Italy in World War II

[nixon]

I'm currently reading a bit about Italy's involvement in World War II. Now, I could use some help as far as Italy's motives are concerned. What made Italy take part in World War II and team up with Germany? And was it a profitable alliance for both of them? And how come Mussolini wasn't able to stay in power like Hitler did?

In short, I'm interested in hearing some of the reasons and motives for Italy's involvement in WWII, the country's ability to wage war, the domestic situation, and the gradual development of anti-Fascist sentiments among the Italian people.

The thread is not meant to be so "restrictive", as long as it concerns Italy's role in WWII, I'm interested. I might just add that I'm not so interested in the military POV, rather the political and diplomatical overview 1940 (possible earlier)-1943 - until the Allies take over.

[Adler17]

The Italians in ww2? the answer is clear: a joke!
Okay it is a bit hard but the Germans had much more problems with them. They didn´t fight very good due to the lack of good officers and material. And even if they were in superiority theyx lost battles. No ti wasn´t a good alliance. They were even not able to take Yougoslavia or Greece. And Greece was an ally of Germany (tending to Germany).
Mussolini was also a fascist like Hitler and that´s why both thought to be the best allies. That´s why they became a member of the axis.

Adler

[privatehudson]

From things I've read, it wasn't always so obvious that Italy would ally completely with Germany, especially in the earlier years of Hitler's reign.

Anyway, Mussolini was something of a deluded figure, still believing that Italy had the capacity to fight a modern war when the reality was it entered world war 2 utterly unprepared. I believe it began with Italy striking out into Southern France towards the end of the 1940 campaign accompanied by botched attempts to invade Egypt and Eastern Africa. Mussolini kind of figured that the British Empire was finished and wanted a slice of the cake that Hitler was about to carve up.

As for their soldiers, well some thought well, reports of their artillery crews said they always fought with fanatical determination. Also some of their formations such as their armoured and Besgaleri (sp?) fought well considering in the desert campaign. Their airborne formations were also good as well as they were considered good enough to draft into Germany's at the end of their axis involvement. Axis-wise though, 1943 was not strictly the end. When Italy deposed Mussolini and threw in their lot with the Allies the Germans occupied most of the country and imposed a facist state in the north with Mussolini as a puppet ruler. Some Italians continued to fight for the Germans under that regime.

IIRC Mussolini was never given the same level of power as Hitler. Though a facist dictator, I believe the King was still nominally head of state and therefore retained some power. Perhaps that, the falling popularity of siding with the Axis and the loss of support of the military was what drove him from power. Mussolini was captured and kept in Gran Sasso (amongst other places) until a force lead by Skorzeny in name and a Falshirmjaeger formation in reality sprung him out and installed him back in the north.

Mussolini had a jealous nature also and invaded the balkan states without consulting or even informing Hitler, as Hitler had done in 1940 in France. The total lack of preparation that mussolini did though caused the invasion of greece to falter and stumble until Hitler was forced to send German troops to finish the job. All Mussolini achieved in reality was to salvage by connection the faltering African campaign. But at the cost of delaying the Russian one.

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by privatehudson
From things I've read, it wasn't always so obvious that Italy would ally completely with Germany

i believe you are correct about this. did not mussolini actually send his troops to austria's boarders ( in support against germany ) the first time hitler attempted to annex it?

[privatehudson]

Yes, indeed that was what I was thinking of, but couldn't remember much details of it, so didn't want to say in case I had misread

[Esckey]

The smart thing for them to of done was let hitler produce the equipment and train the troops for Italy. But both leaders had massive egos and this was probably never considered. Just imagine what the Italians could of done if they were better equiped and trained properly(IIRC they're training were on par with North Korea during the Korean war, inwhich Korean pilots would bail out of their jets before they were even hit. That's not so much cowardly as it is the pilots simply not knowing what it was like to be hit, what their plane would do when hit and so forth)

[Vietcong]

mosalny *spelling* didnt want to enter the war untill 1942, but due to hitler starting it at the time he did, he decided to go on with it. he fist started by invadeing souther france at the late part of the 1940 camping like said earlyer. ther motive for entering the war was to gain more land and power, the facist party litraly wanted to rebuild the roman empire, and mosuly saw him self as the new ceaser of rome. italy tho was poly prepeard, and porlye traied, its oficers weak, and genreals thot like tho from ww1.
its larg force of over 300 (or 30??) thosand troops was defeted by that of 15 thosand brithis or so.. and it once agin got intro troble with greece, the greeks acaly not only halted the italians, but pushed then back, even entering italian held albaina. thats when hitler steped in. he allso decited to move aginst yugolsavia when the facist goverment ther fell to a coup*spelling*

the italians did have good jet tech tho.

edit: o, and the resion he lsot power was becus his own facist party voted him out, lol

[pawpaw]

italy's biggest weakness was lack of industry. they had several good fighter planes like the macchi 202/205 or regaine 2005--which were as good as the hurricane or p-40's used by the english in north africa. however they built only several hundred total, making obsolete pre war types the majority of their force. the same goes for there armoured forces, while the m-14/41 made up the majority of there tanks, they had a newer p-40 tank with an 75mm gun and heavier armour but built only 200. the semoventi self propelled guns were very reliable. mussolini was building for war from ther 1930's on but the italian war industry built weapons in the hundreds while the british/germans built in the 10,000's. so they fought with inferior equipment when better could of been available. poor planning by el duce

[allhailIndia]

It is said that the troops invading Greece in the cold of winter had to make do with cardboard shoes

Italy was simply not anywhere as industrialized as the other big nations fighting the war to make too much of an impact, and when it tried to, got a good ole fashioned whipping.:whip:

[kittenOFchaos]

My grandfather who fought against the Italians in Africa, Sicilly and Italy as a frontline infantry man (in the Seaforth Highlanders) said of the Italians that they always had their hands up. Though by the time Scottish troops get close enough to you to see, that may not be a bad idea (/takes off kilt and puts patriotism away).

