Hmm well they delayed barbarossa but at the same time contributed many troops to that front as well, also you could make the argument that the delay really wouldn’t have mattered in the long term..
@@DeanmC261993 I believe a pretty famous Italian battalion/division were the first in army group South to forge a bridge head over the Dnipre River in the south... the germans had tried twice and failed on either flank but the Italians managed it... on that particular day/days of fighting in 1941...
It would be an interesting thing to consider. The balkan and mediterran campaigns took up a lot of German airpower (especially the losses of transports over crete) and a fair bit of manpower. The Afrikakorps grew to become a substantial size. Also, a neutral Italy would have made the allied landings against vichy france less likely as there would have been less need to create a second front for the Italians and Germans in North Africa. This could possibly have meant the Allies might have considered landings on mainland Europe earlier, which would have been more difficult for the US as the campaigns in North Africa and the Med allowed the US to really learn modern WW2 combat in Europe. It also would have meant that the US and UK wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the air bases they established in Italy in 1943 with a result of less ability to bomb deep into Germany and Central Europe. There's a hell of a lot of what ifs that go with this.
@@comradefriendship I initially took his comment to mean where Italian troops, even for occupation, administration, blocking forces, economic contributions, damage done to Allies, etc.... but maybe he didn't.
now move all the african corps troops arriving in moscow 1941 or stalingrad 1942 then things would have looked differently at least until Churchill would have attacked Hitlers underbelly ...
Italy played this role up until June 1940, so it's not too much of a stretch to extrapolate further how Britain, for example, might have responded, and as mentioned, Spain was non-belligerent for the duration. The allies tried very hard to keep Italy out of the war in the beginning, America too, and it's fairly likely, I suspect that Mussolini would have remained cautious so long as he felt the result was in doubt. He only invaded France when he thought the end was assured, probably believing Britain would throw in the towel as France fell, and his later invasions of Egypt, Kenya, Sudan, and Greece, were most likely conducted in anticipation of an imminent successful end to the war with Britain in the Autumn of 1940.
If Italy is Boot, Austria Ass and Germany Torso then its clear why Axis lost because as they did not have Switzerland they lacked d1ck and b8lls to win.
@@cyberiankorninger1025 I believe Switzerland would have fallen as quickly as the Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, etc. 'But muh rifles in the mountains!!!' doesn't account for the bombing of cities. The Swiss would have likely asked for terms of peace/surrender.
@@cavscout888 swiss had a plan to mine all their tunnels and roads and that would be pain in the ass to fix. also nowhere to hide nazi gold. switzerland was more useful to germany as neutral than something with no infrastructure.
Just a minor nitpick - Škoda did not produce the Lt. vz. 38 (or Pz.38(t)), at least not initially, that was ČKD (or BMM under German ocupation), Škoda produced the 35(t). And the tanks were basically just a small part of what Škoda produced which mostly focused on guns/artillery.
German army was badly under strength in artillery before Czech artillery and the Škoda works were taken, after it was still under strength but much better as it went thru another expansion. Germans used quite few Kriegsbeute ("war booty") artillery during the war - Austrian, Czech, Polish, French, Russian and others - because Germany could not produce enough guns vs air vs other things. This led to quite a logistics mess, as the ammo used was pretty much not interchangeable.
@@tommy-er6hh I think that might have had something to do with nickle, tungston, and others that the Germans lacked. You need the right things to make alloys, which give steel strength without becoming brittle.
Which was why Turkey was so important to the Axis and one of the reasons why the US when it got into the war decided to buy as much of it as possible just to stop it from flowing to the Euro Axis.
Even if Italy still sides with Germany to the extent required for the pre-war annexations, Italy sitting out the war has some rather dramatic impacts. Far less strain on allied naval resources, so more units available to fight the Japanese - earlier end to the Pacific War. If Italy has not thrown in with the Germans, the French government may decide to pull a Norway and continue to fight from North Africa - which completely stuffs the Japanese plan of campaign. Then there is the potential for bombing Ploesti from north africa unmolested, especially once Bulgaria joins the war. I don't honestly buy the idea that Italy was a net negative to the war effort.
I would agree with that. What in my eyes the next question would be, could have the italian entry into the war be better timed? Maybe only join after France had fallen? How much help did Greece receive from the allies? Would they have gotten the help, if Italy didn't join the war against France, but only attacked Greece? Could a suprise attack on the Suez have been successful?
@@Luwi1996 Italy has been at war since Italy Turkish war for Libya . The country was exhausted and the resources were not enough for another conflict so Hitler promised Mussolini that we would not start to he war until 1945 /1946 but we all know what happened next
@Mock Harris If Italy does not join the war, Japan either sits out the war entirely, or is unable to advance anything like as far as it did in reality. A neutral Japan, or one that collapses earlier or more easily, seriously degrades the Axis position. The weight of the resources that broke Japan would be brought to bear on Germany instead. Even if you take no credit for Italian land combat power at all, it is true that the very existance of the Regia Marina had serious influence on allied naval strategy during the critical time period.
@@eddy91604 Ultimately the Russians advance a little further into Germany, possibly. The lack of a Burma/PNG Campaign frees lots of Commonwealth troops for service in Europe. Ultimately Germany still faces massive Soviet land forces and a UK that it cannot knock out of the war that can bring the full weight of its Empire to bear. The American armed juggernaut that lands in France ends up replacing its American personnel with Commonwealth and French colonial troops.
A big reason the Italians were 'a load' is that Italy was even more resource poor and import dependent than Germany. It did not help that Mussolini ignored his generals with respect to Greece. Though it must be said that when the Germans overran Greece the Italians had done all the hard work for them already. Finally some German officers on the General Staff complained that the Italians were useless not because of lack of combat effectiveness but because they did not have enough resources and without oil - something Germany hogged for itself, the Italians could not make full use of their military machine.
I don't think the Italians did much in the way of hard work for the Germans when it came to Greece. Were there Italians in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria setting the groundwork? I don't think so. The main axes of the German advances were coming from Bulgaria and through Yugoslavia; which had to go through the Metaxas line and Aliakmon line extending from the eastern side of Greece. I am sure the Italians held down a bunch of Greek formations, but the hard work by any measure was done by the Germans, when it came to the blitz down the eastern side of the country, end in Athens, Corinth, Crete, etc.
@@michaeldunne338 The Greek Army did not place many units in the path of the Germans and those that were facing the Italians were worn out by casualties inflicted on them by the Italians. The Germans were pushing on an open door. It is also why Hitler abandoned his thoughts about empowering Vichy France as after a disastrous start the Italians bested the Greeks in several engagements.
@@dewittbourchier7169 Don't think that is correct. Think you are confusing a general ability of Greek / British commonwealth forces to provide realistic coverage of a front, with Italians supposedly doing some sort of hard work. Like the Greeks and British didn't pull back in time from stretches of border with Bulgaria; didn't have a handle of Yugoslavia Macedonia from an intelligence perspective and the possibility of the Yugoslav forces falling apart rather quickly, didn't pull sufficient numbers of troops back from the Albanian border in time (which I guess you are crediting Italy with), etc.
@@michaeldunne338 You should read James Sadkovic on this, and also consider the disposition of Greek forces and the fact that the Greeks said they wanted to surrender to the Germans not the Italians. The Germans were pushing on an open door when they went into Greece.
@@dewittbourchier7169 The Germans had moved fast and pushed into unprepared areas, and areas that the opposition couldn't move into with the same pace and resources due to time. The Germans were in Bulgaria in early March; and started invading both Yugoslavia and northern Greece on April 6, after a coup in Yugoslavia. Chronology seems to get forgotten in discussions like these - Its not so simple as "The Italians did all the hard work and there was an open door" for the Germans. The Italians got stuck in a quagmire, and at best, they managed to keep the Greeks (and possibly the Yugoslavs) focused on their positions as a target to eliminate. Not sure that would be deemed "doing the hardwork" as much of the situation arose from failure and an uneven effort at recovery. And you had 53,051 British and British commonwealth forces that formed the expeditionary force in Greece (not an effective one, but a force all the same). There was fighting for the Germans to contend with in Southern Yugoslavia (Macedonia); the Metaxas Line; Vevi/Kozani/Kastoria/Pindus Mountains area; Mt Olympus
Italian involvement had a considerable impact on the Pacific Theater even only considering the fact the Japanese took the Royal Navy’s devastation of the Italian fleet at Taranto as proof in concept for the attack on Pearl Harbor which had similar mission goals and issues with shallow waters impeding aerial torpedo deployment .
People ofter see Italy in WWII in a stereotypized way. But who studied history know well why Mussolini sided with Germany, simply cause Italy was betrayed by the Allies in post WWI, not granting to Italy the promised land for the war efforts during the Pact of London where USA refused to give at Italy that promised lands. So Mussolini, that fought in WWI was full of resentment trough the Allies. Also, before the start of WWII Mussolini asked another 10 years to be war ready, Hitler at first granted that time to him, but after a single year he called to war an Italy not at all prepared for that large scale war. Also it's a mistake to say that "Italians wasn't combat effective" they was...and over any possible human hopes, most of the time, as they showed many times at Izbushensky, Giarabub, Alexandria, Bir el Ghubi, Tel el Eisa, Tobruk, Nikolaevka and in many more other battles...they wasn't combat READY, that is another different thing.
thanks you for make this italy dont deserve be threated like cowards... theh fought and die in harsh battle throught mud and snow and yet we still get some redditors or memetard with the "SpAgEtTi WhIte FlAg!1!1"
Excellent video! I know long back I did ask about the alliance with Italy being worth it to Germany in the context of the distraction in the Balkans in early 41, and the Afrika Korps resources which might have gone to the eastern front. This new analysis of excellent and appreciated. Since we have no direct contact and I don’t review your scripts I am sure you are referencing a different Andrew here. I will just say “great Andrew’s think alike.” 😂. As always, your content is the best! Thank you!
It's worth noting that the biggest of the Balkan distractions, Yugoslavia, was primarily the result of a pro-British coup in Yugoslavia. As such German invasion of Yugoslavia would likely still occur in event of Italian neutrality, and in such case Germany would need to take up the duties of the two Italian armies assigned to the occupation of Yugoslavia. This would cancel out much of the manpower savings from not fighting in Africa and not invading and occupying Greece. I think a video on this subject could come to some unexpected conclusions.
Also there is the point that Greece and Crete caused the British to gut their army in North Africa, split it in 3 parts, almost all of which were destroyed in detail. That army was on the verge of fully occupying Italian Libya, with supposedly only 1 usable port left open to Axis forces. I’d love to see an what if analysis of what may have happened had the Brits not split their army and instead taken Tripoli before the Afrika Korps arrived. They went from the verge of total victory to the verge of defeat very quickly, due in part to Rommel’s aggressive tactics and his ignoring his theoretical superior, Gariboldi.
Italy pinpointed A LOT of British and later American resources, even though performance on a battlefield and on sea was rather poor. Still a lot of allied shipping, navy and airpower was used against Italy. These resources could help British open a second front in France the whole year earlier than it was in our reality.
Italy being allied with Germany, but not in the war, would have meant that the UK would still need significant naval forces in the med, just in case. But it would have kept the med open as a supply route and allowed for more involvement in the Pacific.
@@Dan-wt7jx The RN would have needed enough ships to ensure that the Italians couldn’t suddenly block off access through Gibraltar and Suez, and to make sure what was left of the Vichy navy stayed bottled up, but it wouldn’t have had the operational pressure and losses that it did historically. There would have been little need for multiple carrier deployments without the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” of Italy, so those carriers could have been used in the Pacific or elsewhere. Malta would not have been threatened. Queen Elizabeth and Valiant wouldn’t have been disabled in Alexandria. With more limited German u-boat access, Ark Royal and Barham probably don’t get sunk. And Warspite doesn’t get Fritzed either. That’s a lot of ships that Britain sorely needed. Imagine all those ships being present for the Indian Ocean raid, or helping out the USN in the Pacific. It’s a different war. On the downside, the Allies wouldn’t have gotten the valuable experience they gained from fighting in Africa and Italy. We would likely have also seen an earlier invasion in Northern France. It probably still would have succeeded, but at a much higher cost, since the Luftwaffe hadn’t been whittled down as much and the German supply situation was less critical. However, the Germans would still have been using more early war tanks, which (except for arguably the Panzer 4) were outclassed by Allied tanks.
