Italy

[Benny C.]

Hello everybody. I want to ask did Italy's involement have a positive or negative effect on Germany's war effort?

[Kakita Harry]

Hmm, that's my own opinion, but I'd say that Italys involvment hat at negative effect.

The not so well going operations of Italy in Greece and Northern Africa forced Germany to divert soldiers and materials to regions were Germany had no real interest in. And these were missing in other places.

[seagull]

Italy's failure against Greece in 1941 led the Germans to get involved in the Balkans by invading Yugoslavia and Greece. This involvement in the Balkans delayed Hitler's planned invasion of the USSR by six weeks.

Some people argue that this six week set back was a major influence on the eventual outcome of Operation Barbarossa. Had the Nazis attacked the USSR in May 1941 rather than late June, they may have been able to achieve their objectives by the end of the year. But once "General Winter" set in, they were screwed. Although I probably wouldn't go that far in saying that this delay cost Hitler the Russian campaign as it was never a given, I would still say that Italy's entry into WWII had a negative effect on Nazi Germany.

[Benoit Douville]

I agree on the reason mentioned above that the failure of the Italian Army had a negative effect on Germany War effort. However, the fact that Italy was part of the Axis Forces means that the Western Allies had to fought very tough Battles in the boot (Anzio, Ortona, Monte-Cassino, Gustav Line) just to name a few.

Regards

[Sturmabteilungsmann]

I beleive that Italy would have been infinitely more valuable as a friendly neutral with which Germany could conduct
trade. A fascist state merely existing in Italy stood as a sentinel on Germany's southern fronteer.

Even as a neutral, Germany could have recruited anti-communist volunteers for the Eastern front from Italy.

[Kim Sung]

I beleive that Italy would have been infinitely more valuable as a friendly neutral with which Germany could conduct
trade. A fascist state merely existing in Italy stood as a sentinel on Germany's southern fronteer.

Even as a neutral, Germany could have recruited anti-communist volunteers for the Eastern front from Italy.

That's what I think as the most positive role that Italy could've done for Germany.

[Sudetenlander]

Hmm, that's my own opinion, but I'd say that Italys involvment hat at negative effect.

The not so well going operations of Italy in Greece and Northern Africa forced Germany to divert soldiers and materials to regions were Germany had no real interest in. And these were missing in other places.

I believe the contributions of Italy to the Axis are often overlooked. Yes, you can make the argument that Germany had to get involved in North Africa and Greece due to Italy, but one must also realize that if Italy was not part of the Axis to begin with, Germany would've had to get involved in those regions anyways.

For instance, had there been no Italian naval presence in the Mediterranean, the British would've had free reign there with no Axis ports, save Vichy France. Leaving the Mediterranean open would've made Greece susceptible for a British led amphibious landing, as was later contemplated in the war as a means for a second front (before the landings in Italy and France).

Moreover, I can't honestly say that Germany had no interest in North Africa. I am sure Germany would've loved to gain control of the Suez Canal and the pathway into the Middle East, thereby cutting off India from the rest of the British Empire and cutting off crucial oil supplies to Great Britain.

Yes, Italy may have been overall unsuccessful in these theaters of operations, but the alternative (nothing) would've been worse for Germany IMO.

[Sturmabteilungsmann]

For instance, had there been no Italian naval presence in the Mediterranean, the British would've had free reign there with no Axis ports, save Vichy France. Leaving the Mediterranean open would've made Greece susceptible for a British led amphibious landing, as was later contemplated in the war as a means for a second front

These ports and naval presence would have still been there under a neutral Italy. Neutral (and Fascistic) Italian navy would have been almost as much of a deterrent to British amphibious landings as one with an Axis status. British would have been always trying to guess the intentions of a neutral fascist Italy whose Duce was a close personal buddy of mein fuhrer. Who's navy was weakened the most before the German invasion of the Balkans? I would say it was Italy's. So actually, a fully intact Italian navy might have been lurking in Mediterranean waters in April 1941. Also without Italian invasion of Greece, Greek navy ( ) would have been in better shape to intercept a British landing as well. Neutral Greece might have also allowed the recruiting of anti-communist volunteers for the Eastern front. How likely would Yugoslavian coup been without Italian invasion of Greece? Bulgarians and Magyars wouldn't have had loses from a Yugo invasion that never happened also. British invasion would have appeared to be a totally aggressive move in that part of the world. Not as simple as an occupation of Iceland. Politically, I beleive it would have worked against them as well.

