Italy in WWII

>>2807976
Probably, Italys goals were just autistic and in no way strategic

Yes, and the alliance with Japan too. Germany would have been much better off without any allies.

>>2807976
Italy just wanted more colonial holdings in Africa
They actually wanted to negotiate with Britain for concessions in the Mediterranean, but the Brits refused.
Italy wouldn't be ready for war against the Allies until around 1943 which the Italians informed the Germans of, but they ignored the warning.
This is largely to blame for Italy's military failures. They were simply not equipped for anything other than colonial wars and their command structure was fucked.

>>2807994
>Germany would have been much better off without any allies.
Romania, Hungary and Croatia were actually useful, not that much though

>>2808014
That's not allies tho, more like satellites.

>>2807976
They would have been treated like Spain.

Although I think Mussolini would have jumped in and joined the Allies when it looked like Germany was done, just so they could try and get a good deal out of it all.

>>2807976
The Germans were far more to blame for the state of Italy than the Italians were. Italy had repeatedly tried to warn the Germans that they weren't ready for war in 1939 and the Germans ignored them. It's not Italy's fault that the Germans decided to shred their own treaty.

>>2807976
>No Italy
>No Greco-Italian War or Yugoslavian coup
>Greece was already fascist and its major trading partner was Germany
>Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were buffers to any potential aggresion
So no Balkan front, not stretching German lines, and while I'm not going with the whole "because of the balkan war, barbarossa was failed" thing, but more paratroopers would've been used if there was no battle of crete
also
>neutral italy, consolidates its current territories
meaning
>larger libya, with the aozou strip
>italified ethiopia
so it could've been better for germany, but without rommel in libya, there was no threat to the suez which threatened the brits, and there would've been more troops because they would'nt have had to occupy east africa and attack libya. It's a mixed thing.

File: s03398u.jpg (157KB, 640x942px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 640x942px

>>2808056
"muh weren't ready" meme
If Italy wasn't ready it would not attack fellow fascist state of Greece.

>>2808159
>>2808611
Greece wasn't fascist, it was more of an ultra conservative-reactionary state. Also they were going to stay neutral if it wasn't for the Greco-Italian war and British schemes.

>>2808030
Mussolini was debating joing the allies against Germany up until 1940 when Hitler promised him the coal that they would be losing when the british shut off the Mediterranean

I don't remember too much about the Greek camaign, but I know that during the Ethiopian Campaign Mussolinis ego sabotaged them. His generals were doing fine but then towards the end he decided he wanted to be personally responsible for victory and took over and bogged down the campaign a lot longer than it needed to be

>>2807976
We have this thread every week. The answer is probably no. If anything they would have done better if Franco joined the war.

>>2808611
Tuesday must what

>>2807976
Well, neutral Italy means the Med becomes a British lake, which has potentially huge effects given that they lost millions of tons of shipping net thanks to having to go all around Africa to deliver supplies from their colonies in the Pacific region. It also means Britain is free to use its whole army for whatever it wants in 1940-1943. I mean worst case scenario if they can't open a meaningful front against the Germans they can still ship all their shit to the Soviets who were starved for resources at the time.