@Mock Harris The Italian army didn't do well, but the navy was a formidable force with some very capable ships. It ended up underperforming due to some technical issues, a lack of radar, and some incompetent admirals, but the Royal Navy still had to dedicate about a third of its strength to deal with it. If there had been no Italian threat, then the RN could have used those ships elsewhere since the Germans didn't send any u-boats into the Med until late '41 (and then only to help out the Italians). One area where they could have been used is the Battle of the Atlantic---the naval war that Germany DID have as a priority. The RN kept about 4 destroyer flotillas (~35 destroyers) in the Med at any given time. If 20 of those destroyers could have been used as convoy escorts, that could have made a difference until the US "destroyers for bases" deal was negotiated. Britain could have had its supply situation in 1940-41 substantially improve. There wouldn't have been a North Africa campaign, and probably no invasion of Greece or the Balkans, so the British could have devoted their attention and resources elsewhere. I don't think they could have invaded France alone, but they could have (re)invaded Norway with a large force, and probably taken the country this time since Germany couldn't have resupplied its garrison with the extra RN presence. If they didn't move on Norway, they could have at least easily reinforced the Asian/Pacific colonies when Japan invaded. I doubt Germany would have sent its capital ships out either, but if they did, the RN would have been able to respond with full force since it would have more of its own capital ships and carriers available.
@@bluemarlin8138 notably, however, the italians consumed a tremendous amount of german men and equipment. They also expended tremendous industry fighting the war. I believe had they exported material and equipment to germany, as well as workers, as opposed to fighting themselves, it would make up for the reduced strain on the allied navies. In particular the allies basically learned how to fight a modern war in africa.
I think alot of people forget that mussolini came on the European scene before hitler. Evidently he influenced hitler a great deal because hitler admired him. Maybe even inspired him? In the beginning anyway.
It shall also be noted that Italy, around 1934 mobilized the army and almost went to war with Germany after Dollfuss was assassinated. For those interested: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss#Assassination
finally a channel that i can use for my study, not this biased bullshit like on most other channels, especially the sources are very helpful!! great video, well done
Booty. Boot-ee. In English it means both "loot," and an attractive or significant posterior. One American urban poet called "Sir Mix-A-Lot," famously pontificated on the second meaning. For an example of the first, see any of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films.
Italy was anti-Germany till 1935 (signing Stresa agreement) when GB signed the naval treaty with Germany and it pissed off Mussolini so he decided to side Germany. Strange twists in history, though it is very likely that Mussolini was also disappointed about GB's interference in Abyssinia and he would have swapped side anyway, maybe a year or two later.
If the English and French had treated Italy and to a lesser extent Germany with dignity and respect WW2 would have never happened. This mistreatment especially of Italy would not have given rise to resentment and hate toward the Allies, and the Fascist party would not have taken such a stronghold on the Italian political scene. So in a way the allies arrogance played a vital role in the eruption of WW2 and some say a continuation ofWW1
Just from the surface view, it makes sense that Italy was need to fight UK in the med who could of deployed that fleet to the home or Pacific if Italy was neutral or even part of the Allies.
@@benwilson6145 Right but regardless the Italian fleet and air power meant the Med was a front not just a supply line. If Italy sat the war out, France likely would've fought on, and even if they didn't British control of the sea would've been far more complete.
@@Joesolo13 I do not see France changing their position with a neutral Italy. France primarily surrendered because of Germany, nothing would of changed that. Even if French forces in the South could be deployed to the north.
Hitler valued an alliance with Italy from early on. As you pointed out Italy was the only power with which Germany could ally as their spheres of influence largely didn't conflict (as anyone who's played Diplomacy knows) and their similar ideologies sweetened the deal. Italy's joining the Entente in WWI was due to it's friction with Austria-Hungary, not Germany. And Hitler was even willing to write of the South Tirol Germans if it meant getting an alliance with Italy - he wrote the Second Book to refute criticism from other German parties in 1928 on this point. Everything you said about the necessity of Italian acquiescence to the absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia is right on. Italy's shortcomings in the war were more due to it's weak economic base than lack of fighting ability, at least early on. It didn't help that the Axis didn't create a unified command like the UK-French and later UK-US did (also a failing in WWI between Germany & AH) and so didn't develop a common grand strategy (see the ludicrous invasion of Greece), or share/co-ordinate resources and technical know-how. Like perhaps the oil expended on the Kriegsmarine surface actions of 1940-41 would have been better spent on making the Regia Marina fully operational, and a real go made for Malta, Gibraltar and Suez. Italy could have contributed more if it had been treated like a real ally, though they would have had to accept the Germans as the senior partner.
I like Theory crafting. I would suggest one extra Topic: What if Yugoslavia would have joined and stayed in the AXIS (Background: Yugoslavia signed the tripartite pact, but a coupe detat turned this around and Germany had to invade)
That is quite interesting! So Italy made a substantial indirect contribution to German resurgence, in the run-up to World War 2. For a view at Italian battlefield performance in Russia, see "MUSSOLINI'S WAR IN THE EAST 1941-1943."
@Humanity Galatica He would have gotten smoked by the Allies if he tried to pull some crazy move like that. Plus... how did that Greek campaign go in 1940?
@Humanity Galatica Italy got their behinds totally kicked by Greece. In 1940, the Italian army was 50% under-equipped. If it wasn't for the Germans, the Greeks would have taken Albania and pushed Italy completely out of the Balkans. Also, the UK would not have to act immediately against a neutral Italy. They and the US and/or USSR would have destroyed Germany, and then obliterated Italy and hung Mussolini for attacking Yugo. and Greece. Not an option. Benito had to stay in his lane and watch his on-time trains.
@@mrhills8868 The British barely supported the Greeks during their victories over the Italian chump forces. They sucked - utterly. Mussolini was out of his mind. And this dude thinks that he would have taken Greece AND Yugo? When even the GERMANS could barely hold that place down? Your percentages are silly, because at least half of the Italian "army" was not even equipped. So you have to multiply those 100,000 casualties by at least two times, because of all of the precious equipment losses. Then the Italians have to attack over the mountains - again? Please. Also, while perhaps not direct military support, Britain could have sent arms or money or food or other aid to the Greeks, making them even more formidable.
@@mrhills8868 Again - the Italian "army" was 50% under equipped in 1940, add in the Greek disaster, and the Greeks could have held out for years. The Greeks get more leeway because A) they are defending B) they are defending in mountains and C) the historical record backs what I am saying more than some sort of fantastical "eventual Italian victory." Italian "air support" was almost as much of a joke as the rest of their military. Certainly not decisive. Italy had 4 million troops in Mussolini's dream - that number is just... laughable.
The greatest enemy of a Fascist is a Fascist of a different nationality. Germany and Italy were both anti Status-Quo powers, but they had different agendas. Italy was actually the strongest opponent of the German annexation of Austria in the early 1930's, as that would result in German ambitions on Italian South Tyrol.
@@blkgardner There is the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Italy saw Germany as worse than France and the UK, then would it have been possible for the three to align their focus or would their foreign policies have excluded such an occurrence?
@@jimbo9305 The diplomatic system would tend to an expansionist block versus a status-quo block. However, the WWII alliance system did not actually follow that, with the expansionist Soviet Union winding up on the side of the Allies. It may be have been possible for the allies to keep the Italians in an anti-German block, but that supposes that the Allies had complete foresight about how WWII would actually pan out. Germany was actually quite friendly with Poland in the 1930's, only really pushing its claims on Danzig after the Allies backed down on Austria and Czechoslovakia. In fact, Hitler was honestly surprised when the UK defended Poland, he was expecting the Western powers to back down. Much of the politics of the inter-bellum period focused on the containment of the Soviets and the spread of Communism. Also, Italy was actually started its aggression before Germany with its 1936 invasion of Ethiopia. Without the benefit of hindsight, it makes little sense to appease aggressive powers in order to contain not-yet aggressive powers. It would not have been impossible for France and the UK to ignore the Ethiopian annexation to maintain an anti-German block, but doing so would have been hypocritical in 1936.
It might have been possible but the history of postwar Europe and America would be fundamentally different. WW2 largely destroyed the far right as a viable political option for all but the most fringe elements. An Allied Italy would have changed the narrative of WW2 from a war against the far right(nazis fascists japanese militarism). End result say when the student movements of the 60s start many of those students would be tempted by far right ideologies. In real life most student activists of the 60s were tempted by left wing ideologies. The far right would be a far more potent force in politics after WW2. Odds are today half of Europe would be openly fascist had Italy joined the Allies.
@@florinivan6907 fascists are more center and center right and sometimes even center left than far right. Far right is for conservative reactionaries or those anarcho capitalists.
Very interesting analysis, I honestly didn't think that Mussolini's support was so crucial to Germany's expansion pre-war. As to what effect a non-belligerent Italy would have served, I think it ultimately would have damaged Germany during the war. Simply by existing, a hostile Italian military created a threat the Allied powers couldn't fail to honour. Even if Italy's posting had been entirely passive, British troops would have had to be stationed in large numbers in Egypt to prevent the possibility of a sudden Italian attack, thereby removing them from other theatres. The German navy would not have had any possibility to interdict Allied shipping in the Mediterranean, except through the use of submarines, thereby reducing their numbers in other critical theatres such as the Atlantic. German bombers would have been deprived of the air bases they needed to attack Allied freighters without logistical support from the peninsula. This freedom of movement alone would have been of incredible benefit to the Allied war effort, and it would have enabled them to land troops in any friendly or cooperating coastal Balcanic nation virtually unopposed since Germany would have had zero naval presence in the Mediterranean. It would have made a landing in force in southern France even easier than it actually was.
....they got ditched because they promised no war until 1945, left italian army to die in africa at alamein and the alpini in russia, surrendered a month before the italians in tunsia leaving their flank exposed,promised oil for the navy and didn't deliver, lied about intelligence due to being so racist they blamed their own intelligence leaks on the italians which led to matapan, promised air support at matapan and did not commit, they armed the ethiopians in the 1930s,they backed opposing sides in the chetniks vs ustache,oh and the italians hated their guts. If they were any other nation no one would question italy's changing sides.
@@TheAngelobarker Some of those things aren't Germany's fault. By then Germany and Italy had declared war on the US, and the US was actively landing troops in Africa with enough force to remove any and all of the Axis forces. Also destroying and equipping the British well enough to destroy the assets required to do some of what you mention. Italy didn't change sides. They surrendered. Some Italian personnel were used for logistical support.
Italians weren't keen to suddenly find themselves at war with the United States. Once Allied forces, including American ones, were in position to fight them directly, at home, they knew better and went for the separate peace (surrender).
All of Germany’s allies either turned on it or would have if not for German machinations - even the Finns were fighting the Germans towards the end, up in Lappland. Italy always does what’s best for Italy, it’s literally one of their guiding, foundational political principles - it has a name I forget atm but they said they derived it from Machiavelli. Guess which major belligerent avoided the big trials after the war’s end, despite many instances which would’ve otherwise merited such treatment - in Libya, in East Africa, in the Balkans and even their own country. None were so eager to promote the image of an unmotivated and bumbling belligerent as those who took the reigns of Italy going into the Cold War - or rather, reacquired them.
@Mock Harris Yeah, that is the usual BS people use to try to justify Italy's usual incompetence and duplicity. They are a cartoon character that will change sides in order to end up "winning", like in WW1.
Good considerations. I would add that, in case of italian allignment to France and Great Britain, a land route between France and his eastern allies, namely Jugoslavia, Romania, Poland and Czechoslovakia (the Little Entente) would have been opened. Therefore, the French Army could have helped them against German aggressions.
yugoslavia was more or less neutral to german friendly before germans blew it off and attack it. czechoslovakia didnt even exist any more and romania was ally of germany. so what kind of little entente you talk about?
A clear theory underlined by compact and comprehensive data. I like. :) Though I do miss your projects which do not adress WW2 topics. I thought you would turn your attention to Israel etc. for at least a brief while. :'(
> Though I do miss your projects which do not adress WW2 topics. those take more time and this year I had to work extra a few times to get several weeks "off" to work on my paper for the Panzer Konferenz and this week, we shipped a bit less than 300 books personally, this included packing, signing, customs, etc. note those are not all boxes: twitter.com/MilHiVisualized/status/1384819899609096193
Question: Once the war started in September the Allies blockaded German coal imports to Italy. Anyone knowing details about this? Did they do it to put pressure on Italy or were they after whatever Italy gave Germany in exchange for the coal?
if italy has behaved badly what can we say about the united states army, which has not won a war since the second world war? creating geopolitical problems and instability only for oil?
