resources from the Near and Far East do not need to go around the Horn. That will redound extremely positively for the Empire. More shipping will be available, not just in efficiency but hulls will be carrying more cargoes over a given time period versus taking longer routes. The RN will have more ships available for the Battle of the Atlantic, especially more escorts. There will still be a Royal Navy Mediterranean Fleet, but it will be modest. It might be made up of R class with a carrier like Eagle or Hermes, or new ships could be sent there for work-up before joining the Home Fleet.

When the decision is made to deploy a Far East Fleet, Tom Phillips will have a more complete fleet. He won't be in Manila on December 8th when Pearl Harbor is attacked asking Tommy Hart for a DesDiv of US destroyers.

The historic RAF purchase of Re2000 fighters will be completed. They could help in the Far East and/or in Britain and/or in training.

For Italy the naval programs will be completed. The Regia Marina, Regia Aeronautica and Regia Esercito will be watching the war and learning lessons. I think the RM might get a keel up carrier with the war lessons, instead of the historic conversion attempts. I think Italian industry might be used by both sides, and Italy will be economically well off trading with both sides.

For Germany, there will be need to move south, not Yugoslavia campaign, no Greece, no North Africa. Those troops will help in Barbarossa, but Russia is massive, and the logistics trail will still run out eventually. The war in the East might be longer. Stalingrad might be a German victory. The foray into the Caucuses might be successful.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Feb 7, 2020 17:49:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

If Italy stays out, the Mediterranean becomes a highway for the British Empire. Resources from the Near and Far East do not need to go around the Horn. That will redound extremely positively for the Empire. More shipping will be available, not just in efficiency but hulls will be carrying more cargoes over a given time period versus taking longer routes. The RN will have more ships available for the Battle of the Atlantic, especially more escorts. There will still be a Royal Navy Mediterranean Fleet, but it will be modest. It might be made up of R class with a carrier like Eagle or Hermes, or new ships could be sent there for work-up before joining the Home Fleet.

When the decision is made to deploy a Far East Fleet, Tom Phillips will have a more complete fleet. He won't be in Manila on December 8th when Pearl Harbor is attacked asking Tommy Hart for a DesDiv of US destroyers.

The historic RAF purchase of Re2000 fighters will be completed. They could help in the Far East and/or in Britain and/or in training.

For Italy the naval programs will be completed. The Regia Marina, Regia Aeronautica and Regia Esercito will be watching the war and learning lessons. I think the RM might get a keel up carrier with the war lessons, instead of the historic conversion attempts. I think Italian industry might be used by both sides, and Italy will be economically well off trading with both sides.

For Germany, there will be need to move south, not Yugoslavia campaign, no Greece, no North Africa. Those troops will help in Barbarossa, but Russia is massive, and the logistics trail will still run out eventually. The war in the East might be longer. Stalingrad might be a German victory. The foray into the Caucuses might be successful.

My thoughts,

Do the Japanese still do a Pearl Harbor attack if the Imperial Japanese Navy's staff cannot studied the Taranto raid.

[stevep]

Feb 7, 2020 20:19:28 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 7, 2020 17:49:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

If Italy stays out, the Mediterranean becomes a highway for the British Empire. Resources from the Near and Far East do not need to go around the Horn. That will redound extremely positively for the Empire. More shipping will be available, not just in efficiency but hulls will be carrying more cargoes over a given time period versus taking longer routes. The RN will have more ships available for the Battle of the Atlantic, especially more escorts. There will still be a Royal Navy Mediterranean Fleet, but it will be modest. It might be made up of R class with a carrier like Eagle or Hermes, or new ships could be sent there for work-up before joining the Home Fleet.

When the decision is made to deploy a Far East Fleet, Tom Phillips will have a more complete fleet. He won't be in Manila on December 8th when Pearl Harbor is attacked asking Tommy Hart for a DesDiv of US destroyers.

The historic RAF purchase of Re2000 fighters will be completed. They could help in the Far East and/or in Britain and/or in training.

For Italy the naval programs will be completed. The Regia Marina, Regia Aeronautica and Regia Esercito will be watching the war and learning lessons. I think the RM might get a keel up carrier with the war lessons, instead of the historic conversion attempts. I think Italian industry might be used by both sides, and Italy will be economically well off trading with both sides.

