The fate of Italy in a no-WWII/no-Fall-of-France scenario?

[WolfBear]

What would the fate of Italy have been in a no-WWII/no-Fall-of-France scenario? Presumably Benito Mussolini dies a natural death in this scenario sometime between 1950 and 1980, but what happens after his death? Does Italy experience a democratization similar to Spain and Portugal? What happens to Italy's colonies in this scenario? And is Fascism remembered much more fondly in Italy in this scenario without Italian participation in World War II or even without World War II ever actually occurring at all?

Thoughts on this?

 

[History Learner]

I could easily see Fascist Italy emerging as one of the strongest states, and becoming the Fascist analogue to modern Communist China. It would be a nuclear power and to a fair degree self sufficient, thanks to control over Libya and likely Eritrea too. I'd imagine in the long run it would let go of Ethiopia and Somalia, albeit retaining heavy influence and economic concessions. Italy would also likely emerge as a major benefactor of the Arab World too, given Mussolini's focus on being the "Sword of Islam".

 

[WolfBear]

I could easily see Fascist Italy emerging as one of the strongest states, and becoming the Fascist analogue to modern Communist China. It would be a nuclear power and to a fair degree self sufficient, thanks to control over Libya and likely Eritrea too. I'd imagine in the long run it would let go of Ethiopia and Somalia, albeit retaining heavy influence and economic concessions. Italy would also likely emerge as a major benefactor of the Arab World too, given Mussolini's focus on being the "Sword of Islam".

Does democracy return to Italy after Mussolini's death? And you think that the Italian monarchy will survive up to the present-day in this TL since it won't be tarnished by World War II, correct?

What made Mussolini so Islamophilic, BTW?

 

[stevep]

What would the fate of Italy have been in a no-WWII/no-Fall-of-France scenario? Presumably Benito Mussolini dies a natural death in this scenario sometime between 1950 and 1980, but what happens after his death? Does Italy experience a democratization similar to Spain and Portugal? What happens to Italy's colonies in this scenario? And is Fascism remembered much more fondly in Italy in this scenario without Italian participation in World War II or even without World War II ever actually occurring at all?

Thoughts on this?

Immediate details would depend on what happens when Nazi Germany collapses and what happens with the Soviets. They would set the parameters for wider events around Europe. Unless your assuming that the Nazis never gain power in Germany and it gets a rational government, which would possibly change things even more.

A lot would depend on how long Mussolini lasts and whether the country can get decent reforms after he's gone. Also how long it seeks to cling onto the E African empire as that's likely to become an increasing burden. With more efforts to settle Italians in Libya that might even become majority Italian but that's likely to cause tension with neighbouring states as they become independent.

 

[Chiron]

What would the fate of Italy have been in a no-WWII/no-Fall-of-France scenario? Presumably Benito Mussolini dies a natural death in this scenario sometime between 1950 and 1980, but what happens after his death? Does Italy experience a democratization similar to Spain and Portugal? What happens to Italy's colonies in this scenario? And is Fascism remembered much more fondly in Italy in this scenario without Italian participation in World War II or even without World War II ever actually occurring at all?

Thoughts on this?

Complete economic collapse in the mid 40s due to the Duce's gross mismanagement followed by the King dismissing him and appointing another conservative government that isn't ran by an idiot who creates a labyrinthian bureaucracy that requires 5 separate agencies to sign off on just making a single gun.

El Duce's rule was shaky, the only reason he ever got power was because the King wanted to avoid bloodshed. Duce knew this and was very careful to only beat up his political opponents and exile them off the Italian mainland. Killing his opponents would have prompted the King to move against him and the Royal Army would have gladly done the will of the King.

 

[sillygoose]

I could easily see Fascist Italy emerging as one of the strongest states, and becoming the Fascist analogue to modern Communist China. It would be a nuclear power and to a fair degree self sufficient, thanks to control over Libya and likely Eritrea too. I'd imagine in the long run it would let go of Ethiopia and Somalia, albeit retaining heavy influence and economic concessions. Italy would also likely emerge as a major benefactor of the Arab World too, given Mussolini's focus on being the "Sword of Islam".

Not sure Italy had enough people or resources to make that possible even with their colonies and oil. Certainly Italy and China had roughly the same GDP as of the year 2000 IOTL, but China has exploded economically since then. I just don't see Italy reaching that status when even modern Germany is a fraction of modern China's economy and is Europe's largest economy.