@@Ronnie-kun they fight back the austrians ans manage to dont get butchered in the mess of the great war and in ww2 they manage to win and became later NATO ally mind before speak ya weeb
Germany possibly could have substituted Spain for Italy and as long as Italy remained neutral it would have the same strategic gains with regards to the entrance to the Med.
Spain is not Italy, Italy is a great European power, Spain has devolved into a middle Power. Besides the Italian navy was the real reason Hitler wanted Italy into the fray. Spain had nothing comparable.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 Spains comparable was having a city, Ceuta, on the opposite side of the Gibraltar strait where guns could have been installed that would close the strait to British shipping.
Interesting take on this but let me add to the several replies asking for a part 2 - it does feel as though this was about Austria and Chzechia rather than Italy. Some focus also required on the implications for North Africa, Middle East and the Balkans + Greece if Italy stays out of things. Churchill's Soft Underbelly strategy becomes unnecessarily without Italy in the war and Britain can refocus away from this theatre either to Scandinaviana.or the now irresistible earlier invasion of France as well as better supplying the Far East.
In short summary, Mussolini was the king-maker of the Interwar years and his responsibility for starting the cataclysm of WWII has not been fully appreciated. Until now.
If Italy doesn't join the war, is there the possibility that see a destroyers for bases style deal that still ends up with them occupying parts of France? Flying a neutral Italian flag would they have been allowed to pass by Gibraltar, or does that become Mers el Kebir v2 and possibly be what draws Italy into the war a year or 2 later? Or what could the addition of 50-odd German crewed Italian subs have made in '41/'42 and beyond? With Italy not joining the war does Churchill feel the need to order Operation Catapult and how does that make the Marine Nationale or the North African garrisons feel about turning early? And as an aside: Is it easier to ship a 9-10 metre wide, 1000 ton hull over the alps or just build your own?
As much as I like the video and how much detail you put into it, i feel like half a video talking about Austria is a bit too much in a video about italy. It is a great point though
I don't see how Italy possibly wins, even in 1938. Their leadership and logistical shortcomings would become apparent immediately (think Greece) and their industry would quickly find itself exhausted to meet the demands of the war. Germany would move much faster and enjoy greater popular support in Austria. Italy wouldn't have a prayer of attacking a well-organized if a little under-equipped army over the mountains (again, think Greece). The only decent arm of the Italian military, the navy, would be useless in such a war. In this case, Mussolini would be BEGGING Britain and France to bail him out, which they/Chamberlain would only consider in the form of a negotiated peace. Germany would get Austria one way or another. That said, it would still probably forestall WW2 for a little while, as the Germans wouldn't be able to grab Czechoslovakia without a fight now that France and Britain have the excuse to ready themselves for war and Mussolini is lost to Germany forever (unless maybe something happens to Mussolini....). Meaning Hitler has only Stalin to turn to.
Im hoping for a video on a hypothetical non-beligerent Italy. Though I suspect that this scenario would have been rather beneficial for Germany. In this scenario Germany would not have been drawn into either greece or north africa, and both of those were huge drains on german military power at crucial points in the early war. Given how defucient italy was in both modern equipment, aside from the navy, and fuel, across all branches, italy was not contributing much. A "neutral", but trading italy might well have been much more useful, possibly even able to procure rare resources it could sell on to germany, as well as securing the southern german flank much better than belligerent italy turned out to do. Anyway, Im hoping to see a thorough analysis on this some day.
I love this video I am hoping for a part two, I do believe though that Germany would still need Italy as the war went on as it was a more main target of Britain to attack Italy than Germany and Italy is the reason the war went on for so long instead of a sooner D-Day.
Very interesting , thank you. Would still be interested for you to consider whether it would have been possible for Nazi Germany (and her allies many of which became later recipients of Czech equipment) to conduct a war without the windfall of the Czechoslovakian arms industry and economy. You touch on it here but it would be interesting to consider on its own. We can note for example that some 800 35(t) and 38(t) tanks were used to invade the Soviet Union, which is close on the number of available Panzer IIIs.
of curse non belligerant italy would have been better. how many HOI games we have played where germany was litterally fueled by italy staying "neutral"?
@Humanity Galatica they had just tiny bits of oil by the coast. This would do nothing. They believed that there could be more oil but didn't had resources to invest on searching for it. And even if they accepted the gamble, the drilling would make this oil way more expensive then Texan or Iraqi oil.
To better understand the real relationship between the Kingdom of Italy and the German Reich i suggest you to read the personal diaries of Count Gian Galeazzo Ciano, minister of foreign affairs from 1936 to 1943. Ciano was killed in 1944 by the Germans as a traitor because he and other Fascist leaders of the Council of Fascism deposed Mussolini. His diaries were taken by his wife, the eldest daughter of Mussolini, and she fled to Switzerland until the end of the war. I think this diaries provide essential insight over this topic.
That was interesting. One other factor would be the status and stature of the Italian Fascist Party. Mussolini was running a country long before Hitler and initially - Hitler looked up to him. During WWI - Italy had fought on the side of the Allies. If that alliance had continued it might have been strong enough for it's nations to go ahead and force their will upon Germany - which they certainly could have done in Hitlers early days. With a fascist Italy though ... things were different ... So ... it's hard to say. .
I recently read a book with the transcripts of the interrogations with Hermann Göring. On the question what single thing he would change if he had to do the war all over again, he responded: "We should have had Italy as an enemy!". 😁😁
If the strasa pact had gone through, germany would be dead. They would have had to fight in the alps, which is what the italians were preparing for, and would have had far less resources to attacking Poland nd the Benelux
They DID have Italy as an enemy, half of it. The last combat parachute drop in the ETO was Italian paratroopers, in Italian gear, jumping from British planes in northern Italy - Operation Herring. Those Italian paratroopers who were so thickheaded in N. Africa weren’t going to just sit in a POW camp for the rest of the war, after all. Not those lot. The Co-Belligerent Italians were fighting beside the allies as early as the capture of San Pietro Infine, and Italian garrisons refused to lay down their arms all over Southern Europe with often dismal results like on Kephalonia. They even fought the Japanese on at least one occasion. How quickly the Axis turned on one another. An alliance born of mutual self-interest is a fragile thing.
I’m thinking that Italy as both a major imperial power and a bastion of fascism probably couldn’t have realistically sat out the big clash of nations both for ideological and resource reasons.
Hoi4 should really change the "resources" map to real resources, coal, iron, etc, and then you have to build industry to transform them to steel or some other refined product. In that way the whole world can have resources (instead of Africa and South America having to be depicted as empty) and a cool major difference can be drawn with the "industrialized" powers. Some more balancing should be done, to not have minors go crazy building just steel factories for MP, like requiring a minimum amount of Civs to expand your steel industry, and in that way you keep civs as a valid option in the mid and late game, instead of them being useless.
Yeah, but no. All paradox hames are dumbed down in what is not their core. The core here is creating units and see those units march through the front. But then again South America and Africa had no coal (up to this date I don't recall that large reserves on South America and those like Moatze in Mozambique were unknown), so it would be the same. For iron ore, Brazil has loads of great iron, but their production was minimal back then.
@@Neomalthusiano This is about changing history, and in this alternate history all the discoveries that were made later can be "found" by an industrious player, like it already is for USSR for example, will all the decisions it can double starting steel if not more. Iron? Peru, Bolivia, etc also had a ton of iron, massive amount of copper which is also a key component, abstracted in the game but should be represented. Its one thing to look at exports, which is what Hoi4 and many historians do, which is ok for history, but another to look up the proven and provable reserves. There are mining and gas projects i know for a fact, at least in Perú, that were discovered 50/60/70 years ago, but were not exploited until the 2000's, mainly for political reasons.
While Africa was ultimately a failure for the axis, had there been no war there and no Mediterranean fighting aside from u-boats slipping in around Gibraltar wouldn't there have been a much earlier allied invasion of France?
i don't think so, they would at least need to secure North Africa controlled by Vichi France in orden to make a full-out invasion also, since Mussolini is not in the war, Germany would have more soldiers available since they don't have to support Italy in thier failure of the Africa and Greece front
I can not see what had been modern in the italian navy. I can only remember that one after the other capitol ship had been sunk without having achieved much against the Royal Navy.
The navy had been crippled by fuel shortages which put their ability to maneuver to a minimum. This would also impact training. Basically the quality, quantity, and capacity where all neutered without fuel - consequently the exaggerated weaknesses made the whole Italian navy a lame duck just like it left the Tirpitz and the german surface fleet to a sit and watch type of role.
> I can not see what had been modern in the italian navy. well, ask the British why they didn't moved their whole fleet into the Atlantic or somewhere else and why they shipped around Africa instead of going through the Med.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Is there any speculation on whether the Royal Navy was more influenced by the threat of aircraft rather than naval engagement? After events such as Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse I could imagine prompting a massed assault from ground based aircraft could have been far more dangerous than a fuel deficient Italian strike fleet.
What about a pre-Poland squeeze far beyond reclaiming the Südtirol and establishing a land border with semi-sympathetic Slovenes and Croats together with Adriatic sea access? A reduced non ally Italy would have avoided much costly wartime diversion.
What if Germany stopped expanding after getting Sudetenland. How long would the Third Reich economy survive without war loot from Czechia, Poland, France etc.? Would big guts to the military budget be enough to keep the economy afloat?
i think Wages of Destruction show that german economy was a time bomb, likely it would crash unless Hitler put someone really good to take control of finances
Germany was borrowing money for itself so at some point, it would have to pay those MEFO bills. I can't image how fucked the government would be at that point because even to get a car as a civilian, you had to pay the cost up front and then they would produce the car.
@@Seriona1 Perhaps Germany adopts austerity policies similar to Ceausescus Romania but a bit less extreme. Goebbels could probably come up with some good excuse to explain the reasons of it to the German people. At the same time Germany could continue normal economic exchange with the British and the French Empires if Germany did not ruin it's relations with Britain and France by betraying the Munich Agreement.
@@hendriktonisson2915 An immediate halt to re-armament and a focus on expanding international trade and slow, stable (boring, not great for propaganda) economic growth. In the middle of the Great Depression. But the Nazis had made too many promises at that point (greatest military, restoration of 1914 borders/reversal of Paris Peace Settlement, a car in every garage), and couldn't deliver on them all.
Ok if Italy joined the allies which could have happened, Germany would have such a hard time. 1 they couldn’t effectively invade Italy because the Italians had some of the best mountain troops and they would stand a massive obstacle, so they would have to devert troops to the Italian front, the British fleet could focus completely on the German fleet. Maybe some Italian battleships could also attack German ships and cause more trouble. And France could also have more troops on the Franco-German boarder. Plus the British, Italian and French air forces would outnumber the German Air Force. The Italian Air Force wasn’t terrible but very capable even if they had quite a bit of outdated planes
Could the rest of WWII (in Europe at least) have been avoided if France and Britain had attacked and invaded Germany from the west when Germany invaded Poland? The amount of time necessary for Britain to mobilize forces and send them to France would probably be too long, but what about France?
I think the low combat effectiveness of Italy was fairly well known by 1938. Their performance against the Spanish Republicans was less than spectacular, so their performance against even an understrength Wehrmacht wouldn't have been great either.
@@andrewklang809 To be fair, much of the Italian army was fighting the British in Africa at the time. But yeah, I see your point. I also doubt anyone would help Italy fight Germany in 1938 as well.
It kinda seems like the Germans wanted Italians to stay in the war as they went to their aid in Africa to keep them in. Although a non-fighting Italy would still have been a better ally for Germany than non-fighting and beaten Italy (which they apparently expected had they refused to help).
Hitler was very "old school" in some ways...Italy was an ally, so he had to help them any way he could. In the same way, Germany declared war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbor, when there was really no need to do so. It's quite possible that public opinion in the US would not have countenanced an American declaration of war against Germany in response to Pearl Harbor alone, even though FDR hoped that by provoking the attack he could get the US into the European war. But Japan was an ally, and one declares war on an ally's enemies. But even Hitler's pre-war policies were in many ways very ad hoc, more opportunistic than calculated.