For Germany, there will be need to move south, not Yugoslavia campaign, no Greece, no North Africa. Those troops will help in Barbarossa, but Russia is massive, and the logistics trail will still run out eventually. The war in the East might be longer. Stalingrad might be a German victory. The foray into the Caucuses might be successful.

My thoughts,

Do the Japanese still do a Pearl Harbor attack if the Imperial Japanese Navy's staff cannot studied the Taranto raid.

  Good question.  Taranto did give evidence that such an attack would be possible although the Japanese were quite inventive with tactics so might well have come up with such an operation themselves.

  If they don't it could be bad for the allies in the short term.  With the Japanese attacking assorted locations in Asia and the Pacific and the US Pacific fleet still intact there's going to be demands it does something and if the political leadership is stupid enough this could include some move to relieve the Philippines.  Which might well end up in a serious disaster for it as it runs directly into Japanese plans and with the slow BBs as the dominant factor in the fleet and the CVs committed largely to scouting duties.

  Probably more likely elements of it might be used to relief Wake - which could be a point of larger conflict in the following months, possibly replacing OTL Midway?  Or they might respond to calls to help out in SE Asia where they could make a big difference but would be difficult to support for any length of time until a massive supply train was established.

  The other difference would be political/emotional. Japan would still [presumably] attack US possessions such as the Philippines, Guam and Wake but it probably wouldn't have the same impact as the surprise attack on Pearl and heavy losses that inflicted OTL.

[lordroel]

Feb 8, 2020 10:42:18 GMT stevep said:

Feb 7, 2020 20:19:28 GMT lordroel said:

Do the Japanese still do a Pearl Harbor attack if the Imperial Japanese Navy's staff cannot studied the Taranto raid.

  Good question.  Taranto did give evidence that such an attack would be possible although the Japanese were quite inventive with tactics so might well have come up with such an operation themselves.

  If they don't it could be bad for the allies in the short term.  With the Japanese attacking assorted locations in Asia and the Pacific and the US Pacific fleet still intact there's going to be demands it does something and if the political leadership is stupid enough this could include some move to relieve the Philippines.  Which might well end up in a serious disaster for it as it runs directly into Japanese plans and with the slow BBs as the dominant factor in the fleet and the CVs committed largely to scouting duties.

  Probably more likely elements of it might be used to relief Wake - which could be a point of larger conflict in the following months, possibly replacing OTL Midway?  Or they might respond to calls to help out in SE Asia where they could make a big difference but would be difficult to support for any length of time until a massive supply train was established.

  The other difference would be political/emotional. Japan would still [presumably] attack US possessions such as the Philippines, Guam and Wake but it probably wouldn't have the same impact as the surprise attack on Pearl and heavy losses that inflicted OTL.

Also the Royal Navy would have more ships they can deploy to the Pacific as they do not need to fight the Italians and Vichy France is not going to be much of a problem for them.

[stevep]

Feb 8, 2020 10:45:37 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 8, 2020 10:42:18 GMT stevep said:

  Good question.  Taranto did give evidence that such an attack would be possible although the Japanese were quite inventive with tactics so might well have come up with such an operation themselves.

  If they don't it could be bad for the allies in the short term.  With the Japanese attacking assorted locations in Asia and the Pacific and the US Pacific fleet still intact there's going to be demands it does something and if the political leadership is stupid enough this could include some move to relieve the Philippines.  Which might well end up in a serious disaster for it as it runs directly into Japanese plans and with the slow BBs as the dominant factor in the fleet and the CVs committed largely to scouting duties.

  Probably more likely elements of it might be used to relief Wake - which could be a point of larger conflict in the following months, possibly replacing OTL Midway?  Or they might respond to calls to help out in SE Asia where they could make a big difference but would be difficult to support for any length of time until a massive supply train was established.

  The other difference would be political/emotional. Japan would still [presumably] attack US possessions such as the Philippines, Guam and Wake but it probably wouldn't have the same impact as the surprise attack on Pearl and heavy losses that inflicted OTL.

Also the Royal Navy would have more ships they can deploy to the Pacific as they do not need to fight the Italians and Vichy France is not going to be much of a problem for them.

  The French fleet and the Italians would still be concerns, as Germany could conceivably seize the former and there's always the potential for Italy to join the war.  Also there would be risks of attacks on British shipping through the Med by Germany from territory it controls.  However its likely that the British forces in the Med would be smaller and of course a hell of a lot of sunk and damaged ship losses would have occurred. 

