Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hitler did not try very hard to get Italian participation. Mussolini did that pretty much on his own. I dont think Hitler really cared about Gibralter because he cared little about the Med or the seas. He made only a half hearted effort to get Spanish support then droped the matter.
Yet he sustained an arguably fatal delay in his attack on Russia in order to crush Greece and Yugoslavia.
He probably would have been better off if Italy had never come into the war. He had to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa, and then defend it from the allies, when it had little strategic value. Italy was in effect a subtraction from his overall strength, even though it was nominally an ally.
You missed my point entirely. Industrial production is not tied to raw products. Its tied to the people and the way they are organized. Time has little to do with this, it was as true in the 1880's as now. Had the Italians had a better education system and a better set of political and economic leaders they would have achieved more. States that were successful economically, such as England and France, commonly exported much of their metals and other raw products from the 1880's to 1930's. For that matter the Japanese industrial system expanded rapidly in this period with the same lack of raw products.
Actually I didn't miss your point at all. What I have been trying to communicate to you is the fact that we are actually talking about two separate issues within the same subject. My focus has been on the reasons Italy struggled to go from an agriculturally based society to a more industrialized one during a particular point in the country's history. The factors I have stated are the ones that had the most impact on Italy's ability to build up an industrial base to begin with. The points you raise have more to do with what affected efforts to expand upon that base after it was in place and create an efficient industrial system equal to that of other nations.
Britain and France prospered because they not only had natural resources of their own, but they also had colonies that could be exploited and served as markets for the products they made. Japan had no real resources but once they obtained Korea and Manchuria, that problem was rectified to a large degree. Japan also had longstanding and lucrative trade with many foreign countries which gave them the money to purchase what they didn't have. Italy had no colonies of worth and the only thing they had of value to export were agricultural products, but that was limited because much of it was needed for internal use. This left Italy relatively cash poor, which in turn restricted her from being able to buy raw materials to manufacture items that could be used for her own purposes or sold to raise more capital. The end result was the Italians having to sell the one thing they were able to make and that people wanted which was armaments. And when war came, that decision came back to bite them hard.
So, believe what you like, but even if Italy had the most organized, educated workforce in the world, it still wouldn't have compensated for the country's weak export position and the resulting lack of funds which were needed to obtain material for her factories. Going to war did little more than aggravate the problem and caused Italian industry to slowly strangle to death trying to meet demands it simply couldn't handle.
Francisco Franco survived in part because he viewed his rule in Spain as temporary because he intended to restore the Spanish Monarchy and needed time to school and prepare the young Prince Juan Carlos for his time on the throne. Franco made good on this promise and King Juan Carlos now sits on the throne. King Carlos is rightly credited with guiding Spain into its current Democratic government and into the European Union. Franco was a Spanish patriot and Juan Carlos was a good student.
Mussolini was the reason that Italy lost WWII, why their army somewhat sucked & why people think Italians are incompetent & cowards. His inability to reform the army efficiently enough & that's why they couldn't go to far, despite how far skill & bravery took them. They probably would've won otherwise...
Mussolini was the reason that Italy lost WWII, why their army somewhat sucked & why people think Italians are incompetent & cowards. His inability to reform the army efficiently enough & that's why they couldn't go to far, despite how far skill & bravery took them. They probably would've won otherwise...
ROFL...f'ing...MAO
So, your hypothesis is that Italy with a better Mussolini would have been able to carry the entire war for the Axis? You're the only person I've ever seen that would use the word "somewhat" before the statement "sucked" when talking about the Italian Army in WW2.
Are you kidding me!? Then look at it this way, a better Mussolini means little to known of the problems that the Italian Army had regarding efficiency.
So, your hypothesis is that Italy with a better Mussolini would have been able to carry the entire war for the Axis? You're the only person I've ever seen that would use the word "somewhat" before the statement "sucked" when talking about the Italian Army in WW2.
He's right, without Mussolini the Italians would have once again sided with the Allies.
Probably not, a lot of Italians hated the results of the Treaty of Versailles, a.k.a., the Allies breaking their promise, the only reason they joined the war. Plus, I was regarding a better Mussolini, or other leader, being able to reform the army properly.
Are you kidding me!? Then look at it this way, a better Mussolini means little to known of the problems that the Italian Army had regarding efficiency.
Yep, this hypothetical Mussolini would have just needed to re-organize the entire country to give the military a snowballs chance in hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
Probably not, a lot of Italians hated the results of the Treaty of Versailles, a.k.a., the Allies breaking their promise, the only reason they joined the war. Plus, I was regarding a better Mussolini, or other leader, being able to reform the army properly.
Do you really think that a better organized and equipped Italian Army would have been enough to tip the balance of power against the Allies in WW2? What exact measures would this hypothetical leader have taken and how would he have refused Hitler's timetable?
What was wrong with the rest of the country. In fact, most of the horrible things Mussolini did only started after he align with Hitler, not like that had anything to do with his failures militarily though. Those were all on him.
Seriously? It was those things that made the Italian army bad. Other then that, they were very skilled & brave. You tell me what else could've made them fail!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you kidding me!? Then look at it this way, a better Mussolini means little to known of the problems that the Italian Army had regarding efficiency.