This is a belligerent that over the course of the war fought against the Americans, the Germans and their allies, the British and their Commonwealth and colonial forces, the French and their colonial forces, the Greeks, the Yugoslavs, the Soviets, a division’s worth of Brazilians, irregulars on two continents, on at least one occasion even the Japanese, and THEMSELVES (and I may be forgetting a few more) - yet due to the persistent image of a halfhearted, inept force always on the periphery which was perpetuated by everyone after the war (including the Italians themselves, for exculpatory purpose), the Italian war experience and its impact on the larger conflict and other actors has been criminally neglected. Was the nation most maligned for not fighting in the war actually the most pernicious collector of adversaries during its course? That would be ironic. What revelations may be lost to time, what hidden gems are tucked away dusty in some Italian archive not due to an Iron Curtain like the Soviet and Eastern Bloc war experiences was until the late 80’s and 90’s - but due to wanton disinterest.
You said 2 studies showed that taking Austria was a negative ? Am I mishearing this ? Well I dunno just I can't see how annexing Austria was a negative in the long run this seems not logically possible. You can't subtract by addition not matter how much Austria might cost to run.
They go bankrupt like this video stated. Nazi Germany was a pariah that didn't collapse in 1938 only thanks to looted Czech and Austrian gold, no war and they collapse in 1940 or 41 at the latest, nazis were pretty shit at running economy and wouldn't want to give up power so you probably have civil war like in Spain...
Taking Czechia was actually one of the biggest mistakes Germany made at that time. Before occupying Czechia people could say that the German dictator was a man of his word and only annexed ethnic German territories. Betraying the Munich Agreement really destroyed any good relations and trust that Germany had with Britain and France and therefore made it nearly impossible for Germany to stabilize the German economy by normal means of economic exchange between Germany and the British and French Empires. So a scenario where Germany stopped after getting the Sudetenland would be more realistic.
@@hendriktonisson2915 Hitler was dead-set on full rearmament long before Munich. He couldn't have stopped then and wouldn't have stopped. There was no endgame for the Nazi regime but war and conquest. Eventually, there'd be bills to pay and a military that's sucking up the budget and doing nothing. Nazi Germany tried to do in less than a decade what took Imperial Germany forty years to do: build a first-class military, and tried to do it in the middle of a Depression.
@@andrewklang809 Not necessarily. Vital parts of the German military were already developed enough by late 1938. The economic depression was actually starting to end by late 1930s as there were since of improvement. So Germany could have probably stabilized it's economy if they chosen to put enough effort in it. Making necessary cuts to the military budget, some form of austerity policies and keeping up trade the British and the French Empires would with some time stabilized the German economy. The thing was - Hitler was stubbornly unwilling to give up on his unrealistic plans of conquering Lebensraum and therefore continued excessive spending on the military.
In 1934 Italy stopped the Anschluss (Germany taking over Austria) by sending troops to the border. Mussolini was a guarantor of the European balance of power. Hitler didn't dare to force the issue. But in 1935 with the Ethiopian invasion, Italy lost its good standing with the western European powers (France and UK) so the situation started to slide towards the war because just ONE allied country could remain for Italy: Nazi Germany. This way, Italy was important in the balance of power (and destruction of the balance). But the stronger Germany of 1938 or 1939 could still be stopped by Mussolini? I think not. When the war started the British did all they could to force Italy on the German camp. Italy could not benefit from neutrality, it would have been blockaded. Mussolini was reliant on Germany even for coal, at this point.
I wonder what if they focused more on the North African front instead of going into Barbarossa. If it would be possible with more troops to size the Suez Channel and going into the Middle East. Perhaps attacking Soviet Union from there instead directly and only from Poland. Was it only Rommel that saw an opportunity for creating an offensive there?
I think Rommel wanted the Suez Channel because he knew the strategic value to the Allies. Taking it over would isolate the Allies from each theater of warfare. The unknown value of it might of helped the Middle Eastern Axis forces. Not sure if Turkey would of entered the war at this point but Iraqi and Persian oil in Axis hands would be valuable.
@@marrvynswillames4975 the Germans most wanted the Soviet resources like oil and Ukranian land. Attacking from the South, in the Caucasian border would put them closer to the oil fields in the Caucasus while reaching the site border without fighting the entirety of the Red Army, and also without having to travel all the place fighting them when attacking all the way from Western Europe. The British might not have had as much forces to hold the ground in the Middle East. And most of Ukraine could have been sized as well by a smaller forces from Poland going a bit slower. Reaching for at least the Dniepr river perhaps.
I noticed that you have a "eɪ" pronunciation when you say the words of Yugosl-a-via and Czechosl-a-via. It should be pronounced like words such as "l-a-mb" or "d-a-t" in dutch.
You need to handwave a few things to make Italy neutral or allied. By 1938 its adventures had thoroughly alienated the west. In fact the only possible friend left was Germany. What choice did it have but to ally with Germany? But let's say it still spurned Germany. By 1938 Italy was bled dry by Ethiopia and Spain and in no shape whatsoever for any adventure. The question is how much of this did the west and Germany know? In short a pro western Italy means no invasion of Ethiopia and no massive support of Franco
You left out recent conclusion of unconventional, but costly conflict in Libya too. The fighting with the Senussi in the Cyrenaica only concluded in the early 1930s - not sure how things were settled there on into the decade. Short of it, Libya did not yield quietly, and it cost Italy much, going into say 1932... then came the other adventures, with poor management not keeping up.
Germany might have been better off if Italy had joined the war but just abandoned North Africa. No costly campaign across the Mediterranean so the troops and aircraft could have been sent to the Eastern front instead.
Italy could have focused all of its resources on starving Malta and leaving Greece alone. It was harder for the British to supply Malta than for Italy to supply Libya. Just taking that one island while holding Cyrenaica would have contributed more to the Axis' war effort than anything the Italian Army did in the Mediterranean or Russia.
Mussolini would have been psychologically incapable of abandoning North Africa, because that would have been the abandonment of the great dream of restoring the Roman Empire, which in certain quarters was also a big part of his political appeal.
It's been on my mind a lot lately that the Italians really blew it very early in the war when they foolishly went on the march to invade Albania and Greece. Albania was one thing but they knew Greece would be no push over any thoughts to the contrary might really be proving my point that the Italian top brass just had awful planning. The FIRST goal after declaring war on Great Britain was not to send a few fighter and bomber squadrons to France, but to make immediate plans and provisions to invade and take Malta out of the war. Their second moves could have been the attack on Egypt to push the Brits out of the Canal Zone. This would have made the Mediterranean "their sea" once again as it was in Ancient Rome's times. The other effect would have been to give the Brits way too many things to think and do, way too few resources to spread about. The Battle of Britain was the perfect cover for the Invasion of Malta.
Every Italian general, any that still had the position due of merit and not of favoritism like all the others, begged Mussolini to not attack Greece but he was inamovibile, didn't care about the lack of resources, of morale, of geography.. he didn't care about anything. He wanted Greece because he wanted for it to be like the ancient Roman empire and have Greece be part of it, so he just gave generic orders like "go and take it in a week" or shit like that and expected the the Greeks to be fine and dandy with it. Italians knew it was basically suicide but couldn't do anything about it since all the strategic positions were in his hands
Greece had a massive British support Italians couldn't counter since the invasion was badly planned. But even with the entire Greek army having the high ground and the British RAF bombing, the Greeks only managed to make a stalemate, not to win. This should make you think about the bravery of Italians, forced to deal with WW1 equipent and stupid officers. We won every war we have fought but WW1.
I wonder if Fascism would have survived had Mussolini taken his doctrinal differences with Natsoc into consideration like the whole Aryan race thing that even Mussolini found to be batshit and stayed out of Hitler's plans like Franco did. Fascism was a long term political project and then Hitler went on his own crusade to expand the German state only and towards Poland no less which could soon have had a fascist government of its own installed by the ballot because of panic over a Soviet invasion. Not siding with Hitler militarily could have been a boost for the spread of fascism overall and he basically sunk his whole ideology out of the allure of having Prussian steel on his side.
you are going to over this too quickly Italy had no military anymore to stand up to Hitler at this point. Also, Italy's relationship with the allies got worse during the war in Ethiopia.
Presumably a non-belligerent Italy means the Germans don’t need to use up men, machines, resources, and LOGISTICS fighting in North Africa, Greece, and Italy itself.
What surprises me is the abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian Army during WW1, while after all they had a lot of industrial treasures hidden it appears? Or was this weapons and resources industry only developed during or post-WW1? But guess this is outside the context of this video, and would require an enormous amount of research in Habsburg Archives, if these exist? PS. All Armies performed ´abysmally´ obviously, and a lot has to do with the Cult of the Offensive and that brainless C-n-C they had in Vienna von Hotzendorf, adding on top of the multi-ethnic composition and (as one historian called it) ´Absolutism coupled to Inefficiency´ for a bureaucracy. They had to wait 2 full weeks for getting an OK from Hungary to go into Serbia I recall of my head, so guess it wasn´t the soldiers nor weaponry.
We need a part 2 about the potential effects of a friendly but non-belligerent Italy ASAP! This is basically a cliffhanger!
I agree!
Hmm well they delayed barbarossa but at the same time contributed many troops to that front as well, also you could make the argument that the delay really wouldn’t have mattered in the long term..
@@DeanmC261993 I believe a pretty famous Italian battalion/division were the first in army group South to forge a bridge head over the Dnipre River in the south... the germans had tried twice and failed on either flank but the Italians managed it... on that particular day/days of fighting in 1941...
@@DeanmC261993 I think the delay caused in the balkans may have proved pivotal
It would be an interesting thing to consider. The balkan and mediterran campaigns took up a lot of German airpower (especially the losses of transports over crete) and a fair bit of manpower. The Afrikakorps grew to become a substantial size. Also, a neutral Italy would have made the allied landings against vichy france less likely as there would have been less need to create a second front for the Italians and Germans in North Africa. This could possibly have meant the Allies might have considered landings on mainland Europe earlier, which would have been more difficult for the US as the campaigns in North Africa and the Med allowed the US to really learn modern WW2 combat in Europe. It also would have meant that the US and UK wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the air bases they established in Italy in 1943 with a result of less ability to bomb deep into Germany and Central Europe. There's a hell of a lot of what ifs that go with this.
This video demands a sequel. I wanna know how much Italy contributed to the axis.
He made a video on the unknown successes of Italy sooooo
@@comradefriendship I initially took his comment to mean where Italian troops, even for occupation, administration, blocking forces, economic contributions, damage done to Allies, etc.... but maybe he didn't.
they did well as a cannon fodder in eastern front
now move all the african corps troops arriving in moscow 1941 or stalingrad 1942 then things would have looked differently at least until Churchill would have attacked Hitlers underbelly ...
@@typxxilps or better still reinforce the Afrika Corp and take the Suez Canal and the Persian oil fields.
Very interesting: I look forward to your assessment of a friendy but non-fighting Italy.
What like Spain?
This^
@@dreamcast3607 He did say that. But given how it was left I get the feeling there might be more to it.
Would be interesting
Italy played this role up until June 1940, so it's not too much of a stretch to extrapolate further how Britain, for example, might have responded, and as mentioned, Spain was non-belligerent for the duration. The allies tried very hard to keep Italy out of the war in the beginning, America too, and it's fairly likely, I suspect that Mussolini would have remained cautious so long as he felt the result was in doubt. He only invaded France when he thought the end was assured, probably believing Britain would throw in the towel as France fell, and his later invasions of Egypt, Kenya, Sudan, and Greece, were most likely conducted in anticipation of an imminent successful end to the war with Britain in the Autumn of 1940.
Italy was necessary for any kind of German/Axis victory
You can’t march without a boot
Afterall, you also need an underbelly, even if its soft
If Italy is Boot, Austria Ass and Germany Torso then its clear why Axis lost because as they did not have Switzerland they lacked d1ck and b8lls to win.
@@cyberiankorninger1025 I believe Switzerland would have fallen as quickly as the Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, etc. 'But muh rifles in the mountains!!!' doesn't account for the bombing of cities. The Swiss would have likely asked for terms of peace/surrender.