 

[WolfBear]

Not sure Italy had enough people or resources to make that possible even with their colonies and oil. Certainly Italy and China had roughly the same GDP as of the year 2000 IOTL, but China has exploded economically since then. I just don't see Italy reaching that status when even modern Germany is a fraction of modern China's economy and is Europe's largest economy.

Yeah, Italy doesn't have the population to become a Fascist China equivalent in this TL. China has something like 20 times as many people as Italy has, after all!

BTW, could we see Ethiopia become independent as several separate states in this TL? When it was under Italian rule, it was partitioned into several separate bits, after all:

Italian Ethiopia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Eritrea was also a bit larger under Italian rule than it previously and currently is.

 

[History Learner]

Not sure Italy had enough people or resources to make that possible even with their colonies and oil. Certainly Italy and China had roughly the same GDP as of the year 2000 IOTL, but China has exploded economically since then. I just don't see Italy reaching that status when even modern Germany is a fraction of modern China's economy and is Europe's largest economy.

In terms of matching China's GDP? Definitely it wouldn't, given sheer population disparities alone, but in terms of being a powerful relic of Fascism in the same way China is of Communism? Sure, I can definitely see that.

With control over Libya (and likely Eritrea too) and no WWII disaster, I could easily see Italy having an economy twice or even three times larger than its current one, and possibly 80-90 million ethnic Italians. It would be a nuclear power too, with a military only matched by Russia or (depending on the circumstances of this TL) Germany. It would also control an informal Empire/Bloc of the Iberian nations, much of the Middle East and large swathes of Africa. Entirely possible too the survival of and apparent power of Fascism in Italy would also keep that alive as a movement at large in the world, which would grant Italy an additional means of influence.

 

[stevep]

In terms of matching China's GDP? Definitely it wouldn't, given sheer population disparities alone, but in terms of being a powerful relic of Fascism in the same way China is of Communism? Sure, I can definitely see that.

With control over Libya (and likely Eritrea too) and no WWII disaster, I could easily see Italy having an economy twice or even three times larger than its current one, and possibly 80-90 million ethnic Italians. It would be a nuclear power too, with a military only matched by Russia or (depending on the circumstances of this TL) Germany. It would also control an informal Empire/Bloc of the Iberian nations, much of the Middle East and large swathes of Africa. Entirely possible too the survival of and apparent power of Fascism in Italy would also keep that alive as a movement at large in the world, which would grant Italy an additional means of influence.

And how would it make those vast territorial gains in a world where Britain and France are markedly more powerful and control most of the regions your talking about? Especially given the crippling burden of fascism?

 

[History Learner]

And how would it make those vast territorial gains in a world where Britain and France are markedly more powerful and control most of the regions your talking about? Especially given the crippling burden of fascism?

The unclear nature of the divergence introduces a lot of uncertainty, so I'm leaning on the "No Fall of France" aspect.

By 1940, both Spain and Portugal are under Fascist or Fascist leaning regimes which have much in common with Italy. Libya, and East Africa in the form of modern Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea are already colonies. There's a lot of pent up Anti-Anglo French/Pro Axis within the Middle East too, as evidenced by the Iraqi Uprising of 1941, the situation within Iran, Egypt and Palestine (The Grand Mufti has already long since established a dialogue with European Fascists). That's a pretty firm basis for an Italian sphere of influence and direct control already, and presuming trends in the Third World are like that of OTL it'll only grow.

Presumably, the Anglo-French will spend 1940-1942 battering themselves against the Germans until Stalin comes West with an unbloodied Red Army in May of 1942. Depending on the actions the Germans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets and Anglo-French themselves take, the latter will meet the former either on the Oder, the Elbe or possibly the Wesser; it mainly depends on how the Germans respond. The Anglo-French will be exhausted and facing a much, much more powerful Soviet Union without even the benefit of American support from IOTL. What remains of their energies will be utterly focused on this contest, leaving little to spare to confront Italy and, really, why would they? It makes more sense to be conciliatory to Italy (and Japan!) here then hostile. Certainly the instincts of the Anglo-French Governments historically was to attempt to keep Italy aboard in the 1930s anyway historically.

