What would happen to its gains in Africa, and what would the future hold for a Neutral Italy? Would it be a clone of Franco's Spain?

What would happen to its gains in Africa, and what would the future hold for a Neutral Italy? Would it be a clone of Franco's Spain?

Heh Germany might have won. :lol:

There might not have been a North Africa campaign, or a Balkans Campaign, which frees up resources for Barbarossa...

The possibility of Italy remaining permanently neutral were slim to none. Mussolini built up too much planning for "the next war" to sit it out.

If he didn't go to war in 1940, he'd probably go to war with Germany, probably as late as possible, not quite as late as Turkey though.

Even more likely is he'd take the opportunity to pursue his "parallel war" to a greater degree. Mussolini gets the Italian Army Bogged down in Greece for 5 years. He'd probbaly make himself very usefull towards the allies once it becomes evident that they are winning, allowing them to use Sadinia as a naval/air base and Sicily and Rhodes as naval bases. Italy pulls out of Greece at the end of the war, obviously not wanting to annoy the Americans.

Italy becomes an Embarrassment to western Europe. They're not allowed in NATO. Italy probably pulls out of the war relatively stronger then most of the European powers as their cities are not asploded.

Italy makes a bid for a seat in the U.N.
Unlikely to get one.

Now, the really big problem for the regime is going to be 1946 when Victor Emmanuel dies. At this point Mussolini still has a few years on his life, so he's likely to decide Italy is now a republic. Probably puts it on as a progressive move for the world press. Of course, since his war was a farce, he may not be in a position to dethrone the king. On the other hand Umberto II was even dumber then Victor Emmanuel III.

Now, it seems to me natural that Mussolini would draw his policies closer to the non-alignment movement. Probably encourage decolonization while still keeping a firm grip on his colonies. Tries to foster relations with India, Persia etc. Certainly Nasser when he comes into play. If he's still alive, Mussolini would certainly be quick to establish ties with Egypt, probably with Military aid.

The big sticking point with the Non-Aligns is of course Yugoslavia. Him and Tito would butt heads at every opportunity.

Then of course, Mussolini dies. He's unlikely to make it for more then the 1950s. At which point they need a successor. Obviously anyone from the first generation is out, since they're ready to die any minute also. Whether Fascism could have survived on the "second wave" they were planning, I can't venture to guess.

The possibility of Italy remaining permanently neutral were slim to none. Mussolini built up too much planning for "the next war" to sit it out.
Yep

If he didn't go to war in 1940, he'd probably go to war with Germany, probably as late as possible, not quite as late as Turkey though.

Even more likely is he'd take the opportunity to pursue his "parallel war" to a greater degree. Mussolini gets the Italian Army Bogged down in Greece for 5 years. He'd probbaly make himself very usefull towards the allies once it becomes evident that they are winning, allowing them to use Sadinia as a naval/air base and Sicily and Rhodes as naval bases. Italy pulls out of Greece at the end of the war, obviously not wanting to annoy the Americans.
If Mussolini didn't take advantage of French weakness to enter the war then, it's doubtful he'd attack Greece. Yugoslavia is a far more likely target, if he didn't maintain outright neutrality. I'd foresee him using intimidation to make gains from Vichy France and Yugoslavia, while avoiding outright war. He'd likely allow the Allies bases in Sardinia as you said, but might not, depending on how aggressively Hitler was willing to argue the point.

Italy becomes an Embarrassment to western Europe. They're not allowed in NATO. Italy probably pulls out of the war relatively stronger then most of the European powers as their cities are not asploded.

Italy makes a bid for a seat in the U.N.
Unlikely to get one.
Didn't Spain get a UN seat? I'd think they'd swing one, myself.

Now, the really big problem for the regime is going to be 1946 when Victor Emmanuel dies. At this point Mussolini still has a few years on his life, so he's likely to decide Italy is now a republic. Probably puts it on as a progressive move for the world press. Of course, since his war was a farce, he may not be in a position to dethrone the king. On the other hand Umberto II was even dumber then Victor Emmanuel III.

