What if the Italian Army was Good in World War 2?
video description
1: 03 Calling the quality of the Italian equipment as not perfect while comparable to other countries is an understatement. Most regular infantry riles were obsolete and even World War 1 grade. The UK and Germans already had updates in their rifles.
1: 23 Corruption would sometimes occur in the form of nepotism and favoritism for King Victor Emmanuel III.
Another main factor missing is that Italy did not have a sufficient economy for massive war. This is because only a few cities in North was Italy's only industrial base, so its manufacturing industry was barely able to meet pre-war armaments production. Not mention Italy was dependent on coal and oil to run equipment and industries, and Mussolini's economic policies aiming for self-sufficiency, autarky, did overcome this limitation. The industrial capability would be a deceive factor that would give competent commanders a chance, which is the alternative would never be feasible (even with improving the quality of commanders.
1: 28 By the mid 1930s, the Italian high command did change their military doctrine away from World War 1 style mountain warfare. Italy lacked the industrial capability to update tanks that were meant for mountain warfare, so World War 1 Syndrome (countries, like France and the UK initially, failing to update military doctrines by continuing to do what barely worked in WW1) and conservativism in the high command were not the issue.
2: 10 Italian commanders having varying qualities is due partly due to cultural limitations for those beyond the upper class to study to become officers, and even lack NCOS. The varying quality had been an issue before Mussolini, so it was not that Mussolini made things worse.
2: 35 The Italians were equal in terms of infantry equipment and armor quality: limited concentration of lightly armored tanks and WW1 quality rifles. The Italians, arguably, had worse logistics preparation, which was the deciding factor in that campaign until April 1940, in which the Italians commander, Sebastiano Visconti Prasca, was annoyed for the lack of preparation for logistically supplying an army in mountainous Mediterranean winters.
3: 20 The Italians retaking the Suez Canal would limit Middle Eastern Reinforcements via the Red Sea. However, the Italian navy, even based in Egypt, would have fuel limitations to combat the Royal Navy in the Red Sea, unless Italy improves it economy. Regardless, The British de-facto occupied Iraq, easily suppressed an anti-British coup in 1941, and could transport troops to the Levant, which already had forces present and reinforcements to assist the overthrow of the Vichy French in Lebanon and Syria, via Iraq. Still, they would have an upper-hand and chance to win.
4: 36 The Italians actually did try to invade, though not treated as a priority, Sudan but failed.
The Italians could win with improved logistics meant for an invading army and not a colonial police force. I am citing logistics because they did not advance far into Egypt due to lack of preparation in logistics, causing to the get defensive. Another factor would be improved industrial capability to improve concentration of motorized vehicles, which was partially why the British successful defended Sudan. In Libya, Italians surrendered due to out-flanking by more mobile British and Australian motor vehicles affecting Italian logistics.
For Kenya, the British Empire and Commonwealth forces only went on the offensive once Sudan was invaded, so the Italians could simply not invade Kenya and avoid trouble there.
5: 01 Thank you. Operation Barbarossa would not be affected by earlier intervention in Greece and Yugoslavia due to weather and also time to have the logistics prepared.
6: 56 I doubt the Italians would accept subsides from the Soviets because Mussolini supported the invasion of the Soviet Union and The Soviets would support Yugoslavian Partisan resistance to Italian conquests on the Adriatic coast, which would be its own can of worms.
7: 00 The unconditional surrender demand of the Axis did not come until January 1943. I doubt the British Empire would give up the Suez Canal, as they attempted war with Egypt over Egyptian nationalization until condemnation from US pressure. The British and Americans could invade Italy, though the success would depend on how hypothetically better the Italian economy is to produce aircraft and fuel its navy.
8: 45 I would say that the Italian Empire would face anti-colonial rebellions that would be violent, similar to what happened in Kenya, Angola, Mozambique, and especially Algeria, etc, in which they would be violent due to Italians settlements inspiring the Italians to not want to comprise independence. The not-so Italian populated colonies could be negotiated, though I doubt the Fscists would be compromising.