As decolonization, Italy emerges a prime patron for most of the Middle East. The Anglo-French are hated and will be more so if they still try to setup Israel under American pressure, while Soviet Communism will remain a turnoff to many. Italy thus stands as an agreeable patron ideologically while also being strong to be of value but not too strong that it can be as overbearing as the Soviets and United States were historically. This also extends into Africa; Apartheid South Africa can find itself with a ready ally in the form of Fascist Italy, same for Rhodesia. Portugal will benefit immensely in holding its colonies with the support of Italy. Imperial Japan will also find Italy agreeable in the context of the Anti Comintern Pact, while perhaps Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece will likewise gravitate into its spheres as the threat of the Soviets also increases. Yugoslavia is, however, an open question mark. Argentina, Paraguay and others might also see a high degree of Italian influence, both due to the resident Italian populations and the nature of those regimes.

 

[WolfBear]

In terms of matching China's GDP? Definitely it wouldn't, given sheer population disparities alone, but in terms of being a powerful relic of Fascism in the same way China is of Communism? Sure, I can definitely see that.

With control over Libya (and likely Eritrea too) and no WWII disaster, I could easily see Italy having an economy twice or even three times larger than its current one, and possibly 80-90 million ethnic Italians. It would be a nuclear power too, with a military only matched by Russia or (depending on the circumstances of this TL) Germany. It would also control an informal Empire/Bloc of the Iberian nations, much of the Middle East and large swathes of Africa. Entirely possible too the survival of and apparent power of Fascism in Italy would also keep that alive as a movement at large in the world, which would grant Italy an additional means of influence.

Italy's total GDP would probably be about 1.5 times higher at the very most if it has 80-90 million people, unless of course you're thinking of Libya's oil reserves making a HUGE difference here. GDP is largely determined by average IQ unless there are other factors, such as a resource windfall or a history of Communism. ("A dull country can't become rich without oil. A smart country can't become poor without Marx.")

The unclear nature of the divergence introduces a lot of uncertainty, so I'm leaning on the "No Fall of France" aspect.

By 1940, both Spain and Portugal are under Fascist or Fascist leaning regimes which have much in common with Italy. Libya, and East Africa in the form of modern Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea are already colonies. There's a lot of pent up Anti-Anglo French/Pro Axis within the Middle East too, as evidenced by the Iraqi Uprising of 1941, the situation within Iran, Egypt and Palestine (The Grand Mufti has already long since established a dialogue with European Fascists). That's a pretty firm basis for an Italian sphere of influence and direct control already, and presuming trends in the Third World are like that of OTL it'll only grow.

Presumably, the Anglo-French will spend 1940-1942 battering themselves against the Germans until Stalin comes West with an unbloodied Red Army in May of 1942. Depending on the actions the Germans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets and Anglo-French themselves take, the latter will meet the former either on the Oder, the Elbe or possibly the Wesser; it mainly depends on how the Germans respond. The Anglo-French will be exhausted and facing a much, much more powerful Soviet Union without even the benefit of American support from IOTL. What remains of their energies will be utterly focused on this contest, leaving little to spare to confront Italy and, really, why would they? It makes more sense to be conciliatory to Italy (and Japan!) here then hostile. Certainly the instincts of the Anglo-French Governments historically was to attempt to keep Italy aboard in the 1930s anyway historically.

As decolonization, Italy emerges a prime patron for most of the Middle East. The Anglo-French are hated and will be more so if they still try to setup Israel under American pressure, while Soviet Communism will remain a turnoff to many. Italy thus stands as an agreeable patron ideologically while also being strong to be of value but not too strong that it can be as overbearing as the Soviets and United States were historically. This also extends into Africa; Apartheid South Africa can find itself with a ready ally in the form of Fascist Italy, same for Rhodesia. Portugal will benefit immensely in holding its colonies with the support of Italy. Imperial Japan will also find Italy agreeable in the context of the Anti Comintern Pact, while perhaps Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece will likewise gravitate into its spheres as the threat of the Soviets also increases. Yugoslavia is, however, an open question mark. Argentina, Paraguay and others might also see a high degree of Italian influence, both due to the resident Italian populations and the nature of those regimes.

I made two separate divergence points here to allow for greater variety.

Yep, though it would likely have to involve Italian soft power since Italy can't militarily win a fight against the Anglo-French even with Spanish and Portuguese help.

