You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
devotech2 on scored.co
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)
>Improving the alliance with Mussolini; if Germany helped Italy to industrialize, and perhaps gave them some good generals and military training, Italy would have been formidable.
This is a very good point, but I'll chime in and say that Italy itself had a major issue that was one of *Mussolinis* blunders.
Incompetent royalists in position of power. The Italian monarchy was a corrupt and freemason shitshow. Mussolini put too much faith in the Italian monarchy, when the Italian monarchy was rotten to the core to begin with. "Bolsheviking" the house of savoy would have been 100% excusable because the house of savoy was made up of evil traitors. And most of the royal general staff and admiralty were incompetent morons who got their positions by good relationships with the monarchy and not by merit. And literally all of them, without fail, were traitors and abandoned Mussolini in 1943. Only the fascist officers stayed by him, particularly Graziani. The poor performance of the Italian military in its leadership ranks was, honestly, quite possibly legitimate sabatoge by a zionist dynasty
Mussolini should have removed the house of savoy entirely, and purged the entire upper echelon of the military and replaced them with fascist generals rather than royalist ones. Italy should have been the Italian Social Republic already in 1922 instead of 1943. That dynasty needed to *go*. I understand why he kept it as an appeal to Italian tradition, but it hampered everything that mussolini tried to do and, as I already said, it was an evil dynasty. The communists, while they should have been purged as you said, were really a lot less of a hindrance to mussolini when he was in power than the house of savoy.
Plus what you already said.
If you combined those 2 solutions, Italy would have been a powerhouse on the same (or close to it) level as Germany
Edit:
>Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
Land and resources was the right option. The USSR was not going to fall if it didn't have Moscow. There were way more places in the soviet union that the government could have operated out of, and the soviets were absolutely hell bent on *not* surrendering, and they would have a German army with no resources to deal with, so they wouldn't have ever stopped and the war probably would have been won faster by the ussr than it actually was (because the German army would be logistically *fucked* if they bumrushed Moscow). There was no easy way to deal with the giant soviet union, and with the western allies being a part of the war on the western front, and japan being preoccupied with the US, it was not possible to win regardless of what they did, but taking land and resources was the best option possible at the time. Without the western allies though, Germany could have won, but still would probably do best to get a steady supply of resources because it's still a huge undertaking to go through with no matter what
This is a very good point, but I'll chime in and say that Italy itself had a major issue that was one of *Mussolinis* blunders.
Incompetent royalists in position of power. The Italian monarchy was a corrupt and freemason shitshow. Mussolini put too much faith in the Italian monarchy, when the Italian monarchy was rotten to the core to begin with. "Bolsheviking" the house of savoy would have been 100% excusable because the house of savoy was made up of evil traitors. And most of the royal general staff and admiralty were incompetent morons who got their positions by good relationships with the monarchy and not by merit. And literally all of them, without fail, were traitors and abandoned Mussolini in 1943. Only the fascist officers stayed by him, particularly Graziani. The poor performance of the Italian military in its leadership ranks was, honestly, quite possibly legitimate sabatoge by a zionist dynasty
Mussolini should have removed the house of savoy entirely, and purged the entire upper echelon of the military and replaced them with fascist generals rather than royalist ones. Italy should have been the Italian Social Republic already in 1922 instead of 1943. That dynasty needed to *go*. I understand why he kept it as an appeal to Italian tradition, but it hampered everything that mussolini tried to do and, as I already said, it was an evil dynasty. The communists, while they should have been purged as you said, were really a lot less of a hindrance to mussolini when he was in power than the house of savoy.
Plus what you already said.
If you combined those 2 solutions, Italy would have been a powerhouse on the same (or close to it) level as Germany
Edit:
>Historians are split on whether he did well in not getting Moscow when he had the chance, instead going after land and resources. Would the Bolsheviks had fallen if Moscow fell? No one knows.
Land and resources was the right option. The USSR was not going to fall if it didn't have Moscow. There were way more places in the soviet union that the government could have operated out of, and the soviets were absolutely hell bent on *not* surrendering, and they would have a German army with no resources to deal with, so they wouldn't have ever stopped and the war probably would have been won faster by the ussr than it actually was (because the German army would be logistically *fucked* if they bumrushed Moscow). There was no easy way to deal with the giant soviet union, and with the western allies being a part of the war on the western front, and japan being preoccupied with the US, it was not possible to win regardless of what they did, but taking land and resources was the best option possible at the time. Without the western allies though, Germany could have won, but still would probably do best to get a steady supply of resources because it's still a huge undertaking to go through with no matter what