Without Italy no World War 2? Germany's dependency on Italy 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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"

Yeah Mussolini definitevly inspired Hitler. Nazi party tried to take power first with Beer Putsch that was inspired by Mussolinis March on Rome

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.

Interesting that all the polictal parties had armies

I love this entire comment

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.

Its easy to forget that it was the 5th or 6th strongest Navy in the world, with the notable advantage of only having 1 theater to worry about Significantly behind the world class powers like the IJN, RN and USN but more than capable of contending with them in her home waters

@@Joesolo13 And the similarly capable French navy, which was expected to contend that navy effectively removed from the field within days of Italy entering the war.

....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.

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.

@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.

Mussolini was the OG of Facism in Europe. That is why Hitler was such a fanboy of Mussolini.

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

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.

> 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.

the answer is mostly no, and no because of the King. Tl;dr, Franco could avoid the "ehat are you anyway?" question because of the post-civil-war situation of Spain, calling himself a "regent" to appease the monarchists and using the excuse of fascism being "temporarily necessary" as international excuse, and using the PCE guerrillas to convince NATO he was the only barrier against communism in western Europe. Mussoliny however was very much so openly a dictator, Italy already had a king, who was against Mussolinni politically, and a working political system which mussoliny had altered during peacetime. They had no civil war and while during late WW2 the fear of Italian communists started, by early WW2 it was understood their spread was contained. As such, quite simply, despite the differences between the two being mostly aesthetical in nature, this aesthetic change is enough to completely alter international relations, and Italy was not in a position to negotiate with the allies. Ironically enough it's HITLER that had the better situation to pull a Franco. German appeasement wasn't just fear of the Germans. The original plan by the British was to let fascism expand as a barrier against communism which they feared more. Chamberlain in particular doing some very blatant moves in favor of the spread of this variant of collectivism and even keeping France from intervening in the Spanish Civil War as it was seen as an acceptable sacrifice to get more men into the fight against the Soviets. The late Interwar period was essentially a game of Chicken between Germany and the USSR, and that is why Russia was unprepared for WW2, as it understood any path towards militarizarion would mean an Axis-Entente alliance and as a result Stalin expressely ordered not to prepara against a possible Barbarossa until it was unavoidable for the USA to take Britain's side, as it feared even after the invasion of france the americans might fear him more than Hitler. But as we know Hitler blinked first and the UK had to eat crow on their bet in favor of fascism and against communism. In retrospect they were very stupid to make it in the first place as Stalin was an isolationist, favoring the "one country" version of communism (as opposed to the western "global" version) but I guess they didn't realize as much precisely because of Western communists being majoritarily the global kind.

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 agree but Franco managed to keep fascist Spain out of the war.

*didn't

The Ethiopian ruler refused the kind offer from Hitler.

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

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.

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.

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.

thank you, in that case no; see the description.

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized ah yes sorry

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

france did invade germany but got pushed back and it took less than 2 weeks to retreat haha

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Who knows maybe Potential History will come back too