The US will have Cash and Carry here but not Lend-Lease, right? And anyway, I do think that the Anglo-French will be very sensitive about the Italians trying to poach their oil reserves--but of course I also think that they will try hard to appease the Italians because they will need them as a potential ally against the Soviet Union. Ditto for Japan, as you said.

That makes sense. And as for Yugoslavia, it depends on just how aggressively Mussolini actually has designs on Yugoslav territory. But everything else that you wrote here is actually extremely sensible and very realistic.

And how would it make those vast territorial gains in a world where Britain and France are markedly more powerful and control most of the regions your talking about? Especially given the crippling burden of fascism?

Italy will use its soft power, not its hard power, for this purpose. Italy's hard power can't compete with that of the Anglo-French, of course.

 

[stevep]

The unclear nature of the divergence introduces a lot of uncertainty, so I'm leaning on the "No Fall of France" aspect.

By 1940, both Spain and Portugal are under Fascist or Fascist leaning regimes which have much in common with Italy. Libya, and East Africa in the form of modern Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea are already colonies. There's a lot of pent up Anti-Anglo French/Pro Axis within the Middle East too, as evidenced by the Iraqi Uprising of 1941, the situation within Iran, Egypt and Palestine (The Grand Mufti has already long since established a dialogue with European Fascists). That's a pretty firm basis for an Italian sphere of influence and direct control already, and presuming trends in the Third World are like that of OTL it'll only grow.

Presumably, the Anglo-French will spend 1940-1942 battering themselves against the Germans until Stalin comes West with an unbloodied Red Army in May of 1942. Depending on the actions the Germans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets and Anglo-French themselves take, the latter will meet the former either on the Oder, the Elbe or possibly the Wesser; it mainly depends on how the Germans respond. The Anglo-French will be exhausted and facing a much, much more powerful Soviet Union without even the benefit of American support from IOTL. What remains of their energies will be utterly focused on this contest, leaving little to spare to confront Italy and, really, why would they? It makes more sense to be conciliatory to Italy (and Japan!) here then hostile. Certainly the instincts of the Anglo-French Governments historically was to attempt to keep Italy aboard in the 1930s anyway historically.

As decolonization, Italy emerges a prime patron for most of the Middle East. The Anglo-French are hated and will be more so if they still try to setup Israel under American pressure, while Soviet Communism will remain a turnoff to many. Italy thus stands as an agreeable patron ideologically while also being strong to be of value but not too strong that it can be as overbearing as the Soviets and United States were historically. This also extends into Africa; Apartheid South Africa can find itself with a ready ally in the form of Fascist Italy, same for Rhodesia. Portugal will benefit immensely in holding its colonies with the support of Italy. Imperial Japan will also find Italy agreeable in the context of the Anti Comintern Pact, while perhaps Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece will likewise gravitate into its spheres as the threat of the Soviets also increases. Yugoslavia is, however, an open question mark. Argentina, Paraguay and others might also see a high degree of Italian influence, both due to the resident Italian populations and the nature of those regimes.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Its far more likely that Germany, without the rapid collapse of France, bleeds itself white trying to defeat the western allies who in this scenario have markedly more resources.

Plus Italy isn't that greatly liked either in the Arab world. There is some connections with the Nazis because of the common hatred of the Jews but remember the Iraqi revolt was pretty quickly crushed and that was at a time when Britain was much weaker than it would be here.

Not to mention can an autocratic fascist regime accept decolonization? Portugal and Spain only gave up their colonial empires when the dictators fell. Given Italy will have a stronger resource base than Spain, let alone Portugal and Libya is thinly populated I can't really see any fascist successor to Mussolini be willing to give it up. Especially with the emphasis on macho militarism in fascism.

 

[WolfBear]

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Its far more likely that Germany, without the rapid collapse of France, bleeds itself white trying to defeat the western allies who in this scenario have markedly more resources.

Plus Italy isn't that greatly liked either in the Arab world. There is some connections with the Nazis because of the common hatred of the Jews but remember the Iraqi revolt was pretty quickly crushed and that was at a time when Britain was much weaker than it would be here.

Not to mention can an autocratic fascist regime accept decolonization? Portugal and Spain only gave up their colonial empires when the dictators fell. Given Italy will have a stronger resource base than Spain, let alone Portugal and Libya is thinly populated I can't really see any fascist successor to Mussolini be willing to give it up. Especially with the emphasis on macho militarism in fascism.