@@cavscout888 swiss had a plan to mine all their tunnels and roads and that would be pain in the ass to fix. also nowhere to hide nazi gold. switzerland was more useful to germany as neutral than something with no infrastructure.
Heel-arious!
Just a minor nitpick - Škoda did not produce the Lt. vz. 38 (or Pz.38(t)), at least not initially, that was ČKD (or BMM under German ocupation), Škoda produced the 35(t). And the tanks were basically just a small part of what Škoda produced which mostly focused on guns/artillery.
Wow, I did not know that! Thanx.
German army was badly under strength in artillery before Czech artillery and the Škoda works were taken, after it was still under strength but much better as it went thru another expansion. Germans used quite few Kriegsbeute ("war booty") artillery during the war - Austrian, Czech, Polish, French, Russian and others - because Germany could not produce enough guns vs air vs other things. This led to quite a logistics mess, as the ammo used was pretty much not interchangeable.
@@tommy-er6hh I think that might have had something to do with nickle, tungston, and others that the Germans lacked. You need the right things to make alloys, which give steel strength without becoming brittle.
Which was why Turkey was so important to the Axis and one of the reasons why the US when it got into the war decided to buy as much of it as possible just to stop it from flowing to the Euro Axis.
@@Seriona1 Interesting. I hadnt heard that, thanx.
Even if Italy still sides with Germany to the extent required for the pre-war annexations, Italy sitting out the war has some rather dramatic impacts.
Far less strain on allied naval resources, so more units available to fight the Japanese - earlier end to the Pacific War. If Italy has not thrown in with the Germans, the French government may decide to pull a Norway and continue to fight from North Africa - which completely stuffs the Japanese plan of campaign. Then there is the potential for bombing Ploesti from north africa unmolested, especially once Bulgaria joins the war.
I don't honestly buy the idea that Italy was a net negative to the war effort.
I would agree with that. What in my eyes the next question would be, could have the italian entry into the war be better timed?
Maybe only join after France had fallen?
How much help did Greece receive from the allies? Would they have gotten the help, if Italy didn't join the war against France, but only attacked Greece?
Could a suprise attack on the Suez have been successful?
@@Luwi1996 Italy has been at war since Italy Turkish war for Libya . The country was exhausted and the resources were not enough for another conflict so Hitler promised Mussolini that we would not start to he war until 1945 /1946 but we all know what happened next
@Mock Harris If Italy does not join the war, Japan either sits out the war entirely, or is unable to advance anything like as far as it did in reality. A neutral Japan, or one that collapses earlier or more easily, seriously degrades the Axis position. The weight of the resources that broke Japan would be brought to bear on Germany instead.
Even if you take no credit for Italian land combat power at all, it is true that the very existance of the Regia Marina had serious influence on allied naval strategy during the critical time period.
@@Spiz103 What if a neutral Japan means that the US wouldn't have been brought directly into the war?
@@eddy91604 Ultimately the Russians advance a little further into Germany, possibly. The lack of a Burma/PNG Campaign frees lots of Commonwealth troops for service in Europe. Ultimately Germany still faces massive Soviet land forces and a UK that it cannot knock out of the war that can bring the full weight of its Empire to bear.
The American armed juggernaut that lands in France ends up replacing its American personnel with Commonwealth and French colonial troops.
A big reason the Italians were 'a load' is that Italy was even more resource poor and import dependent than Germany. It did not help that Mussolini ignored his generals with respect to Greece. Though it must be said that when the Germans overran Greece the Italians had done all the hard work for them already. Finally some German officers on the General Staff complained that the Italians were useless not because of lack of combat effectiveness but because they did not have enough resources and without oil - something Germany hogged for itself, the Italians could not make full use of their military machine.
I don't think the Italians did much in the way of hard work for the Germans when it came to Greece. Were there Italians in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria setting the groundwork? I don't think so. The main axes of the German advances were coming from Bulgaria and through Yugoslavia; which had to go through the Metaxas line and Aliakmon line extending from the eastern side of Greece.
I am sure the Italians held down a bunch of Greek formations, but the hard work by any measure was done by the Germans, when it came to the blitz down the eastern side of the country, end in Athens, Corinth, Crete, etc.
@@michaeldunne338 The Greek Army did not place many units in the path of the Germans and those that were facing the Italians were worn out by casualties inflicted on them by the Italians. The Germans were pushing on an open door. It is also why Hitler abandoned his thoughts about empowering Vichy France as after a disastrous start the Italians bested the Greeks in several engagements.
@@dewittbourchier7169 Don't think that is correct.
Think you are confusing a general ability of Greek / British commonwealth forces to provide realistic coverage of a front, with Italians supposedly doing some sort of hard work.
Like the Greeks and British didn't pull back in time from stretches of border with Bulgaria; didn't have a handle of Yugoslavia Macedonia from an intelligence perspective and the possibility of the Yugoslav forces falling apart rather quickly, didn't pull sufficient numbers of troops back from the Albanian border in time (which I guess you are crediting Italy with), etc.
@@michaeldunne338 You should read James Sadkovic on this, and also consider the disposition of Greek forces and the fact that the Greeks said they wanted to surrender to the Germans not the Italians. The Germans were pushing on an open door when they went into Greece.
@@dewittbourchier7169 The Germans had moved fast and pushed into unprepared areas, and areas that the opposition couldn't move into with the same pace and resources due to time. The Germans were in Bulgaria in early March; and started invading both Yugoslavia and northern Greece on April 6, after a coup in Yugoslavia. Chronology seems to get forgotten in discussions like these - Its not so simple as "The Italians did all the hard work and there was an open door" for the Germans.
The Italians got stuck in a quagmire, and at best, they managed to keep the Greeks (and possibly the Yugoslavs) focused on their positions as a target to eliminate. Not sure that would be deemed "doing the hardwork" as much of the situation arose from failure and an uneven effort at recovery.
And you had 53,051 British and British commonwealth forces that formed the expeditionary force in Greece (not an effective one, but a force all the same).
There was fighting for the Germans to contend with in Southern Yugoslavia (Macedonia); the Metaxas Line; Vevi/Kozani/Kastoria/Pindus Mountains area; Mt Olympus
Italian involvement had a considerable impact on the Pacific Theater even only considering the fact the Japanese took the Royal Navy’s devastation of the Italian fleet at Taranto as proof in concept for the attack on Pearl Harbor which had similar mission goals and issues with shallow waters impeding aerial torpedo deployment .
People ofter see Italy in WWII in a stereotypized way. But who studied history know well why Mussolini sided with Germany, simply cause Italy was betrayed by the Allies in post WWI, not granting to Italy the promised land for the war efforts during the Pact of London where USA refused to give at Italy that promised lands. So Mussolini, that fought in WWI was full of resentment trough the Allies.
Also, before the start of WWII Mussolini asked another 10 years to be war ready, Hitler at first granted that time to him, but after a single year he called to war an Italy not at all prepared for that large scale war.
Also it's a mistake to say that "Italians wasn't combat effective" they was...and over any possible human hopes, most of the time, as they showed many times at Izbushensky, Giarabub, Alexandria, Bir el Ghubi, Tel el Eisa, Tobruk, Nikolaevka and in many more other battles...they wasn't combat READY, that is another different thing.
thanks you for make this italy dont deserve be threated like cowards...
theh fought and die in harsh battle throught mud and snow and yet we still get some redditors or memetard with the "SpAgEtTi WhIte FlAg!1!1"
Excellent video! I know long back I did ask about the alliance with Italy being worth it to Germany in the context of the distraction in the Balkans in early 41, and the Afrika Korps resources which might have gone to the eastern front. This new analysis of excellent and appreciated. Since we have no direct contact and I don’t review your scripts I am sure you are referencing a different Andrew here. I will just say “great Andrew’s think alike.” 😂. As always, your content is the best! Thank you!
lol yes, it is a different one :D I will send him a screenshot to your comment.
"of your comment" not "to your comment" lol. Saw it in the screenshot after I sent it :)
It's worth noting that the biggest of the Balkan distractions, Yugoslavia, was primarily the result of a pro-British coup in Yugoslavia.
As such German invasion of Yugoslavia would likely still occur in event of Italian neutrality, and in such case Germany would need to take up the duties of the two Italian armies assigned to the occupation of Yugoslavia. This would cancel out much of the manpower savings from not fighting in Africa and not invading and occupying Greece. I think a video on this subject could come to some unexpected conclusions.
Also there is the point that Greece and Crete caused the British to gut their army in North Africa, split it in 3 parts, almost all of which were destroyed in detail. That army was on the verge of fully occupying Italian Libya, with supposedly only 1 usable port left open to Axis forces. I’d love to see an what if analysis of what may have happened had the Brits not split their army and instead taken Tripoli before the Afrika Korps arrived. They went from the verge of total victory to the verge of defeat very quickly, due in part to Rommel’s aggressive tactics and his ignoring his theoretical superior, Gariboldi.
Italy pinpointed A LOT of British and later American resources, even though performance on a battlefield and on sea was rather poor. Still a lot of allied shipping, navy and airpower was used against Italy. These resources could help British open a second front in France the whole year earlier than it was in our reality.
Italy not being in the war would have had a big effect on the demands of the British navy.
Italy being allied with Germany, but not in the war, would have meant that the UK would still need significant naval forces in the med, just in case. But it would have kept the med open as a supply route and allowed for more involvement in the Pacific.
@@Dan-wt7jx The RN would have needed enough ships to ensure that the Italians couldn’t suddenly block off access through Gibraltar and Suez, and to make sure what was left of the Vichy navy stayed bottled up, but it wouldn’t have had the operational pressure and losses that it did historically. There would have been little need for multiple carrier deployments without the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” of Italy, so those carriers could have been used in the Pacific or elsewhere. Malta would not have been threatened. Queen Elizabeth and Valiant wouldn’t have been disabled in Alexandria. With more limited German u-boat access, Ark Royal and Barham probably don’t get sunk. And Warspite doesn’t get Fritzed either. That’s a lot of ships that Britain sorely needed. Imagine all those ships being present for the Indian Ocean raid, or helping out the USN in the Pacific. It’s a different war.
On the downside, the Allies wouldn’t have gotten the valuable experience they gained from fighting in Africa and Italy. We would likely have also seen an earlier invasion in Northern France. It probably still would have succeeded, but at a much higher cost, since the Luftwaffe hadn’t been whittled down as much and the German supply situation was less critical. However, the Germans would still have been using more early war tanks, which (except for arguably the Panzer 4) were outclassed by Allied tanks.
@Mock Harris The Italian army didn't do well, but the navy was a formidable force with some very capable ships. It ended up underperforming due to some technical issues, a lack of radar, and some incompetent admirals, but the Royal Navy still had to dedicate about a third of its strength to deal with it. If there had been no Italian threat, then the RN could have used those ships elsewhere since the Germans didn't send any u-boats into the Med until late '41 (and then only to help out the Italians).
One area where they could have been used is the Battle of the Atlantic---the naval war that Germany DID have as a priority. The RN kept about 4 destroyer flotillas (~35 destroyers) in the Med at any given time. If 20 of those destroyers could have been used as convoy escorts, that could have made a difference until the US "destroyers for bases" deal was negotiated. Britain could have had its supply situation in 1940-41 substantially improve. There wouldn't have been a North Africa campaign, and probably no invasion of Greece or the Balkans, so the British could have devoted their attention and resources elsewhere. I don't think they could have invaded France alone, but they could have (re)invaded Norway with a large force, and probably taken the country this time since Germany couldn't have resupplied its garrison with the extra RN presence. If they didn't move on Norway, they could have at least easily reinforced the Asian/Pacific colonies when Japan invaded. I doubt Germany would have sent its capital ships out either, but if they did, the RN would have been able to respond with full force since it would have more of its own capital ships and carriers available.
@@bluemarlin8138 notably, however, the italians consumed a tremendous amount of german men and equipment. They also expended tremendous industry fighting the war. I believe had they exported material and equipment to germany, as well as workers, as opposed to fighting themselves, it would make up for the reduced strain on the allied navies. In particular the allies basically learned how to fight a modern war in africa.
I think alot of people forget that mussolini came on the European scene before hitler. Evidently he influenced hitler a great deal because hitler admired him. Maybe even inspired him? In the beginning anyway.
