Assume that Mussolini either doesn't feel as much of a need to demonstrate Italian might in comparison to the blitzkrieg, or alternatively, that the Italian government makes a different strategic assessment in the late 1930s that doesn't see Greece as a "vital enemy"-so the war of 1940 doesn't happen. Once that immediate danger was avoided, would it have been possible for Greece to ride out the Second World War in neutrality, or would the broader situation render Greek "involvement" inevitable?
Without Mussolini's Invasion, Could Greece Have Remained Neutral in WWII?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
I doubt it if hitler didn't invade then curchill would have found a reason to with his soft underbelly of Europe thing belief
Without Mussolini, Greece would probably remain neutral until near the end where they would declare war on Germany just like Turkey.
It is likely not invaded in 1941 by the Germans without a war already ongoing. Which also means Bulgaria and Yugoslavia have also likely remained neutral, or in the case of Bulgaria had a pro-formal declaration of war against Britain without firing a shot. Things get more complicated come 1942, in OTL the Germans shipped supplies and reinforcements to the Afrika Korps through Greece when it advanced towards Alexandria which here is not possible but I cannot see them invading Greece solely for that. By the time North Africa has been cleared, joining the allies and taking out the Italian garrisons in Albania and the Dodecanese, would be tempting. Which then means allied air bases in North Greece and an intact Yugoslavia also joining the allies...
They probably wouldn’t contribute troops unless they were directly attacked.
I don't know (not disagreeing, I quite literally don't have a clear idea) if diverting the Balkans troops would be enough to win the eastern front for Germany (although they'd certainly do better than IOTL.
The Germans really did not have all that many troops in the theatre, and moved most of those to the Eastern Front after Greece's capitulation. They conducted the Dodecanese Campaign on a shoestring budget.
Africa was a drop in the bucket in terms of German resources expended.
Now, this was different for the Italians, who really did have a lot of troops in Africa and the Balkans. The extent to which more Italian troops on the Eastern front would have made a difference is debatable, due to the troop quality involved outside of the Bersaglieri and some of the well equipped Armored units. It wouldn't hurt, but it might not be all that decisive. However, Italy was in World War II for its own territorial ambitions around the Mediterranean. I don't think the prospect of a Pan European war against Bolshevism held enough appeal for them to send a huge part of their army east if they weren't getting any land out of it.
Mussolini's decision to go against Greece was not threat assessment. They had territorial claims against each other pertaining to Italy's post WW1 territorial gains, but they were also kind of just in the way.
Last edited:
Or a conservative nominally democratic regime, given that the Metaxas regime was already shaky.
So, imagine 1950s Greece politically IOTL...just without the war, occupation, famine, or civil war.
I think Greece would be stronger/more developed on the long run, no war and they would probably take a lot of axis experts running from punishment... That being said this would also mean that the transition of democracy (that was instantaneous with the end of the war) possibily only would take place on the 70s.
Odan-Urr
Banned
Agreed. Italy concentrates it's full capability against British n Africa, and Barbarossa starts a month earlier with more troops. Moscow/Leningrad/Stalingrad fall by the end of 1941. Stalin is "retired" by Beria, who asks for terms. With Germany's full attention available to defend the Atlantic Wall, the UK and USA go to a Japan first strategy, while funneling support to Soviet partisans.
Japan is defeated late '44 due to more resources thrown at them. Skirmishing around the edges of the continent continues until the A-bombs start to carpet Europe. Which will happen after a prolonged air offensive to degrade the Luftwaffe.
Garrison
Donor
The troops committed to North Africa are minor compared to the mass of troops committed to Barbarossa. the issues with Barbarossa were far more fundamental. Firstly the Germans had grossly underestimated the strength of the Red Army, it had several times as many division as the Germans thought it did. Secondly German logistics were terrible, basically the Heer had an effective operational range of 500km, once the Red Army retreated behind the Dnieper the Germans had to stop and regroup and there was little chance of winning at that point. One hundred thousand extra soldiers added to the three million the Germans committed to Barbarossa is not going to make a difference.