Both sides will be bled white, but the Anglo-French will win.

And Arabs can ignore Italy's control of Libya if it will support them in their other endeavors.

 

[History Learner]

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Its far more likely that Germany, without the rapid collapse of France, bleeds itself white trying to defeat the western allies who in this scenario have markedly more resources.

Plus Italy isn't that greatly liked either in the Arab world. There is some connections with the Nazis because of the common hatred of the Jews but remember the Iraqi revolt was pretty quickly crushed and that was at a time when Britain was much weaker than it would be here.

Not to mention can an autocratic fascist regime accept decolonization? Portugal and Spain only gave up their colonial empires when the dictators fell. Given Italy will have a stronger resource base than Spain, let alone Portugal and Libya is thinly populated I can't really see any fascist successor to Mussolini be willing to give it up. Especially with the emphasis on macho militarism in fascism.

Alternate History as a genre is about making assumptions on things that didn't happen. What allows us to separate the good from the bad is relying upon the existing historical evidence-with well reasoned speculation-to come to the most likely outcome. In this regard, I think my scenario outline is realistic.

Regardless of who is doing the attacking, the Anglo-French are going to be taking serious casualties over the course of years. Most likely-leaving aside the question of "how" because I don't think the Fall of France was luck but the end result of German superiority in industry and early militarization in the 1930s coupled with a great training program/officer cadre-the second half of 1940 will be WWI-like positional warfare after the failed German offensive in the first half. The French industrial heartland and resource base will be savaged in this fighting, whether it be by the armies themselves directly or by both sides conducting serious bombing efforts on each other. In 1941, with the BEF now in force and French industry coming online, they will take to the offensive. If they don't, then come 1942 it's entirely possible they will meet Stalin on the Rhine.

In either case, they cannot afford to alienate Italy given the immense Soviet threat.

As for decolonization, you have misunderstood what I said. Italy will support Spain and Portugal holding onto their colonies, which will make Rome the better patron for Madrid and Lisbon then the Anglo-French are, especially as the Italians will tolerate more brutal methods. I can thus see an Italian Bloc aligned with the Anglo-French in containing the Soviets but more independent and with its own interests too. This and the regime similarity will make it also attractive in the Middle East; the Iraqi Revolt you cite was crushed by British force of arms, not popular opposition.

 

[WolfBear]

Alternate History as a genre is about making assumptions on things that didn't happen. What allows us to separate the good from the bad is relying upon the existing historical evidence-with well reasoned speculation-to come to the most likely outcome. In this regard, I think my scenario outline is realistic.

Regardless of who is doing the attacking, the Anglo-French are going to be taking serious casualties over the course of years. Most likely-leaving aside the question of "how" because I don't think the Fall of France was luck but the end result of German superiority in industry and early militarization in the 1930s coupled with a great training program/officer cadre-the second half of 1940 will be WWI-like positional warfare after the failed German offensive in the first half. The French industrial heartland and resource base will be savaged in this fighting, whether it be by the armies themselves directly or by both sides conducting serious bombing efforts on each other. In 1941, with the BEF now in force and French industry coming online, they will take to the offensive. If they don't, then come 1942 it's entirely possible they will meet Stalin on the Rhine.

In either case, they cannot afford to alienate Italy given the immense Soviet threat.

As for decolonization, you have misunderstood what I said. Italy will support Spain and Portugal holding onto their colonies, which will make Rome the better patron for Madrid and Lisbon then the Anglo-French are, especially as the Italians will tolerate more brutal methods. I can thus see an Italian Bloc aligned with the Anglo-French in containing the Soviets but more independent and with its own interests too. This and the regime similarity will make it also attractive in the Middle East; the Iraqi Revolt you cite was crushed by British force of arms, not popular opposition.

HL, if France doesn't fall in 1940, do you think that there would be any hope of Hitler and the Nazis being overthrown by the Schwarze Kapelle in an internal coup and subsequently have WWII end early? Or would the gaps in the SK's and Anglo-French views about any final peace settlement prevent an early end to the war? The SK might insist on keeping both Danzig and the Polish Corridor, for instance--not to mention Polish Upper Silesia and maybe even Posen.