Germany vs the Allies without Italian "help" during WW2, who would win?

Status
Closed

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#2
I've wondered this myself. My opinion is that having Italy as an ally, was like being shackled to a corpse. Maybe worse even worse than that. Germany was forced to fight Mussolini's blunders. In the end though, I don't think it would of mattered. Germany still loses.
 

funakison

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,381
Between a rock and a hard place
#3
So let's say Hitler didn't have Italy's much-vaunted help in WW2, how would they have gone?

I am off to a different thread i dont like blood sports. :crying:
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,053
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#4
So let's say Hitler didn't have Italy's much-vaunted help in WW2, how would they have gone?

I am off to a different thread i dont like blood sports. :crying:
Oh come now, it's good to speculate. Suppose Germany had not been forced to commit resources to North Africa and Greece to rescue Italy's faltering campaigns there, how much longer would the war have gone on for?
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,856
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#5
Well, if Italy remained neutral ... that would have been a problem for the allies: no Italian Campaign in the center of Mediterranean to keep busy a certain part of German armies.

May be the allies would have tried and land in South France, may be ... to open a Southern front and force Germany to divide further its military machine.

Before of this, it's to be noted that without Italy, Berlin had no urgency to run through Balkans to reach Greece [to save Italian "invasion"].

It was during the Russian Campaign that Italians "made number" having anyway a certain role in the general scenario. But I guess that not having such a mass of auxiliary forces, the Germans would have chosen a different strategy.

If we pay attention at when Italy entered WW II, we can note that Germany was running its impressive winning charge against the European continent without that great effort [the enemies had defeated or they escaped ...]. From the entry of Italy on, some troubles appeared at the Nazi horizon. May be a coincidence ... may be ...
 
Apr 2013
7,365
New Verulamium
#6
Oh come now, it's good to speculate. Suppose Germany had not been forced to commit resources to North Africa and Greece to rescue Italy's faltering campaigns there, how much longer would the war have gone on for?
Not much longer, I consider German commitments to Italy's campaigns to be a sideshow of the War. The course of WW2 was decided on the Eastern front, the African and Greek campaigns were rather unimportant in comparison to the titanic struggle in the East. At bets the war would have gone on for a few more months.
 

Belloc

Ad Honorem
Mar 2010
5,418
USA
#7
I agree it wouldn't alter the overall course of the war too much. There just wouldn't be a North African or that much of a Balkans campaign. Whether Italy stays completely out of the war is another story, perhaps the Allies still invade Italy to get at Germany's southern flank, forcing Germany to occupy the country to forestall this possibility. Similar dynamic to the Scandinavian campaign where neutral countries are targeted by both sides.
 

Toltec

Ad Honorem
Apr 2008
7,923
Hyperborea
#9
They wouldn't have had the mighty Italian Air force to aid them in the Battle of Britain.

However the Italy did tie up a lot of Royal Navy ships that could have been sent east to fight the Japanese or escort Atlantic Convoys.
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#10
No need to delay Barbarossa by supporting the Italians in Greece, adds 3-4 weeks extra campaigning in Russia over the summer.

250,000 extra men to throw at Stalingrad including Rommel.

No opportunity for British/American generals to practise strategies and adapt to modern warfare, leading to massive casualties come D-Day, maybe even a allied defeat on D-Day.

Without Italy's help I'd say Germanys chance of wining the war is increased by about 10% -20%
 
Status
Closed