A point in case could be when Churchill commented about the victory in 1941 against the Italians by Richard O'Connor and the British 7th Armour Division:

"Never in the field of human conflict, have so many surrendered to so few."

(I hope you get the joke he was making).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...oured_Division

During the 1941 Italian retreat, WDF commander Major-General Richard O'Connor ordered the Desert Rats to travel south of the Jebel Akhdar and cut off the Italian forces at Beda Fomm, while Australian forces continued to push the Italians west. As the tanks were unable to travel fast enough, the maneuver was led by a brigade of armoured cars, towed artillery, and infantry, which completed the trip in 30 hours, cutting off the Italian retreat and effectively destroying the Italian Tenth Army. The rest of the force arrived sometime later.

The Italians proved so weak that Hitler was forced to send reinforcements to stiffen them under the command of General Erwin Rommel.

Unfortuantly Churchill sent alot of the African forces to Greece to get soundly beaten in their flight from Greece, to Crete to Egypt. Had they remained, then Northern Africa could have been secured by Britain before Rommel and the Africa Korps arrived to cause mayhem for the next 2 and a half years.

[privatehudson]

Unfortuantly Churchill sent alot of the African forces to Greece to get soundly beaten in their flight from Greece, to Crete to Egypt. Had they remained, then Northern Africa could have been secured by Britain before Rommel and the Africa Korps arrived to cause mayhem for the next 2 and a half years.

*nods* That was what I was referring to when I said it salvaged the faltering African campaign when Greece happened

[Esckey]

On a side note: Who actually entered Rome first? Everytime something about Italy in WW2 comes on TV, or is mentioned in a book they're answer is always different. I've heard the Americans were, that the brits where, that Canadian troops where in the subarbs of Rome and had to slow down their advance cause they got to far ahead of their supply lines. Even heard that Polish soilders made it there first.

[rilnator]

I think it was Mark Clark's army (American). It happened on the same day as D-Day. I wouldn't have liked to be at Hitler's military conference on that particular day.

[Kubz]

At the start of the war the British really feared the Italian navy in the Mediterranean. The British navy made a daring carrier based strike of torpedo bombers on the anchored Italian fleet at Taranto. The Italian fleet was totally knocked out of the war after this. This raid became the inspiration for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think Mussolini was more of a liability to Hitler than an ally. At first Mussolini was extremly jealous of Hitlers victories and forced his woefully prepared military into battle. As the war went on Mussolini became spineless and would not stand up to Hitler when it was evident he was leading Italy towards disaster. The Italians saw Mussolini pander to Hitler and after the Allies landed in Sicily, Mussolini was quickly deposed.

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Kubz
This raid became the inspiration for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

actually the japanese began both their previous wars with suprise naval attacks too ( sino-japanese war 1895 & russo-japanese war 1905 ) if we had been paying attention we mite of been looking for it

[rilnator]

Mussolini was a ball and chain around Hitler's ankle but better to have him in the Axis camp than nuetral.

[Androrc]

Originally posted by rilnator
Mussolini was a ball and chain around Hitler's ankle but better to have him in the Axis camp than nuetral.

I totally agree(heh, it would be good if Franco joined Hitler too, so that he was also deposed). Not only he was a fascist pig, he was also incompetent. The German people actually liked Hitler because he recovered the country from the economic problems after WW1(the Germans even didn't believe that there were concentration camps, they thought it was just enemy propaganda), something Mussolini didn't do. Italy, who in WW1 was a great power capable of defeating the Austrian Empire(!) in WW2 it was reduced to insignificance. Mussolini's rule was a disaster.

[Adler17]

Italians won against Austria? in ww1? No. they were as bad as in ww2. They were not able to break through the Austrian lines. Although the Austrians had only very few men they were able to use the terrain (the Alps) as barriere the Italians could not take. When Austria had enough troops in 1918 they were able to regain their territory and were only stopped shortly before Venice. No Italy was in both wars foolish and a bad ally.

Adler

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by pawpaw


actually the japanese began both their previous wars with suprise naval attacks too ( sino-japanese war 1895 & russo-japanese war 1905 ) if we had been paying attention we mite of been looking for it

pawpaw, please READ what Kubz posted for he is absolutely correct whilst you have ignored what he wrote and posted something that though factually true is IRRELEVANT.

In November 1940 (over a year before Pearl Harbour), the British Fleet Air Arm used 21 Swordsfish torpedo-bombers (my english grandfather was a navigator in a Swordfish torpedo-bomber during the war BTW ) against the Italian Fleet in Taranto Harbour.

They sank 3 battleships which was considered to be strongly fortified. Beyond this it was thought that it was not possible to launch aerial torpedoes in water where the depth was less than 75 feet - about the average in Taranto Harbour- and you have to consider then that at Pearl Harbour the depth was a mere 30-45 feet.

Thus Pearl Harbour was considered immune from this type of attack up UNTIL the British attack on Taranto. The Japanese noted the fact that the British by 1941 were able to launch aerial torpedoes at depths of 40 feet by applying wooden fins to the torpedoes to prevent them 'porpoising' and going to the seafloor and made use of this knowledge themselves.


Without Taranto and other factors such as the increased range of the Zero and the fact the Americans did not use anti-torpedo netting on their battleships the attack on Pearl Harbour looked to have a chance of delivering a knock-out blow.

[nixon]

But what were Mussolini's motives for going to war against the Allies in June 1940? What did he expect to achieve? I mean, he knew that Italy wouldn't be able to wage war effectively, yet he chose to go to war anyway...