How much *positive* impact did Italy contribute to the Axis' war effort in WW2?
>>390915
They kept large scale British shipping out of the Mediterranean until 43, as well as soaking up some of the strategic bombing that otherwise would have been diverted elsewhere.
And, don't forget, for most of Rommel's victories, about 2/3-3/4 of his troops were Italians, and he got them to fight pretty well.
>>390915
Italy literally cost Axis the war.
The idea that the invasion of Russia was a catastrophic failure and a mistake is a myth. It is 1250 kms from Warsaw to Moscow and Operation Barbarossa made it to within 25 kms, the Germans managed to encircle Leningrad and Stalingrad for a while, though they were pushed back after Stalingrad it wasn't until late 1944 that the line collapsed. It is completely feasible that if Germany had a little extra push they could have at least stabilized the front in the east and made it impossible for the Soviet Union to recover, if not collapsing the Soviet Union, claiming the oil wells in the caucasus and other objectives.
The most notable opportunity for this "extra push" was avoiding delays to the start of Operation Barbarossa, delays caused by Italy's failed invasion of Greece which forced Hitler to divert resources to the Balkans campaign while simultaneously repositioning troops from the invasion of France and supplying them. Had this not happened, Germany would have had an extra few crucial months before the Eastern European mud season and Russian winter, certainly enough to begin the battle of Moscow which Hitler would have devoted the entire German war machine into and could be supplied more easily than the battle of Stalingrad.
Italy was not a poorly developed country, it was wealthier than say Romania which provided crucial support on the Eastern front. Italy had equipment and training that rivaled Germany, the UK and France. There is no explanation for Italy's dismal performance in the war other besides something inherent in their character which caused them to develop fantastic dreams of restoring the Roman empire then speedily surrender 10000s of troops and overthrow their own government when it went a little wrong.
>>391074
You stormfags are hilarious
>>391545
>Stormfag
Nice false flag.
>>390962
Neither could Germany.
>>390915
They contributed hundreds of thousands of troops, and thousands of planes and tanks.
If they hadn't done that there would have been pretty big holes in the line during the invasion of the soviet union, without italy germany would have had less manpower, and would just have had a worse time than they did.
They gave the allies something else to shoot at
>>391074
Fundamentally, there are a few basic factors that lost Germany the war, none of which they were ever close to removing from play.
>Britain has naval/air superiority and thus cannot be neutralized
>America has massive, massive industrial capacity and is across the Atlantic, where strategic bombing isn't likely to happen any time soon
>the Soviet Union has managed to move large amounts of industry beyond the Urals, and the Wehrmacht doesn't have the logistics to push much further than Moscow
With these three facts being what they were, it was inevitable that the numerically superior Russians, armed with American supplies protected by British naval power, would eventually overwhelm the Third Reich.
TL;DR Hitler couldn't into war.
>>391074
You should read Martin Van Creveld's Supplying War. Put simply, the supplies to push for Barbarossa would not have been available before June in any event. And had the operation started sooner, it still would likely not have achieved ultimate success, and would have played out its momentum in the early autumn, not the late autumn, which meant a Soviet counterattack would probably be more vicious.
The winter itself did not defeat Germany, it merely exacerbated a bad supply situation already extant by August.
Romania's only meaningful support was the provision of oil.
Do some actual reading.
>>391074
>bullshit, the post
>Italy literally cost Axis the war
No. They sure as shit were a drain, but them not getting involved was not going to bring the Germans any closer to victory.
>Almost captured Moscow
No, they got themselves stuck in a bunch of wasteful salients that mostly got pushed back or surrounded (see Demyansk and Kholm) when the Winter Offensive came.
>Held the Rzhev Salient until 1944
It was abandoned in '43 due to Operation Little Saturn.
>They just needed to attack earlier
And yet they lacked the resources to do so. What stalled Barbarossa wasn't the invasion of Yugoslavia, but the failure to capture Kiev on time.
>there's no explanation for Italy's failures
Yes, there is - shit equipment, leadership, and industrial capacity. Italy was fighting the war as if they were Japan without the geographic isolation that made Japan so successful.
>>390915
It's hard to say, really.
Sure, they managed to tie up a bunch of resources in the Mediterranean, but just about everything they did backfired horribly.
They got their shit slapped in East Africa and Libya so badly that Germany had to come save them, and the Regia Aeronautica was somehow unable to suppress an island defended by literally four biplanes and a monitor right on their doorstep.