Now, it seems to me natural that Mussolini would draw his policies closer to the non-alignment movement. Probably encourage decolonization while still keeping a firm grip on his colonies. Tries to foster relations with India, Persia etc. Certainly Nasser when he comes into play. If he's still alive, Mussolini would certainly be quick to establish ties with Egypt, probably with Military aid.
I'd think that Mussolini would be far more likely to favour the West. Fascism has some things in common with capitalism, and he'd play those things up if it were to his benefit. The anti-colonialism of the Non-Aligned movement is likely to be very displeasing to Mussolini, who'd attempt to hang on to his colonies as long as possible. he'd be an embarrassment to the West though, so they might reject him, but that's unlikely, since he'd represent a power base they wouldn't want on the other side of the Cold War, and he was very anti-Communist.

The big sticking point with the Non-Aligns is of course Yugoslavia. Him and Tito would butt heads at every opportunity.
Probably quite literally over Trieste and Dalmatia.

Then of course, Mussolini dies. He's unlikely to make it for more then the 1950s. At which point they need a successor. Obviously anyone from the first generation is out, since they're ready to die any minute also. Whether Fascism could have survived on the "second wave" they were planning, I can't venture to guess.
I foresee Italy being more like Portugal than Spain. Fascism tries to hold on, but doesn't pull it off.

If Mussolini didn't take advantage of French weakness to enter the war then, it's doubtful he'd attack Greece. Yugoslavia is a far more likely target, if he didn't maintain outright neutrality. I'd foresee him using intimidation to make gains from Vichy France and Yugoslavia, while avoiding outright war. He'd likely allow the Allies bases in Sardinia as you said, but might not, depending on how aggressively Hitler was willing to argue the point.
That's true. Yugoslavia was a big target. Who knows, they might even have done better with that. Occupation would have bogged them down though.


Didn't Spain get a UN seat? I'd think they'd swing one, myself.
Sorry, I meant to say seat on the UN, security council. They'd likely be shot down.


I'd think that Mussolini would be far more likely to favour the West. Fascism has some things in common with capitalism, and he'd play those things up if it were to his benefit.
If they were to his benefit. And if it was to his benefit I think he'd play up that Anti-Capitalist element of Fascism. Basically I find it very hard to picture Mussolini aligning himself with the west, because his great fear was alwaysthat of having to orient Italy's policies based on a greater power.
The anti-colonialism of the Non-Aligned movement is likely to be very displeasing to Mussolini, who'd attempt to hang on to his colonies as long as possible.
Mussolini and Fascists in general were not above disengenuous foreign policies. He'd try to hold onto his colonies, saying perhaps their relationship was different, but he'd certainly try to break up other people's colonies, especially in the Middle East.
he'd be an embarrassment to the West though, so they might reject him, but that's unlikely, since he'd represent a power base they wouldn't want on the other side of the Cold War, and he was very anti-Communist.
I think yes, he'd lean further to the west, but it's a matter of degrees.

Probably quite literally over Trieste and Dalmatia.
I think a minor European War would be quite impossible with the Americans and Soviets watching. But you're right, it may be something indirect, with the Superpowers aiding only with material support.


I foresee Italy being more like Portugal than Spain. Fascism tries to hold on, but doesn't pull it off.
I suppose so, but Fascism had a fundamental advantage over those regimes in that it was truly a dynamic movement. Franco and Salazar's successors could only promise their followers political reaction, which stops seeming so appealing when the fear of revolution was gone. Totalitarian societies have an amazingly long lasting potential, I mean, honestly in 1953 if you told them North Korea would last until 2009, and last over 20 years longer then the Soviet Union, they'd think you were mad.
The real question is whether Mussolini would trust a competent successor enough to actually designate one.

That's true. Yugoslavia was a big target. Who knows, they might even have done better with that. Occupation would have bogged them down though.
A Croatian puppet regime would help a great deal in that area, as it did in OTL.

Sorry, I meant to say seat on the UN, security council. They'd likely be shot down.
Ah, yes, in flames.

If they were to his benefit. And if it was to his benefit I think he'd play up that Anti-Capitalist element of Fascism. Basically I find it very hard to picture Mussolini aligning himself with the west, because his great fear was alwaysthat of having to orient Italy's policies based on a greater power.
Ironically that's exactly what he did with Germany. He'd likely be closer to the NAM and WP than most of the Western Bloc, bu I think he'd definitely associate himself more with the West than otherwise.