In short, the primary factor that would ensure Italian success would be improved industrial development and better trading policies with fuel. This would ensure better amour concentration in the Army, the ability to have a chance in air superiority, and sufficient fueling of its Navy.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Enrico
It sounds far fetched to say italy would've let Ethiopia brake off in the end, i mean who in his right mind would give away a large mineral rich fertile land like Ethiopia brake off its also the source of the nile so even if Egypt tries to get independent italy could've made the nile its hostage(mussolini actually planned on making a large dam to take the nile hostage to indirectly but control egypt but he lacked the money for it, Ethiopia is diverse all italy needs to do is separate the muslims from the Christians ethnic genocide is also on the table and also Ethiopia is very mountainous and has a very similar climate to that of italy italian farmers would've settled in large numbers and would've made the country at least quarter- roughly half ethnically italian and the other quarter would've been mixed plus jewish (mussolini planned on making a jewish home land in Ethiopia ) and would've made the remaining natives speak italian (because italian was the only language that was thought in italian colonies ) i serious doubt the natives could've made a big difference they were not consecrated in a specific place they were scattered all around the country they didn't even speak the same language where would they get military training or coordination all italy needed to do was eliminate the larger ethnic groups and the rest wouldn't try fighting if italy treats them well i mean i ma sure the muslims werre not big fans of a Christian emperor
reply
It sounds far fetched to say italy would've let Ethiopia brake off in the end, i mean who in his right mind would give away a large mineral rich fertile land like Ethiopia brake off its also the source of the nile so even if Egypt tries to get independent italy could've made the nile its hostage(mussolini actually planned on making a large dam to take the nile hostage to indirectly but control egypt but he lacked the money for it, Ethiopia is diverse all italy needs to do is separate the muslims from the Christians ethnic genocide is also on the table and also Ethiopia is very mountainous and has a very similar climate to that of italy italian farmers would've settled in large numbers and would've made the country at least quarter- roughly half ethnically italian and the other quarter would've been mixed plus jewish (mussolini planned on making a jewish home land in Ethiopia ) and would've made the remaining natives speak italian (because italian was the only language that was thought in italian colonies ) i serious doubt the natives could've made a big difference they were not consecrated in a specific place they were scattered all around the country they didn't even speak the same language where would they get military training or coordination all italy needed to do was eliminate the larger ethnic groups and the rest wouldn't try fighting if italy treats them well i mean i ma sure the muslims werre not big fans of a Christian emperor
reply
Georgios04
Italy's biggest mistake was invading Greece (which many Italians felt had no reason to conquer, unlike say France or the Adriatic) during the winter (which is always bad) through the Pindos mountains (which are perfect for defense even against a bigger army) in Epirus (which had basically no infrastructure. Greece had gone through a modernisation period with the 4th of August regime and the army was highly capable, especially to defend. Greece had also constructed the Metaxas line, a series of forts and defenses along the border with Bulgaria, which was actually so successful that it even held of the Germans. Italy picked a fight it couldn't win, and that's because they thought they wouldn't have to fight it at all, that Greece would surrender. Greece not surrendering meant that the Italians could at best take all of Epirus. And with the Greek threat seemingly neutralized, it's also unlikely that Germany would have intervened in the Balkans. Two possible outcomes: Either Germany wins WW2 against the Soviets, or the Allies still win but Greece never got occupied and ruined, meaning that it wouldn't have to go through a civil war, its industry and economy would be much better and Greece would've been in a better position to claim more lands, including Northern Epirus and possibly Cyprus too.
reply
Italy's biggest mistake was invading Greece (which many Italians felt had no reason to conquer, unlike say France or the Adriatic) during the winter (which is always bad) through the Pindos mountains (which are perfect for defense even against a bigger army) in Epirus (which had basically no infrastructure. Greece had gone through a modernisation period with the 4th of August regime and the army was highly capable, especially to defend. Greece had also constructed the Metaxas line, a series of forts and defenses along the border with Bulgaria, which was actually so successful that it even held of the Germans. Italy picked a fight it couldn't win, and that's because they thought they wouldn't have to fight it at all, that Greece would surrender. Greece not surrendering meant that the Italians could at best take all of Epirus. And with the Greek threat seemingly neutralized, it's also unlikely that Germany would have intervened in the Balkans. Two possible outcomes: Either Germany wins WW2 against the Soviets, or the Allies still win but Greece never got occupied and ruined, meaning that it wouldn't have to go through a civil war, its industry and economy would be much better and Greece would've been in a better position to claim more lands, including Northern Epirus and possibly Cyprus too.
reply
Georgios04
2: 43 there's a couple of things you didn't take into account. The Germans were able to conquer Greece because they went unopposed; all of the army was in Epirus except a few regiments guarding the defenses on the Bulgarian front. And indeed, neither Bulgaria not Germany could pass through there. Greece was impenetrable except for the border with Yugoslavia. This is because Yugoslavia and Greece had friendly relations and no one expected an attack from there. The Panzers rammed through and in a couple of days took Thessaloniki, encircling Thrace and the Epirus army couldn't come to defend because they'd have to pass the Pindus, the same mountain range that helped them beat Italy. A small battle was given at Thermopylae, making the Germans stand for like a week and then continue.
reply
2: 43 there's a couple of things you didn't take into account. The Germans were able to conquer Greece because they went unopposed; all of the army was in Epirus except a few regiments guarding the defenses on the Bulgarian front. And indeed, neither Bulgaria not Germany could pass through there. Greece was impenetrable except for the border with Yugoslavia. This is because Yugoslavia and Greece had friendly relations and no one expected an attack from there. The Panzers rammed through and in a couple of days took Thessaloniki, encircling Thrace and the Epirus army couldn't come to defend because they'd have to pass the Pindus, the same mountain range that helped them beat Italy. A small battle was given at Thermopylae, making the Germans stand for like a week and then continue.