Yeah Mussolini definitevly inspired Hitler. Nazi party tried to take power first with Beer Putsch that was inspired by Mussolinis March on Rome
It shall also be noted that Italy, around 1934 mobilized the army and almost went to war with Germany after Dollfuss was assassinated.
For those interested: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss#Assassination
Interesting that all the polictal parties had armies
Nice look at this topic, thank you.
finally a channel that i can use for my study, not this biased bullshit like on most other channels, especially the sources are very helpful!! great video, well done
Booty. Boot-ee.
In English it means both "loot," and an attractive or significant posterior. One American urban poet called "Sir Mix-A-Lot," famously pontificated on the second meaning. For an example of the first, see any of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films.
I love this entire comment
Italy was anti-Germany till 1935 (signing Stresa agreement) when GB signed the naval treaty with Germany and it pissed off Mussolini so he decided to side Germany. Strange twists in history, though it is very likely that Mussolini was also disappointed about GB's interference in Abyssinia and he would have swapped side anyway, maybe a year or two later.
If the English and French had treated Italy and to a lesser extent Germany with dignity and respect WW2 would have never happened. This mistreatment especially of Italy would not have given rise to resentment and hate toward the Allies, and the Fascist party would not have taken such a stronghold on the Italian political scene. So in a way the allies arrogance played a vital role in the eruption of WW2 and some say a continuation ofWW1
Thank you for these videos, as always very well done
Just from the surface view, it makes sense that Italy was need to fight UK in the med who could of deployed that fleet to the home or Pacific if Italy was neutral or even part of the Allies.
Prewar Italy was to oppose France not the Royal Navy.
@@benwilson6145 we know that but Italian navy and it airforce was was essential for keeping the UK supply rout closed in the Mediterranean
@@benwilson6145 Right but regardless the Italian fleet and air power meant the Med was a front not just a supply line. If Italy sat the war out, France likely would've fought on, and even if they didn't British control of the sea would've been far more complete.
@@Joesolo13 I do not see France changing their position with a neutral Italy. France primarily surrendered because of Germany, nothing would of changed that. Even if French forces in the South could be deployed to the north.
Hitler valued an alliance with Italy from early on. As you pointed out Italy was the only power with which Germany could ally as their spheres of influence largely didn't conflict (as anyone who's played Diplomacy knows) and their similar ideologies sweetened the deal. Italy's joining the Entente in WWI was due to it's friction with Austria-Hungary, not Germany. And Hitler was even willing to write of the South Tirol Germans if it meant getting an alliance with Italy - he wrote the Second Book to refute criticism from other German parties in 1928 on this point. Everything you said about the necessity of Italian acquiescence to the absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia is right on.
Italy's shortcomings in the war were more due to it's weak economic base than lack of fighting ability, at least early on. It didn't help that the Axis didn't create a unified command like the UK-French and later UK-US did (also a failing in WWI between Germany & AH) and so didn't develop a common grand strategy (see the ludicrous invasion of Greece), or share/co-ordinate resources and technical know-how. Like perhaps the oil expended on the Kriegsmarine surface actions of 1940-41 would have been better spent on making the Regia Marina fully operational, and a real go made for Malta, Gibraltar and Suez. Italy could have contributed more if it had been treated like a real ally, though they would have had to accept the Germans as the senior partner.
I like Theory crafting. I would suggest one extra Topic: What if Yugoslavia would have joined and stayed in the AXIS (Background: Yugoslavia signed the tripartite pact, but a coupe detat turned this around and Germany had to invade)
That is quite interesting! So Italy made a substantial indirect contribution to German resurgence, in the run-up to World War 2. For a view at Italian battlefield performance in Russia, see "MUSSOLINI'S WAR IN THE EAST 1941-1943."
Excellent work - the follow up would be phenomenal
It was not worth it - FOR ITALY. Mussolini should have just pulled a Franco and remained neutral.
@Humanity Galatica He would have gotten smoked by the Allies if he tried to pull some crazy move like that. Plus... how did that Greek campaign go in 1940?
@Humanity Galatica Italy got their behinds totally kicked by Greece. In 1940, the Italian army was 50% under-equipped. If it wasn't for the Germans, the Greeks would have taken Albania and pushed Italy completely out of the Balkans.
Also, the UK would not have to act immediately against a neutral Italy. They and the US and/or USSR would have destroyed Germany, and then obliterated Italy and hung Mussolini for attacking Yugo. and Greece.
Not an option. Benito had to stay in his lane and watch his on-time trains.
@@mrhills8868 The British barely supported the Greeks during their victories over the Italian chump forces. They sucked - utterly. Mussolini was out of his mind. And this dude thinks that he would have taken Greece AND Yugo? When even the GERMANS could barely hold that place down?
Your percentages are silly, because at least half of the Italian "army" was not even equipped. So you have to multiply those 100,000 casualties by at least two times, because of all of the precious equipment losses. Then the Italians have to attack over the mountains - again? Please.
Also, while perhaps not direct military support, Britain could have sent arms or money or food or other aid to the Greeks, making them even more formidable.
He wanted to be a big boy and looking at old Roman territory
@@mrhills8868 Again - the Italian "army" was 50% under equipped in 1940, add in the Greek disaster, and the Greeks could have held out for years.
The Greeks get more leeway because A) they are defending B) they are defending in mountains and C) the historical record backs what I am saying more than some sort of fantastical "eventual Italian victory." Italian "air support" was almost as much of a joke as the rest of their military. Certainly not decisive.
Italy had 4 million troops in Mussolini's dream - that number is just... laughable.
And again another highly interesting video. You learn every day. Keep up the great work. Best greets from Cologne 👊
My follow up question is, "Would France and the UK have been able to court Italy into the Allies?"
The greatest enemy of a Fascist is a Fascist of a different nationality. Germany and Italy were both anti Status-Quo powers, but they had different agendas. Italy was actually the strongest opponent of the German annexation of Austria in the early 1930's, as that would result in German ambitions on Italian South Tyrol.
@@blkgardner There is the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Italy saw Germany as worse than France and the UK, then would it have been possible for the three to align their focus or would their foreign policies have excluded such an occurrence?
@@jimbo9305 The diplomatic system would tend to an expansionist block versus a status-quo block. However, the WWII alliance system did not actually follow that, with the expansionist Soviet Union winding up on the side of the Allies. It may be have been possible for the allies to keep the Italians in an anti-German block, but that supposes that the Allies had complete foresight about how WWII would actually pan out.
Germany was actually quite friendly with Poland in the 1930's, only really pushing its claims on Danzig after the Allies backed down on Austria and Czechoslovakia. In fact, Hitler was honestly surprised when the UK defended Poland, he was expecting the Western powers to back down.
Much of the politics of the inter-bellum period focused on the containment of the Soviets and the spread of Communism. Also, Italy was actually started its aggression before Germany with its 1936 invasion of Ethiopia. Without the benefit of hindsight, it makes little sense to appease aggressive powers in order to contain not-yet aggressive powers. It would not have been impossible for France and the UK to ignore the Ethiopian annexation to maintain an anti-German block, but doing so would have been hypocritical in 1936.
It might have been possible but the history of postwar Europe and America would be fundamentally different. WW2 largely destroyed the far right as a viable political option for all but the most fringe elements. An Allied Italy would have changed the narrative of WW2 from a war against the far right(nazis fascists japanese militarism). End result say when the student movements of the 60s start many of those students would be tempted by far right ideologies. In real life most student activists of the 60s were tempted by left wing ideologies. The far right would be a far more potent force in politics after WW2. Odds are today half of Europe would be openly fascist had Italy joined the Allies.
@@florinivan6907 fascists are more center and center right and sometimes even center left than far right. Far right is for conservative reactionaries or those anarcho capitalists.
Very interesting analysis, I honestly didn't think that Mussolini's support was so crucial to Germany's expansion pre-war. As to what effect a non-belligerent Italy would have served, I think it ultimately would have damaged Germany during the war.
Simply by existing, a hostile Italian military created a threat the Allied powers couldn't fail to honour. Even if Italy's posting had been entirely passive, British troops would have had to be stationed in large numbers in Egypt to prevent the possibility of a sudden Italian attack, thereby removing them from other theatres. The German navy would not have had any possibility to interdict Allied shipping in the Mediterranean, except through the use of submarines, thereby reducing their numbers in other critical theatres such as the Atlantic. German bombers would have been deprived of the air bases they needed to attack Allied freighters without logistical support from the peninsula.
This freedom of movement alone would have been of incredible benefit to the Allied war effort, and it would have enabled them to land troops in any friendly or cooperating coastal Balcanic nation virtually unopposed since Germany would have had zero naval presence in the Mediterranean. It would have made a landing in force in southern France even easier than it actually was.
So Germany had the confidence to get itself into trouble because of Italy and got ditched half way through?
Sounds like my team project XD
....they got ditched because they promised no war until 1945, left italian army to die in africa at alamein and the alpini in russia, surrendered a month before the italians in tunsia leaving their flank exposed,promised oil for the navy and didn't deliver, lied about intelligence due to being so racist they blamed their own intelligence leaks on the italians which led to matapan, promised air support at matapan and did not commit, they armed the ethiopians in the 1930s,they backed opposing sides in the chetniks vs ustache,oh and the italians hated their guts. If they were any other nation no one would question italy's changing sides.
@@TheAngelobarker Some of those things aren't Germany's fault. By then Germany and Italy had declared war on the US, and the US was actively landing troops in Africa with enough force to remove any and all of the Axis forces. Also destroying and equipping the British well enough to destroy the assets required to do some of what you mention.
Italy didn't change sides. They surrendered. Some Italian personnel were used for logistical support.
Italians weren't keen to suddenly find themselves at war with the United States. Once Allied forces, including American ones, were in position to fight them directly, at home, they knew better and went for the separate peace (surrender).
All of Germany’s allies either turned on it or would have if not for German machinations - even the Finns were fighting the Germans towards the end, up in Lappland. Italy always does what’s best for Italy, it’s literally one of their guiding, foundational political principles - it has a name I forget atm but they said they derived it from Machiavelli.
Guess which major belligerent avoided the big trials after the war’s end, despite many instances which would’ve otherwise merited such treatment - in Libya, in East Africa, in the Balkans and even their own country. None were so eager to promote the image of an unmotivated and bumbling belligerent as those who took the reigns of Italy going into the Cold War - or rather, reacquired them.
@Mock Harris Yeah, that is the usual BS people use to try to justify Italy's usual incompetence and duplicity.
They are a cartoon character that will change sides in order to end up "winning", like in WW1.
Enjoyed this topic quite a lot
it was told here mostly about Anschluss and the Czechoslovakia. Italy was mentioned but it's deserves much better explaining. We all want it :)
Good considerations. I would add that, in case of italian allignment to France and Great Britain, a land route between France and his eastern allies, namely Jugoslavia, Romania, Poland and Czechoslovakia (the Little Entente) would have been opened. Therefore, the French Army could have helped them against German aggressions.
yugoslavia was more or less neutral to german friendly before germans blew it off and attack it. czechoslovakia didnt even exist any more and romania was ally of germany. so what kind of little entente you talk about?
@@jebise1126 I am talking about the 1933-1938 period.
You da best of all time Bernhard!!!!
Thank you.
A clear theory underlined by compact and comprehensive data. I like. :) Though I do miss your projects which do not adress WW2 topics. I thought you would turn your attention to Israel etc. for at least a brief while. :'(
> Though I do miss your projects which do not adress WW2 topics.
those take more time and this year I had to work extra a few times to get several weeks "off" to work on my paper for the Panzer Konferenz and this week, we shipped a bit less than 300 books personally, this included packing, signing, customs, etc. note those are not all boxes: twitter.com/MilHiVisualized/status/1384819899609096193
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I understand. Thank you for taking your time to reply. Bleib weiterhin gesund.
Great insights, I have to read Wages again.
Great video,keep it up!🟢🟢🟢🟢🈴️
Question: Once the war started in September the Allies blockaded German coal imports to Italy. Anyone knowing details about this? Did they do it to put pressure on Italy or were they after whatever Italy gave Germany in exchange for the coal?
if italy has behaved badly what can we say about the united states army, which has not won a war since the second world war? creating geopolitical problems and instability only for oil?
the Us lost in Panamá and Granada?
@@marrvynswillames4975 they are small towns!
it would have been comical if panama or granada had beaten the mighty united states army in war!