Mussolini and Fascists in general were not above disengenuous foreign policies. He'd try to hold onto his colonies, saying perhaps their relationship was different, but he'd certainly try to break up other people's colonies, especially in the Middle East.
Disingenuity only works when the other side buys it. I don't see India, Egypt or Indonesia happily taking Mussolini at his word regarding Ethiopia or Libya. Especially Egypt, which would be directly threatened by such colonies.

I think yes, he'd lean further to the west, but it's a matter of degrees.
I agree with this.

I think a minor European War would be quite impossible with the Americans and Soviets watching. But you're right, it may be something indirect, with the Superpowers aiding only with material support.
I forgot to mention Albania as well, Tito would interfere there and Mussolini would try to add to its territory by taking Kosovo and parts of Macedonia. A local war between the two would be quite likely, and might just pull Tito back into the Soviet sphere earlier than in OTL. Or it might do the opposite, as the USSR would want even less to do with him due to the potential of being drawn in.

I suppose so, but Fascism had a fundamental advantage over those regimes in that it was truly a dynamic movement. Franco and Salazar's successors could only promise their followers political reaction, which stops seeming so appealing when the fear of revolution was gone. Totalitarian societies have an amazingly long lasting potential, I mean, honestly in 1953 if you told them North Korea would last until 2009, and last over 20 years longer then the Soviet Union, they'd think you were mad.
The real question is whether Mussolini would trust a competent successor enough to actually designate one.
I think the Party would be more likely to take charge than any appointed successor, which has both good and bad by-products. Oligarchies tend to be very stable, but they're also less adaptable. I guess the survival of the regime - assuming Mussolini dies at taround about the same time as Stalin - would depend upon how much pressure both sides were willing to put on it, and internal moements in Italy itself. I don't foresee Fascism lasting past the '60s though. Too many hippies demanding freedom, and too much pressure for the Fascists to stop oppressing their own people from their European allies.

A Croatian puppet regime would help a great deal in that area, as it did in OTL.[quote]
Probably, but even in Croatia partisans were a continuous problem.


[quote]Ironically that's exactly what he did with Germany.
Very much so. But he was hoping Italian gains in the war would allow him to offset Germany.
He'd likely be closer to the NAM and WP than most of the Western Bloc, bu I think he'd definitely associate himself more with the West than otherwise.
Definitely closer, but definitely trying to take his own policy, whenever he could.


Disingenuity only works when the other side buys it. I don't see India, Egypt or Indonesia happily taking Mussolini at his word regarding Ethiopia or Libya. Especially Egypt, which would be directly threatened by such colonies.
Disengenuity also works if the other side doesn't care. Egypt might feel threatened, but Nasser didn't feel threatened when the Italians were invading Egypt, so I don't quite know what it would take for him to find them threatening. India and Indonesia would likely not feel threatened by Mussolini because he has no way to reach them. But I think Egypt, and Indonesia and even India would be willing to tolerate a two-faced policy in exchange for Italian weapons and other aid. And Mussolini would be willing to give it to them to stick it to the British.


I forgot to mention Albania as well, Tito would interfere there and Mussolini would try to add to its territory by taking Kosovo and parts of Macedonia. A local war between the two would be quite likely, and might just pull Tito back into the Soviet sphere earlier than in OTL. Or it might do the opposite, as the USSR would want even less to do with him due to the potential of being drawn in.
Quite so.

I think the Party would be more likely to take charge than any appointed successor, which has both good and bad by-products. Oligarchies tend to be very stable, but they're also less adaptable. I guess the survival of the regime - assuming Mussolini dies at taround about the same time as Stalin - would depend upon how much pressure both sides were willing to put on it, and internal moements in Italy itself. I don't foresee Fascism lasting past the '60s though. Too many hippies demanding freedom, and too much pressure for the Fascists to stop oppressing their own people from their European allies.
The 1960s would be a great hurtle, but that's still what...15 years after the death of Mussolini? Quite a long time for the system to survive after the leader dies. Longer then Salazar's system did IIRC.

Probably, but even in Croatia partisans were a continuous problem.
Of course. Tito was Croatian.

Very much so. But he was hoping Italian gains in the war would allow him to offset Germany.

Definitely closer, but definitely trying to take his own policy, whenever he could.
Just like any other nation.