Moreover, I can't honestly say that Germany had no interest in North Africa. I am sure Germany would've loved to gain control of the Suez Canal and the pathway into the Middle East, thereby cutting off India from the rest of the British Empire and cutting off crucial oil supplies to Great Britain.

This didn't happen anyway.

Il Duce's war declaration and attack upon France was thought to be a repugnant attempt to cash in on Germany's success in the West. Remember, France declared war on Germany first. But in Italy's case, it was a different matter. Italy's failure to acheive her goals against the French really dented her military reputation. British now knew they were up against a weaker opponent.

Some of these ramblings are me thinking out loud, thanks for tolerating my disagreement. Best regards.

[Nesto7]

I think my country was better if it was NEUTRAL: for the Axis and for Italy himself. Italy could defend the Southern Europe, and also prosecute the expansion in Oriental Africa... that was very good, for Italy, BEFORE the ally with Germany. Italy could fight with Great Britain colonies (and, I think, also France colonies), so Germany could be free to engage the Operation Leone Marino against Great Britain. I think the most tactical error of Hitler was NOT invade the Great Britain Isle, and it was, also, because of the African campaign. So I think: Italy NEUTRAL, but very helpful with Germany (against Great Britain and France)

[Giovanni Acuto]

Italy's real enemy was north of the Brenner.

[Nesto7]

Italy's real enemy was north of the Brenner.

Sorry, I didn't understand ... for my bad english ... what's the meaning of "north of Brennero" ? What do you mean? Thanks! (you're Italian?)

[Kenshiro]

North of the Brenner pass...:Germany of course!

[Comsubin]

You are rigth...for common sense the real Italian enemy have always been Germany and Austria, not France or England..they have benn oup allies since 1850!!!!!! But we were "obliged" to allie with Germany...

[Giovanni Acuto]

Certainly there was tension for a while between Italy and her old allies. But one must apply common sense and look to the long term.

If only Duce had had a bit of Lorenzo de Medici in him! Let alone Machiavelli .... but now we're straying into "what if" territory ...

[Christian W.]

Italy's failure against Greece in 1941 led the Germans to get involved in the Balkans by invading Yugoslavia and Greece. This involvement in the Balkans delayed Hitler's planned invasion of the USSR by six weeks.

It did not.

I feel that you do not understand the reasoning as to why the offensive could not start earlier than June 22nd. Thus I'll explain firstly why the offensive started so late in June, and then why an earlier offensive would have been disasterous for the Axis.

While many historians claim that it was the Axis operations in the Balkan's that postponed the start date of Barbarossa, this is only part of the reason. Essentially operations in the Balkan's were over by the end of April, with the exception of the battle of Crete. While these operations prevented a launch of Barbarossa in April, it is no doubt for the better that they did, as it secured Germany's southern flank in the Balkans, and thus the Balkan venture must be viewed firstly as a nessacity to the launching of Barbarossa.

Now one could argue that the Germans could have reorganised and launched Barbarossa in late May, early June with their allies, however the weather was to have the final say in this matter. The spring rains of 1941 came late and turned the road network in both Eastern Europe (where, while being better than that in Soviet Union, still left much to be desired) and that of Soviet Union, into nothing more than rivers of mud. Thus had Barbarossa been launched at this earlier time, the Wehrmacht would be stuck in the mud, so to speak, and it's ability to suprise the Red Army would be severely compromised. Barbarossa could not be launched until the 3rd week of June, when the Germans were sure that the road network had solidified again.

Had the campaign been launched in late may or early June, we would have seen the intial Blitzkrieg become nothing more than a hard slog, with the Red Army having time to reorganise its defence and prepare for counter offensives. Thus the key of Blitzkrieg, surprise, would have been dissapated, and Germany would have been exposed to a long war without the benefits of the vast areas of Soviet Union that she hoped to capture.