They did have their token contributions to German efforts, like their air component in the Battle of Britain or the soldiers and planes that participated in Barbarossa, but generally the trend we see is that the Italians only ever performed well if they weren't commanded by Italians.
What are some actually remarkable Italian military victories in history? It seems like there's none
>>391918
you have to go back to Rome for that
>>391918
solferino
pls no takerino our landerino austririno
>>391918
>le meme
This and "Le french are pussies meme" need to end. They are the results of recent history, WWI and WWII.
Before WWI people used to be absolutely terrified of France. During the Renaissance Italian mercenaries were the most fearful besides the Swiss ones.
>>391974
That was France...
>>392371
The "french are pussies" meme is a meme. Italians being shit at war is a historical reality.
>>392371
>During the Renaissance Italian mercenaries were the most fearful besides the Swiss ones.
Hahaha, I don't think that's what you meant to say, but judging by Italian performance since then it's probably true.
>>392377
>Italians
>Actually existing before unification
>Italians
>Out of all the pre-unification polities not a single one of them supposedly was good at war according to anonymous posters on a greek dulche de leche cookies recipe exchange forum
>>392388
Wait don't fuck with my brain I'm Italian what did I mean to say
>>390915
As I've said before. Italy was the only thing that made the illusion that Germany had any hope in the war, or knew what it was doing.
If Italy does not enter the war in 1940, 1940 to 1941 is just Germany being passively bombed and blockaded, and their navy sunk posing no threat to the British, who have strategic invulnerability and absolute initiative.
>>390915
They gave Finland 3 boats for operations in Karelia
>>392392
>Italians
>Actually existing before unification
Well exactly.
As a unified country, be it in the world wars, against fucking Ethiopians, or even recently in Afghanistan, Italian performance has never been more than abysmal.
And "fearful" means afraid. Literally "full of fear". You probably meant "fearsome".
>>391918
Republic of Venice.
>>392411
Yeah I meant fearsome :D
Oh, I guess that yeah. As a unified country we sucked at war. But that's not true when it comes to Afghanistan.
>>391074
>muh Italy stalled Barbarossa meme
What caused Hitler to divert forces from Barbarossa for invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia wasn't cause Mussolini was a moron with poor attack plan, but the British sending their bombers into Greece where they could bomb Romanian oil fields, the life line of the mechanized Wermacht units. Had the Greece not been dealt with, the Brits could have inflicted some serious damage both to the oil fields and Axis shipping.
Learn to history, stormie.
>>392427
For Afghanistan, I was thinking of how in the zone assigned to Italy, the Italians actually paid off the Taliban so they wouldn't attack them.
Not only that, but when the Italians left and were replaced by the French, the Italians didn't even tell the French about this. So the French rated it as a low-risk zone because of the lack of activity, but when the Taliban didn't get their monthly payments they launched an ambush on relatively unprepared French soldiers and killed a dozen of them.
The French didn't make a huge deal out of this, but holy shit a military with this sort of practice should not be involved in international coalitions.
>>392428
Not him but Himmler said it was because of Italy. I'd say Himmler knows what he's talking about.
>>392428
Additionally, the decision to invade Yugoslavia was made after the decision to help Italy in Greece, because Yugoslavia suffered an anti-Axis coup in March.
Nevermind Greece, imagine if the British are able to move troops and bombers into fucking Slovenia in 1941.
>>392450
>Himmler
>Knows what he's talking about
>ever
>>390915
>that map
>Italy, 1944
just, completely wrong
>>390915
Nothing. They are the joke of the western world
>>392439
Lmao implying that wasn't the best option. Fuck the Afgan war.
Honestly, I don't know why the French get memed on so hard for their military.
The Italians deserve far worse. Sexy navy at least. Still, they got stomped without doing any real stomping. At least Germany gave a few good blows before being completely subdued.
>>392867
To be fair, Italy's navies problem was they didn't grasp the 'total war' thing, and how badly, badly the Germans were going to get them all hanged.
As such, their disinterest in doing any real stomping made sense. Even if you win, what good does it do you if your navy gets sunk in the process? And if you're going to lose, what good does it do to get your navy sunk in the process?
Then the Germans went full Gotterdamerung.
IIRC most of the navy didn't get stomped, it just sat in port and then surrendered.