Disengenuity also works if the other side doesn't care. Egypt might feel threatened, but Nasser didn't feel threatened when the Italians were invading Egypt, so I don't quite know what it would take for him to find them threatening. India and Indonesia would likely not feel threatened by Mussolini because he has no way to reach them. But I think Egypt, and Indonesia and even India would be willing to tolerate a two-faced policy in exchange for Italian weapons and other aid. And Mussolini would be willing to give it to them to stick it to the British.
Nasser didn't feel threatened by Italy because he felt far more threatened by the British. With the creation of Israel Nasser would do business with whoever would support him, but his prestige in the Arab world rested in a large part on is anti-colonialism. It would be very hard to claim to be anti-colonialist while openly dealing with one of the few remaining colonial states on Earth. India and Indonesia were even more anti-colonialist than Egypt, hence the difficulty in finding them willing to work with Italy. Especially India, which based its foreign policy on principles rather than expediency - poor misguided fools - before the Chinese invasion.

Quite so.


The 1960s would be a great hurtle, but that's still what...15 years after the death of Mussolini? Quite a long time for the system to survive after the leader dies. Longer then Salazar's system did IIRC.
Salazar's regime only lasted a few years after his death. I honestly don't see the Party even making it to the '60s in Italy, but if they did they'd almost certainly lose power then. They might be able to cleverly metamorphose, like the KMT in Taiwan, but they never struck me as being that flexible. I'd expect violence, followed by a change in government. That govenrment might focus on Moscow as a way to break with the past though, which wouldn't be a good thing.

Disingenuity only works when the other side buys it. I don't see India, Egypt or Indonesia happily taking Mussolini at his word regarding Ethiopia or Libya. Especially Egypt, which would be directly threatened by such colonies.

Nah, it also works when the other side practices it also. Both India and Indonesia were quite capable of doing exactly that.


Or it might do the opposite, as the USSR would want even less to do with him due to the potential of being drawn in.

More likely, imo.

I think the Party would be more likely to take charge than any appointed successor, which has both good and bad by-products. Oligarchies tend to be very stable, but they're also less adaptable. I guess the survival of the regime - assuming Mussolini dies at taround about the same time as Stalin - would depend upon how much pressure both sides were willing to put on it, and internal moements in Italy itself. I don't foresee Fascism lasting past the '60s though. Too many hippies demanding freedom, and too much pressure for the Fascists to stop oppressing their own people from their European allies.

I believe that show change would be far more likely than a collapse or revolution. And I mean slower than Spain's. After WW2 Italy was an oligarchy or sorts, only chaotic and with some of the strings pulled from abroad. If it had remained neutral they'd be an organized oligarchy, and one little vulnerable to outside manipulation. They'd also be far more wealthy than the rest of Europe if they played their cards right and avoided any wars. The rest of Europe, especially devastated France and Western Germany, would not be able to ignore it as they did Spain - too much to loose. Italy would be part of the early attempts at a "western european community" and in the after-war years a welcome alternative to american support.
A comfortable position for any government. Mussolini would have to be very stupid to waste it. Then again, he was...

Salazar's regime only lasted a few years after his death. I honestly don't see the Party even making it to the '60s in Italy, but if they did they'd almost certainly lose power then.

I doubt it. The portuguese example is not a good one, because the regime was overthrown by the military, who organized their coup initially over a career dispute with the government. A by-product of the portuguese colonial war, but it wasn't even due to "war weariness". It was the professional, carreer officers who revolted against being placed in equal footing with "militia officers" - those who were promoted from within the ranks, with a quicker formation. Nor a very glorious background for the 1974 portuguese revolution, I'm afraid.

But it occurs to me that a fascist Italy would certainly cling to it's colonies, Libya at least, with all that oil, critical for a more industrialized Italy which took advantage of its unscathed position after WW2. The real post-ww2 Italy sought good relations with the arab world (and Iran) also to get oil, but in this alternative history ENI would have had its own oil fields.
So Italy would also get stuck with one, or two, colonial wars in the 1960s. And that would be when pressure would start to mount, in a manner more similar to what happened in France that what happened in Portugal. It it tried to hold on to Ethiopia my guess is that it would eventually cut the losses and give up by the early 1970s, after making enemies of Egypt and the "non-aligneds". Libya it could hold, but at a cost of diplomatic isolation after the 1970s. I see that alternative Italy doing instead what the French did, only a few years later.

