Page 1 of 4

What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 2:16 pm
by Buff Orpington
I was reading something recently about how Mussolini erred in declaring war. With hindsight it is easy to see the flaws in a course of action that ends with you dangling from a lamppost but what of the wider implications?

The writer was of the opinion that neutrality would have helped the Germans as they wouldn't have been drawn into the Mediterranean theatre.

Would it also have left the British with more resources? Perhaps we might have been able to respond to the growing threat from Japan, at the least the Indian forces would not have been in Africa.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 2:23 pm
by grizzlymc
It would have meant that the route to the Far East was through the Med. Better battleship escort for convoys, more naval assets to deploy to Singapore. Perhaps more assets to Greece, or even an earlier Torch.

Who knows, maybe the Italian Geological Survey might have examined the issue of who was polluting wells in Libya.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 2:32 pm
by FreddBloggs
No need for troops in greece, the germans only got involved in the Balkans because the Italians were making a mess of it and asked for help.

Barbarossa would have been launched on its planned date in May. More Empire and allied troops uncommitted in the far east.

Generally a neutral result I think, both the allies and Germany would have gained from it with pure hindsight.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:29 pm
by BaronVonWreckedoften
The plot of Captain Corelli's Mandolin would have been pretty slim.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:41 pm
by tim.w
The farms of North Yorkshire wouldn't have had all the Italians from Eden Camp and would have had to resort to students.

Not unlike today.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:46 pm
by levied troop
There’s a review in this weeks Guardian of ‘Mussolini’s War: Facist Italy from Triumph to Collapse’ by John Gooch which argues that Italy was deficient in all resources required for war and was heavily dependent on on a Germany often reluctant to supply it but happy to use it as a distraction.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 3:48 pm
by FreddBloggs
Italy was basically set up to be a colonial army with only a small cadre ready for european war. Sound familiar?

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:18 pm
by Norman D. Landings
No Balkan war means no post-war Soviet dominance of the Balkan nations.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:26 pm
by grizzlymc
Oooh, I'm not so sure of that. Maybe an Austrian type solution might have been worked out.

Re: What if Italy had stayed neutral in WWII?

Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 4:44 pm
by Vintage Wargaming
What a mistake-a to make-a