@@Ronnie-kun they fight back the austrians ans manage to dont get butchered in the mess of the great war
and in ww2 they manage to win and became later NATO ally
mind before speak ya weeb
01:50 ¿did Hitler support Ethiopia? Luftwaffe officers were arming and training the Ethiopians.
*didn't
The Ethiopian ruler refused the kind offer from Hitler.
Germany possibly could have substituted Spain for Italy and as long as Italy remained neutral it would have the same strategic gains with regards to the entrance to the Med.
I wouldn't be so sure about entrance to the Mediterranean. Gibraltar was still British.
@@ildart8738 Though Spain controlled the area surrounding Gibraltar and the African coast opposite.
Spain is not Italy, Italy is a great European power, Spain has devolved into a middle Power. Besides the Italian navy was the real reason Hitler wanted Italy into the fray. Spain had nothing comparable.
@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 Spains comparable was having a city, Ceuta, on the opposite side of the Gibraltar strait where guns could have been installed that would close the strait to British shipping.
i thought germany helped ethiopia in the italo-abyssinian war doe?
Interesting take on this but let me add to the several replies asking for a part 2 - it does feel as though this was about Austria and Chzechia rather than Italy.
Some focus also required on the implications for North Africa, Middle East and the Balkans + Greece if Italy stays out of things. Churchill's Soft Underbelly strategy becomes unnecessarily without Italy in the war and Britain can refocus away from this theatre either to Scandinaviana.or the now irresistible earlier invasion of France as well as better supplying the Far East.
In short summary, Mussolini was the king-maker of the Interwar years and his responsibility for starting the cataclysm of WWII has not been fully appreciated. Until now.
Mussolini was the OG of Facism in Europe. That is why Hitler was such a fanboy of Mussolini.
Factual: LT vz. 38 was built by ČKD (Česká Kolben-Daněk), LT vz. 35 was Škoda.
If Italy doesn't join the war, is there the possibility that see a destroyers for bases style deal that still ends up with them occupying parts of France?
Flying a neutral Italian flag would they have been allowed to pass by Gibraltar, or does that become Mers el Kebir v2 and possibly be what draws Italy into the war a year or 2 later? Or what could the addition of 50-odd German crewed Italian subs have made in '41/'42 and beyond?
With Italy not joining the war does Churchill feel the need to order Operation Catapult and how does that make the Marine Nationale or the North African garrisons feel about turning early?
And as an aside:
Is it easier to ship a 9-10 metre wide, 1000 ton hull over the alps or just build your own?
Excellent!
As much as I like the video and how much detail you put into it, i feel like half a video talking about Austria is a bit too much in a video about italy. It is a great point though
What about a German-Italy war over anschluss of Austria and unrest in South Tyrol?
I don't see how Italy possibly wins, even in 1938. Their leadership and logistical shortcomings would become apparent immediately (think Greece) and their industry would quickly find itself exhausted to meet the demands of the war. Germany would move much faster and enjoy greater popular support in Austria. Italy wouldn't have a prayer of attacking a well-organized if a little under-equipped army over the mountains (again, think Greece). The only decent arm of the Italian military, the navy, would be useless in such a war. In this case, Mussolini would be BEGGING Britain and France to bail him out, which they/Chamberlain would only consider in the form of a negotiated peace. Germany would get Austria one way or another. That said, it would still probably forestall WW2 for a little while, as the Germans wouldn't be able to grab Czechoslovakia without a fight now that France and Britain have the excuse to ready themselves for war and Mussolini is lost to Germany forever (unless maybe something happens to Mussolini....). Meaning Hitler has only Stalin to turn to.
@@andrewklang809 the italian economy was already exhausted italy was at war already for 10 years
Im hoping for a video on a hypothetical non-beligerent Italy. Though I suspect that this scenario would have been rather beneficial for Germany.
In this scenario Germany would not have been drawn into either greece or north africa, and both of those were huge drains on german military power at crucial points in the early war.
Given how defucient italy was in both modern equipment, aside from the navy, and fuel, across all branches, italy was not contributing much.
A "neutral", but trading italy might well have been much more useful, possibly even able to procure rare resources it could sell on to germany, as well as securing the southern german flank much better than belligerent italy turned out to do.
Anyway, Im hoping to see a thorough analysis on this some day.
Such a pleasure to learn from an open minded if brilliant mind!
Very well researched! Do you make the thumbnail art yourself?
thank you, in that case no; see the description.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized ah yes sorry
Excellent
I love this video I am hoping for a part two, I do believe though that Germany would still need Italy as the war went on as it was a more main target of Britain to attack Italy than Germany and Italy is the reason the war went on for so long instead of a sooner D-Day.
Very interesting , thank you. Would still be interested for you to consider whether it would have been possible for Nazi Germany (and her allies many of which became later recipients of Czech equipment) to conduct a war without the windfall of the Czechoslovakian arms industry and economy. You touch on it here but it would be interesting to consider on its own. We can note for example that some 800 35(t) and 38(t) tanks were used to invade the Soviet Union, which is close on the number of available Panzer IIIs.
Please do a follow up video on a neutral Italy.
of curse non belligerant italy would have been better. how many HOI games we have played where germany was litterally fueled by italy staying "neutral"?
Non belligerant Italy would have been better more for Italy than the axis itself. I doubt that in real life Italy could have fueled Germany's needs
well thats because hoi4 has lybian oil which IRL wasnt a thing until the 50s
@Humanity Galatica they had just tiny bits of oil by the coast. This would do nothing. They believed that there could be more oil but didn't had resources to invest on searching for it. And even if they accepted the gamble, the drilling would make this oil way more expensive then Texan or Iraqi oil.
To better understand the real relationship between the Kingdom of Italy and the German Reich i suggest you to read the personal diaries of Count Gian Galeazzo Ciano, minister of foreign affairs from 1936 to 1943. Ciano was killed in 1944 by the Germans as a traitor because he and other Fascist leaders of the Council of Fascism deposed Mussolini. His diaries were taken by his wife, the eldest daughter of Mussolini, and she fled to Switzerland until the end of the war. I think this diaries provide essential insight over this topic.
Hi love the channel
You dodged your own question!
That was interesting.
One other factor would be the status and stature of the Italian Fascist Party. Mussolini was running a country long before Hitler and initially - Hitler looked up to him.
During WWI - Italy had fought on the side of the Allies. If that alliance had continued it might have been strong enough for it's nations to go ahead and force their will upon Germany - which they certainly could have done in Hitlers early days. With a fascist Italy though ... things were different ...
So ... it's hard to say.
.
I recently read a book with the transcripts of the interrogations with Hermann Göring. On the question what single thing he would change if he had to do the war all over again, he responded: "We should have had Italy as an enemy!". 😁😁
If the strasa pact had gone through, germany would be dead. They would have had to fight in the alps, which is what the italians were preparing for, and would have had far less resources to attacking Poland nd the Benelux
They DID have Italy as an enemy, half of it. The last combat parachute drop in the ETO was Italian paratroopers, in Italian gear, jumping from British planes in northern Italy - Operation Herring. Those Italian paratroopers who were so thickheaded in N. Africa weren’t going to just sit in a POW camp for the rest of the war, after all. Not those lot. The Co-Belligerent Italians were fighting beside the allies as early as the capture of San Pietro Infine, and Italian garrisons refused to lay down their arms all over Southern Europe with often dismal results like on Kephalonia. They even fought the Japanese on at least one occasion.
How quickly the Axis turned on one another. An alliance born of mutual self-interest is a fragile thing.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 italy also had a civil war around 43 to the end of the war
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Look. This was Görings assessment and not mine. I just thought there was some humor in it.
How did the germans use Uranium ores for weapons? I’m quite intrigued? Or was is just nuclear research?
I’m thinking that Italy as both a major imperial power and a bastion of fascism probably couldn’t have realistically sat out the big clash of nations both for ideological and resource reasons.
I agree but Franco managed to keep fascist Spain out of the war.
That's a bold title
Hoi4 should really change the "resources" map to real resources, coal, iron, etc, and then you have to build industry to transform them to steel or some other refined product. In that way the whole world can have resources (instead of Africa and South America having to be depicted as empty) and a cool major difference can be drawn with the "industrialized" powers.
Some more balancing should be done, to not have minors go crazy building just steel factories for MP, like requiring a minimum amount of Civs to expand your steel industry, and in that way you keep civs as a valid option in the mid and late game, instead of them being useless.
Yeah, but no. All paradox hames are dumbed down in what is not their core. The core here is creating units and see those units march through the front. But then again South America and Africa had no coal (up to this date I don't recall that large reserves on South America and those like Moatze in Mozambique were unknown), so it would be the same. For iron ore, Brazil has loads of great iron, but their production was minimal back then.
@@Neomalthusiano
This is about changing history, and in this alternate history all the discoveries that were made later can be "found" by an industrious player, like it already is for USSR for example, will all the decisions it can double starting steel if not more.
Iron? Peru, Bolivia, etc also had a ton of iron, massive amount of copper which is also a key component, abstracted in the game but should be represented.
Its one thing to look at exports, which is what Hoi4 and many historians do, which is ok for history, but another to look up the proven and provable reserves.
There are mining and gas projects i know for a fact, at least in Perú, that were discovered 50/60/70 years ago, but were not exploited until the 2000's, mainly for political reasons.
5:30 THAT AUSTRIAN BOOOFEEE
Clearly, without annexation of Austria and Czechia, there would not be possible for Germany to start successfull WWII.
While Africa was ultimately a failure for the axis, had there been no war there and no Mediterranean fighting aside from u-boats slipping in around Gibraltar wouldn't there have been a much earlier allied invasion of France?
likely, also, that means the british and germans can supply the soviets from the black sea earlier
i don't think so, they would at least need to secure North Africa controlled by Vichi France in orden to make a full-out invasion
also, since Mussolini is not in the war, Germany would have more soldiers available since they don't have to support Italy in thier failure of the Africa and Greece front
I can not see what had been modern in the italian navy. I can only remember that one after the other capitol ship had been sunk without having achieved much against the Royal Navy.
The navy had been crippled by fuel shortages which put their ability to maneuver to a minimum. This would also impact training. Basically the quality, quantity, and capacity where all neutered without fuel - consequently the exaggerated weaknesses made the whole Italian navy a lame duck just like it left the Tirpitz and the german surface fleet to a sit and watch type of role.
> I can not see what had been modern in the italian navy.
well, ask the British why they didn't moved their whole fleet into the Atlantic or somewhere else and why they shipped around Africa instead of going through the Med.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Is there any speculation on whether the Royal Navy was more influenced by the threat of aircraft rather than naval engagement? After events such as Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse I could imagine prompting a massed assault from ground based aircraft could have been far more dangerous than a fuel deficient Italian strike fleet.
@@JRyan-lu5im not sure, but I am rather certain they closed the Med before Pearl & Prince.
Ever heard of the X MAS?
I would guess, that maybe Germany didn't profit much from Italy being in the war, but Japan did.
What about a pre-Poland squeeze far beyond reclaiming the Südtirol and establishing a land border with semi-sympathetic Slovenes and Croats together with Adriatic sea access? A reduced non ally Italy would have avoided much costly wartime diversion.
Wouldn't have thought it, but also didn't really subscribe to Germany doing better without Italy overall.
What if Germany stopped expanding after getting Sudetenland. How long would the Third Reich economy survive without war loot from Czechia, Poland, France etc.? Would big guts to the military budget be enough to keep the economy afloat?
i think Wages of Destruction show that german economy was a time bomb, likely it would crash unless Hitler put someone really good to take control of finances
@@marrvynswillames4975 What was the situation in late 1938? What was needed to stabilize the German economy at that point?
Germany was borrowing money for itself so at some point, it would have to pay those MEFO bills. I can't image how fucked the government would be at that point because even to get a car as a civilian, you had to pay the cost up front and then they would produce the car.
@@Seriona1 Perhaps Germany adopts austerity policies similar to Ceausescus Romania but a bit less extreme. Goebbels could probably come up with some good excuse to explain the reasons of it to the German people. At the same time Germany could continue normal economic exchange with the British and the French Empires if Germany did not ruin it's relations with Britain and France by betraying the Munich Agreement.