What would happen to its gains in Africa, and what would the future hold for a Neutral Italy? Would it be a clone of Franco's Spain?

Well, it would never stay permanently neutral, it would probably stab Hitler in the back when it became clear that Hitler would lose, probably in 1945.

It would probably sign a deal with the US similar to the pact of Madrid. It would be admitted to the UN and World Bank in the mid to late 50's after undergoing a degree of isolation.

It would retain its African possessions for a period of time, however, it will have to deal with USSR backed communist rebels in Ethiopia and its other territories. Of course, the US will probably back Italy.

Its battle to retain its colonies would begin to take a toll on the Italian populace.

Mussolini would probably die in the late 50's, and would be succeeded by Italo Balbo.

Faced with a never ending war in its colonies, left leaning members of the military, along with Vittorio Emanuelle IV*, now a grown man with a seething hatred for the Fascists who have him as a puppet, would launch a Coup, overthrowing the fascists in the mid to late 60's.

The monarchy is deposed a few years later, because he is a corrupt bastard, Italy declared a republic.




*Umberto II would never gain the throne at his father's death. Blackmailed by Mussolini with evidence of his homosexuality, he will allow for the throne to pass to his son Vittorio Emanuele IV, who would only be 10 at the time.

What would happen to its gains in Africa, and what would the future hold for a Neutral Italy? Would it be a clone of Franco's Spain?

You're basically asking: What if Mussolini wasn't Mussolini? (Seeing as Mussolini was an imperialist, he never would have been neutral during WW II - unlike the Iberian variety of fascism.)

You're basically asking: What if Mussolini wasn't Mussolini? (Seeing as Mussolini was an imperialist, he never would have been neutral during WW II - unlike the Iberian variety of fascism.)
This is a very, very, big oversimplification. And as Portugal's long wars in Angola and Mozambique showed, and Franco's attempts to try and get the British to give up Gibraltar, they could be quite imperialist as well.

Not really: Mussolini intended to restore Italy to its fromer Roman greatness. Not being of such greatness himself, he failed miserably. The comparison to Iberian decolonization, however, is indeed a simplification as, for one, it took place after WW II.

Heh Germany might have won. :lol:

Nah. Jokes about Italian military incompetence aside, Germany gets bogged down in the East pretty much no matter what changes we make; a real victory on that front is a logistical impossibility. It is also not really possible for the Germans to take out the UK (aka the unsinkable aircraft carrier) or prevent the western Allies from securing overwhelming superiority in naval and air forces. If the German land war goes significantly better and lasts longer, the end result is nukes dropping on Germany starting some time in 1945.

Not really: Mussolini intended to restore Italy to its fromer Roman greatness.
And this naturally follows that Mussolini would innevitably enter the war because...?
And the lengthy, months long decision process over whether to intervene happened because...?
The comparison to Iberian decolonization, however, is indeed a simplification as, for one, it took place after WW II.
Yes, but it was conducted by the same people. Unless Salazar was some how in favor of decolonization, despite not making any moves towards it prior to WWII, and only afterwards changed his mind on the matter, he was an imperialist, and therefor 'Seeing as Salazar was an imperialist, he never would have been neutral during WW II'

Nah. Jokes about Italian military incompetence aside, Germany gets bogged down in the East pretty much no matter what changes we make; a real victory on that front is a logistical impossibility. It is also not really possible for the Germans to take out the UK (aka the unsinkable aircraft carrier) or prevent the western Allies from securing overwhelming superiority in naval and air forces. If the German land war goes significantly better and lasts longer, the end result is nukes dropping on Germany starting some time in 1945.
It would probably have ended much much sooner without Italian involvement. Jokes about their competence aside, with no Africa or invasion of Italy, we'd likely see a Allied presence on the continent in 1943, with a British army no longer near collapse.

It would probably have ended much much sooner without Italian involvement. Jokes about their competence aside, with no Africa or invasion of Italy, we'd likely see a Allied presence on the continent in 1943, with a British army no longer near collapse.
You certainly wouldn't have the Italian Fleet troubling the British in the Mediterranean, allowing them supply Greece, Crete, Rumania and even potentially a Gaullist French government in North Africa, which might easily be taken if Italy wasn't available to ferry German troops and supplies.