  Probably even more importantly, without the OTL fighting in North and East Africa Britain would have markedly more ground and air forces it could commit to the defence of Malaya and neighbouring regions - presumably Churchill hasn't found ways to waste them elsewhere - which could well stop the Japanese dead in the region and hence greatly shorten and change the character of the war in the Far East. 

[1bigrich]

Feb 7, 2020 20:19:28 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 7, 2020 17:49:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

Do the Japanese still do a Pearl Harbor attack if the Imperial Japanese Navy's staff cannot studied the Taranto raid.

There was already an example.   Adm. Harry Yarnell attacked Pearl Harbor on Feb 7 1932 during Fleet Problem XIII.    He launched a dawn carrier raid on a Sunday morning.

At the time, the harbor itself was undeveloped, the Fleet being based at San Francisco or San Diego.   But they would deploy to the islands in their defense, and Pearl Harbor and Diamond Head were the usual anchorages.  

A good resource on the USN's interwar Fleet Problems is here:


www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/evolution-aircraft-carriers.html


Each of the links will bring up a pdf of the original article, The Evolution of Aircraft Carriers.

Regards,

Edit:  I said Waikiki above, the alternate anchorage was off Diamond Head.   Corrected now.

[lordroel]

Feb 11, 2020 12:24:18 GMT 1bigrich said:

Feb 7, 2020 20:19:28 GMT lordroel said:

Do the Japanese still do a Pearl Harbor attack if the Imperial Japanese Navy's staff cannot studied the Taranto raid.

There was already an example.   Adm. Harry Yarnell attacked Pearl Harbor on Feb 7 1932 during Fleet Problem XIII.    He launched a dawn carrier raid on a Sunday morning.

At the time, the harbor itself was undeveloped, the Fleet being based at San Francisco or San Diego.   But they would deploy to the islands in their defense, and Pearl Harbor and Diamond Head were the usual anchorages.  

A good resource on the USN's interwar Fleet Problems is here:


www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/evolution-aircraft-carriers.html


Each of the links will bring up a pdf of the original article, The Evolution of Aircraft Carriers.

Regards,

Edit:  I said Waikiki above, the alternate anchorage was off Diamond Head.   Corrected now.

So Japan could still do a Pearl Harbor attack with out having studied the  Taranto raid.

So will we see the Winter Fox on the Eastern Front instead of the Desert Fox in North Africa.

[1bigrich]

Feb 11, 2020 19:28:34 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 11, 2020 12:24:18 GMT 1bigrich said:

So Japan could still do a Pearl Harbor attack with out having studied the  Taranto raid.

So will we see the Winter Fox on the Eastern Front instead of the Desert Fox in North Africa.

I would think so, although the Japanese Attache in Rome did write a report on the Taranto raid. 

But as I said, the example is there.   Also, the RN was planning to attack Taranto since the Abyssinian Crisis (1935).   CinC Med Dudley Pound, and the commander of the Mediterranean Fleet's Carrier (Glorious) one Lumley Lyster came up with the plan.   And Lyster worked Glorious' aircrew constantly to train for an attack.   That's why when Illustrious went to the Mediterranean Fleet, she was flying the flag of Admiral Lyster. 

See Schofield's The Attack on Taramto.  

www.amazon.com/Attack-Taranto-Sea-Battles-Close/dp/0711004218

a small but very useful and information filled book.

Regards,

[markp]

If the Italians do not declare war on France in 1940. the likely hood of war breaking out between Britain and Italy over Mussolini's antics in Africa or the Balkans could still lead to a war later. If this didn't happen until after Germany invaded Russia. there would be little if any German presence in North Africa. Germany not having to bail Italy out in Yugoslavia and Greece would have allowed Barbarossa to have started 6 weeks earlier. Rommel would ha

[markp]

ve been knick named the Snow Fox for his battles Taking and holding Moscow in December 1941.

Mark

[lordroel]

Feb 17, 2020 18:00:42 GMT markp said:

ve been knick named the Snow Fox for his battles Taking and holding Moscow in December 1941.

Mark

Doubt the Germans even with extra divisions who are not needed in North Africa, Balkans ore Greece would be able to get Moscow ore hold it, even if Rommel is in charge of army group.