>>390915
Why doesn't Italy hold Trieste anymore? It looks weird as part of Croatia.
>>392891
fleet-in-being is a legitimate tactic when you can't achieve naval superiority you know
>>392895
Because they lost the second world war
>>392902
>when you can't achieve naval superiority you know
The Italian navy actually had superiority in the mediterranean initially though.
>>392895
>>392921
Americans I presume?
Trieste is Italian today.
It was "liberated" by slovene partisans, but Churchill went full on ww3 threats, then this happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_of_Trieste
Also, Trst je naš.
>>392902
Oh yeah. That's what I'm akwardly pointing out here. Italy realized 'Hey, Britain has a bunch of strengths here' and created the best possible strategy with a bad hand.
It provided the best service it could during the war, because so what if you sink a few battleships, and you now have no battleships?
And if you win, great, you win and still have a navy, that's great.
And if you lose, maybe you lose and still have a navy.
Then the Germans went full retard and decided that they WANTED the Allies to murder them.
>>391918
The Battle of Vittorio Veneto. Yes it was a late win in WWI but with good leadership the Italians gave the combined Austro-Hungarian and Germany forces such a thorough buttfucking on Italian soil that there was no way for them to resist further Italian advances into Austro-Hungarian territory and in effect secured the dissolution of Austria-Hungary and hastened the end of the war. Had Germany continued the War long after that, the Germans would have had the Italians marching through Austria and into their southern borders.
>>393015
From an aesthetic perspective, just like, my opinion is that the alps are neat borders for Italy and that excludes Istria.
From a Wilsonian perspective, Istria was majority slovene/croatian anyway.
Also, Trieste actually shouldn't be Slovenian, it's a meme, the surrounding countryside was always inhabited by slovenes, the actual city was multicultural/italian.
>>393038
The battle of Vittorio Veneto is more the case of the k.u.k. Army dying of heart attack. With the national units refusing to obey orders and mutinies to get back "home", the horrible supply situation and the political problems, there was no way that they could have stopped any attack. Italian "skill" had nothing to do with that, and the Vittorio Veneto "myth" was strongly reinforced by the need to have SOME KIND of victory out of the war (can't sell a National War where you got slaughtered dozen of times - Isonzo - or routed in the worst way possible - Caporetto -).
It's not to be a contrarian: but reading a little from both sides, there is literally nothing the Austro-Hungarian army could have done to survive the last days.
>>390915
Rommel once said that italians were very good soldiers and bad commanders, that sounds pretty solid to me
I also know they had exceptional sof and elite troops, but to be honest every country's sof are pretty good
for what concerns WW2 itself, I'd say the "italy made axis lose the war" is just a meme, can't deny they fucked up both in greece and africa, but germans didn't prove themselves to be tactical geniuses either, and I doubt Italy could have started so much shit just by themselves without germany's green light
>>391074
tl;dr
>>392867
People tend to forget that Italy has one of the biggest airforces of the world anno 20145
>>395716
Doesn't Italy has have a good navy?
>>395716
*2015
>>395729
*also
>>391588
>Only meaningful support
They contributed a staggering amount of troops considering their relative size, and actually held the line better than the Italians.
>>390915
>>392428
>>390936
this. Italy is refereed to the most important ally to Germany for a reason.
>>391074
>Italy literally cost Axis the war
Japan was an even worse ally, THEY HAD ONE FUCKING JOB, and they couldn't even do it right.
It was to start a second front against the USSR btw. I am also pretty sure it was not part of the plan for Japan to embargo tungsten export to Germany, which would cripple the German war machine.
>>397282
>held the line better than the Italians.
gypsy, pls go
>>397332
How the fuck was Japan supposed to start a second Russian front when they needed literally everything they had to fight the US?
>>397363
This combined with the fact that the Japanese and USSR had fought before, and signed a non-aggression pact.
>>397332
To be fair about Japan.
A) The idea that they'd open up a second front against the USSR is laughable. I mean, despite transferring divisions west, and the general chaos that was the Eastern Front, Soviet troop levels in the Far East Command almost doubled from June to December 1941.
Maybe they could have taken Vladivostok, but they certainly wouldn't have gone far inland.
And to be fair, it's not like the tungsten could have made it once 1939 rolled around and you had british destroyers patrolling the Indian ocean unimpeded. Search and Seizure was a thing.