reply
Jay
One of the reasons the Japanese shocked the Americans and British with their early successes was because it was conventional opinion Japan was another Italy: a junior partner to Germany with minimal industry and success only against even weaker powers, like Italy versus Abyssinia and Japan versus China. The Soviets thrashed the Japanese in the Nomonhan campaign, while the Finns then kicked the Red Army about until it could bring massively superior numbers to bear. Mussolini's legions were a laughing stock by 1941, thus the utter shock when the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy proved to be unstoppable world beaters from December 1941 until late into 1942.
reply
One of the reasons the Japanese shocked the Americans and British with their early successes was because it was conventional opinion Japan was another Italy: a junior partner to Germany with minimal industry and success only against even weaker powers, like Italy versus Abyssinia and Japan versus China. The Soviets thrashed the Japanese in the Nomonhan campaign, while the Finns then kicked the Red Army about until it could bring massively superior numbers to bear. Mussolini's legions were a laughing stock by 1941, thus the utter shock when the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy proved to be unstoppable world beaters from December 1941 until late into 1942.
reply
Guillermo
I dont think that the Germans would have failed to take Moscow dad the Italians not delayed them in the Balkans, indeed like you say a few days would not have made a difference, but a few weeks would have, plus in this timeline with decently led Italian divisions, which would be more effective, the personal friendship between the two leaders would have led to Italian troops being used to actively make a push for the Caucasus rather than just defend the flanks, of course German division would lead and mostly man the attack.
reply
I dont think that the Germans would have failed to take Moscow dad the Italians not delayed them in the Balkans, indeed like you say a few days would not have made a difference, but a few weeks would have, plus in this timeline with decently led Italian divisions, which would be more effective, the personal friendship between the two leaders would have led to Italian troops being used to actively make a push for the Caucasus rather than just defend the flanks, of course German division would lead and mostly man the attack.
reply
Oitubeman
Sure, the colonial empires would likely still fall, but french control over Algeria and Spanish control over west Sahara last much longer in this timeline. Apartheid south Africa in this timeline would likely survive for much longer because the Italians, Spaniards and french would also maintain their empires. Apartheid south Africa would likely still exist, along with Rhodesia.
And also, the Italians would have at least attempted to take Chad, the central African republic and the republic of the Congo.
reply
Sure, the colonial empires would likely still fall, but french control over Algeria and Spanish control over west Sahara last much longer in this timeline. Apartheid south Africa in this timeline would likely survive for much longer because the Italians, Spaniards and french would also maintain their empires. Apartheid south Africa would likely still exist, along with Rhodesia.
And also, the Italians would have at least attempted to take Chad, the central African republic and the republic of the Congo.
reply
pahtar
I think if the Italian empire survived WW2 intact, they would have become the hub of the Nonaligned movement along with Yugoslavia and India. This would have given them considerable soft power and would have benefited their economy as other non-aligned states would prefer to trade with them than with the West or the communists. They might have decolonized, making their own Commonwealth like the British, thereby maintaining control of the Suez Canal to this day.
reply
I think if the Italian empire survived WW2 intact, they would have become the hub of the Nonaligned movement along with Yugoslavia and India. This would have given them considerable soft power and would have benefited their economy as other non-aligned states would prefer to trade with them than with the West or the communists. They might have decolonized, making their own Commonwealth like the British, thereby maintaining control of the Suez Canal to this day.
reply
undead9999
Leleadership issues. Most dictatorships have horrible track record of leaders surrounding themselves with yesmen and stifling any dissent and questioning. Questioning your way of doing things is how you evolve. That is true at a human level, and stays true at the state one.
One example of a really good Italian officer was Lt Amedeo Guillet. He led the mounted native bands in the Horn of Africa. Died in 2010 at 101 years of age.
reply
Leleadership issues. Most dictatorships have horrible track record of leaders surrounding themselves with yesmen and stifling any dissent and questioning. Questioning your way of doing things is how you evolve. That is true at a human level, and stays true at the state one.
One example of a really good Italian officer was Lt Amedeo Guillet. He led the mounted native bands in the Horn of Africa. Died in 2010 at 101 years of age.
reply
bob
The germany losing thing is much less certain in this timeline. If italy funneled a reliable source of oil germany has a good chance of winning. The only reason for the losses in 43 were lack of fuel for veichles in the east and lack of fuel for planes in the west. The allies would have had alot more losses in the air and on the east there would be strategic mobility
reply
The germany losing thing is much less certain in this timeline. If italy funneled a reliable source of oil germany has a good chance of winning. The only reason for the losses in 43 were lack of fuel for veichles in the east and lack of fuel for planes in the west. The allies would have had alot more losses in the air and on the east there would be strategic mobility
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