@@hendriktonisson2915 An immediate halt to re-armament and a focus on expanding international trade and slow, stable (boring, not great for propaganda) economic growth. In the middle of the Great Depression. But the Nazis had made too many promises at that point (greatest military, restoration of 1914 borders/reversal of Paris Peace Settlement, a car in every garage), and couldn't deliver on them all.
Ok if Italy joined the allies which could have happened, Germany would have such a hard time. 1 they couldn’t effectively invade Italy because the Italians had some of the best mountain troops and they would stand a massive obstacle, so they would have to devert troops to the Italian front, the British fleet could focus completely on the German fleet. Maybe some Italian battleships could also attack German ships and cause more trouble. And France could also have more troops on the Franco-German boarder. Plus the British, Italian and French air forces would outnumber the German Air Force. The Italian Air Force wasn’t terrible but very capable even if they had quite a bit of outdated planes
Could the rest of WWII (in Europe at least) have been avoided if France and Britain had attacked and invaded Germany from the west when Germany invaded Poland? The amount of time necessary for Britain to mobilize forces and send them to France would probably be too long, but what about France?
france did invade germany but got pushed back and it took less than 2 weeks to retreat haha
I think the low combat effectiveness of Italy was fairly well known by 1938. Their performance against the Spanish Republicans was less than spectacular, so their performance against even an understrength Wehrmacht wouldn't have been great either.
The Italian Army got its ass kicked by Greece. What hope did they have against a Germany five years into re-armament?
@@andrewklang809 To be fair, much of the Italian army was fighting the British in Africa at the time. But yeah, I see your point. I also doubt anyone would help Italy fight Germany in 1938 as well.
@@andrewklang809 italy was already in war since 6 or 7 years Mussolini made a huge mistake and it did cost too much
It kinda seems like the Germans wanted Italians to stay in the war as they went to their aid in Africa to keep them in. Although a non-fighting Italy would still have been a better ally for Germany than non-fighting and beaten Italy (which they apparently expected had they refused to help).
Hitler was very "old school" in some ways...Italy was an ally, so he had to help them any way he could. In the same way, Germany declared war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbor, when there was really no need to do so. It's quite possible that public opinion in the US would not have countenanced an American declaration of war against Germany in response to Pearl Harbor alone, even though FDR hoped that by provoking the attack he could get the US into the European war. But Japan was an ally, and one declares war on an ally's enemies. But even Hitler's pre-war policies were in many ways very ad hoc, more opportunistic than calculated.
Even if an allied country contributes nothing military, it very well may be a great benefit in economic, resource, industrial and logistical terms.
This is a belligerent that over the course of the war fought against the Americans, the Germans and their allies, the British and their Commonwealth and colonial forces, the French and their colonial forces, the Greeks, the Yugoslavs, the Soviets, a division’s worth of Brazilians, irregulars on two continents, on at least one occasion even the Japanese, and THEMSELVES (and I may be forgetting a few more) - yet due to the persistent image of a halfhearted, inept force always on the periphery which was perpetuated by everyone after the war (including the Italians themselves, for exculpatory purpose), the Italian war experience and its impact on the larger conflict and other actors has been criminally neglected. Was the nation most maligned for not fighting in the war actually the most pernicious collector of adversaries during its course? That would be ironic.
What revelations may be lost to time, what hidden gems are tucked away dusty in some Italian archive not due to an Iron Curtain like the Soviet and Eastern Bloc war experiences was until the late 80’s and 90’s - but due to wanton disinterest.
You said 2 studies showed that taking Austria was a negative ? Am I mishearing this ? Well I dunno just I can't see how annexing Austria was a negative in the long run this seems not logically possible. You can't subtract by addition not matter how much Austria might cost to run.
if in overall they had a trade deficit or lacked a certain resource, e.g., food than it is negative investment; can't remember the details.
Was it a good idea to ally with a man who was an intelligence asset of the British Empire?
Germany delayed Barbarossa to bail Italy out their Greek disaster, and paid the ultimate price.
… or so goes one school of thought.
My most interesting like "What If" is if Germany just stopped being a warmonger after taking the Czechs... Wonder what you lot think about that idea
They go bankrupt like this video stated. Nazi Germany was a pariah that didn't collapse in 1938 only thanks to looted Czech and Austrian gold, no war and they collapse in 1940 or 41 at the latest, nazis were pretty shit at running economy and wouldn't want to give up power so you probably have civil war like in Spain...
Taking Czechia was actually one of the biggest mistakes Germany made at that time. Before occupying Czechia people could say that the German dictator was a man of his word and only annexed ethnic German territories. Betraying the Munich Agreement really destroyed any good relations and trust that Germany had with Britain and France and therefore made it nearly impossible for Germany to stabilize the German economy by normal means of economic exchange between Germany and the British and French Empires. So a scenario where Germany stopped after getting the Sudetenland would be more realistic.
@@hendriktonisson2915 Hitler was dead-set on full rearmament long before Munich. He couldn't have stopped then and wouldn't have stopped. There was no endgame for the Nazi regime but war and conquest. Eventually, there'd be bills to pay and a military that's sucking up the budget and doing nothing. Nazi Germany tried to do in less than a decade what took Imperial Germany forty years to do: build a first-class military, and tried to do it in the middle of a Depression.
@@andrewklang809 Not necessarily. Vital parts of the German military were already developed enough by late 1938. The economic depression was actually starting to end by late 1930s as there were since of improvement. So Germany could have probably stabilized it's economy if they chosen to put enough effort in it. Making necessary cuts to the military budget, some form of austerity policies and keeping up trade the British and the French Empires would with some time stabilized the German economy. The thing was - Hitler was stubbornly unwilling to give up on his unrealistic plans of conquering Lebensraum and therefore continued excessive spending on the military.
Access to the Mediterranean, pure and simple.
So now germany has a competent ally in the whole of Europe
In 1934 Italy stopped the Anschluss (Germany taking over Austria) by sending troops to the border. Mussolini was a guarantor of the European balance of power. Hitler didn't dare to force the issue. But in 1935 with the Ethiopian invasion, Italy lost its good standing with the western European powers (France and UK) so the situation started to slide towards the war because just ONE allied country could remain for Italy: Nazi Germany.
This way, Italy was important in the balance of power (and destruction of the balance). But the stronger Germany of 1938 or 1939 could still be stopped by Mussolini? I think not.
When the war started the British did all they could to force Italy on the German camp. Italy could not benefit from neutrality, it would have been blockaded. Mussolini was reliant on Germany even for coal, at this point.
I wonder what if they focused more on the North African front instead of going into Barbarossa. If it would be possible with more troops to size the Suez Channel and going into the Middle East. Perhaps attacking Soviet Union from there instead directly and only from Poland. Was it only Rommel that saw an opportunity for creating an offensive there?
Rommel was send to defend Tripoli, and not to Cross the desert.
Wont moving the invasion area mean the soviets would also move their forces?
I think Rommel wanted the Suez Channel because he knew the strategic value to the Allies. Taking it over would isolate the Allies from each theater of warfare. The unknown value of it might of helped the Middle Eastern Axis forces. Not sure if Turkey would of entered the war at this point but Iraqi and Persian oil in Axis hands would be valuable.
@@marrvynswillames4975 the Germans most wanted the Soviet resources like oil and Ukranian land. Attacking from the South, in the Caucasian border would put them closer to the oil fields in the Caucasus while reaching the site border without fighting the entirety of the Red Army, and also without having to travel all the place fighting them when attacking all the way from Western Europe. The British might not have had as much forces to hold the ground in the Middle East. And most of Ukraine could have been sized as well by a smaller forces from Poland going a bit slower. Reaching for at least the Dniepr river perhaps.
@@Seriona1 it would be easier for them to link with the Japanese as well.
@@Seriona1 it would be interesting to look where oil came from at that time but i think not so much of it came from middle east.
I noticed that you have a "eɪ" pronunciation when you say the words of Yugosl-a-via and Czechosl-a-via. It should be pronounced like words such as "l-a-mb" or "d-a-t" in dutch.
You need to handwave a few things to make Italy neutral or allied. By 1938 its adventures had thoroughly alienated the west. In fact the only possible friend left was Germany. What choice did it have but to ally with Germany?
But let's say it still spurned Germany. By 1938 Italy was bled dry by Ethiopia and Spain and in no shape whatsoever for any adventure. The question is how much of this did the west and Germany know?
In short a pro western Italy means no invasion of Ethiopia and no massive support of Franco
You left out recent conclusion of unconventional, but costly conflict in Libya too. The fighting with the Senussi in the Cyrenaica only concluded in the early 1930s - not sure how things were settled there on into the decade. Short of it, Libya did not yield quietly, and it cost Italy much, going into say 1932... then came the other adventures, with poor management not keeping up.
Germany might have been better off if Italy had joined the war but just abandoned North Africa. No costly campaign across the Mediterranean so the troops and aircraft could have been sent to the Eastern front instead.
Italy could have focused all of its resources on starving Malta and leaving Greece alone. It was harder for the British to supply Malta than for Italy to supply Libya. Just taking that one island while holding Cyrenaica would have contributed more to the Axis' war effort than anything the Italian Army did in the Mediterranean or Russia.
Mussolini would have been psychologically incapable of abandoning North Africa, because that would have been the abandonment of the great dream of restoring the Roman Empire, which in certain quarters was also a big part of his political appeal.
It's been on my mind a lot lately that the Italians really blew it very early in the war when they foolishly went on the march to invade Albania and Greece. Albania was one thing but they knew Greece would be no push over any thoughts to the contrary might really be proving my point that the Italian top brass just had awful planning. The FIRST goal after declaring war on Great Britain was not to send a few fighter and bomber squadrons to France, but to make immediate plans and provisions to invade and take Malta out of the war. Their second moves could have been the attack on Egypt to push the Brits out of the Canal Zone. This would have made the Mediterranean "their sea" once again as it was in Ancient Rome's times. The other effect would have been to give the Brits way too many things to think and do, way too few resources to spread about. The Battle of Britain was the perfect cover for the Invasion of Malta.
Every Italian general, any that still had the position due of merit and not of favoritism like all the others, begged Mussolini to not attack Greece but he was inamovibile, didn't care about the lack of resources, of morale, of geography.. he didn't care about anything. He wanted Greece because he wanted for it to be like the ancient Roman empire and have Greece be part of it, so he just gave generic orders like "go and take it in a week" or shit like that and expected the the Greeks to be fine and dandy with it. Italians knew it was basically suicide but couldn't do anything about it since all the strategic positions were in his hands
Greece had a massive British support Italians couldn't counter since the invasion was badly planned.
But even with the entire Greek army having the high ground and the British RAF bombing, the Greeks only managed to make a stalemate, not to win.
This should make you think about the bravery of Italians, forced to deal with WW1 equipent and stupid officers.
We won every war we have fought but WW1.
Hello
I wonder if Fascism would have survived had Mussolini taken his doctrinal differences with Natsoc into consideration like the whole Aryan race thing that even Mussolini found to be batshit and stayed out of Hitler's plans like Franco did.
Fascism was a long term political project and then Hitler went on his own crusade to expand the German state only and towards Poland no less which could soon have had a fascist government of its own installed by the ballot because of panic over a Soviet invasion. Not siding with Hitler militarily could have been a boost for the spread of fascism overall and he basically sunk his whole ideology out of the allure of having Prussian steel on his side.
you are going to over this too quickly Italy had no military anymore to stand up to Hitler at this point. Also, Italy's relationship with the allies got worse during the war in Ethiopia.
Presumably a non-belligerent Italy means the Germans don’t need to use up men, machines, resources, and LOGISTICS fighting in North Africa, Greece, and Italy itself.
Interesting video, but it's just not about Italy.
Italy might aswell have invaded Switzerland
What surprises me is the abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian Army during WW1, while after all they had a lot of industrial treasures hidden it appears? Or was this weapons and resources industry only developed during or post-WW1? But guess this is outside the context of this video, and would require an enormous amount of research in Habsburg Archives, if these exist?
PS. All Armies performed ´abysmally´ obviously, and a lot has to do with the Cult of the Offensive and that brainless C-n-C they had in Vienna von Hotzendorf, adding on top of the multi-ethnic composition and (as one historian called it) ´Absolutism coupled to Inefficiency´ for a bureaucracy. They had to wait 2 full weeks for getting an OK from Hungary to go into Serbia I recall of my head, so guess it wasn´t the soldiers nor weaponry.