Italian Army Seems Underpowered

[Praetonia]

It was a mistake to mention the S-word, given how close it is to current politics; suffice to say that nothing Mussolini did was unprecedented or particularly against educated advice at the time. Creating closed currency zones with artificially mispriced currencies was certainly harmful but Germany, the USSR, the UK and the US did it too. Mussolini bears no special blame for things of this sort, in the context of the time. And indeed Italy did not have a basket case economy in 1940; with about the same population, its per capita productivity was about 75% the level of France. Mussolini was certainly not good for the Italian economy, but countries that performed much better in the war had worse economic policies. Italy's main economic problem was that it never fully mobilised, spending only in the 20% range of its national income on the war when everyone else was spending in the 40s or 50s. Italy contributed only about half of what it could have done.

 

[shri]

It was a mistake to mention the S-word, given how close it is to current politics; suffice to say that nothing Mussolini did was unprecedented or particularly against educated advice at the time. Creating closed currency zones with artificially mispriced currencies was certainly harmful but Germany, the USSR, the UK and the US did it too. Mussolini bears no special blame for things of this sort, in the context of the time. And indeed Italy did not have a basket case economy in 1940; with about the same population, its per capita productivity was about 75% the level of France. Mussolini was certainly not good for the Italian economy, but countries that performed much better in the war had worse economic policies. Italy's main economic problem was that it never fully mobilised, spending only in the 20% range of its national income on the war when everyone else was spending in the 40s or 50s. Italy contributed only about half of what it could have done.

He did terribly economics wise for a 22 year long dictatorship.

Let's compare all major in 1925 (in terms of 1960 US $) (approx. the time Stalin becomes absolute Dictator and Mussolini becomes one too, Hitler is still far away) & 1938(last pre-war year)

In 1925 Italy has a GDP of 18.50 Billion and in 1938 of 23.70 Billion (28% increase)
Germany has 45.00 and 77.20 (72% increase) - despite all the turmoil
USSR has 32.60 and 75.90 (132% increase) - despite all the unmentionables, maybe also partially due to it.
France has 36.20 and 39.20 (8% increase)
UK has 43.70 and 56.10 (28% increase)
Europe as a whole has 257.40 and 376.90 (46% increase)

Shows he did as good as the UK with a vastly lower Base. Italy started at 40% of UK and went on to remain the same in percentage terms. Though he did better than France, France has a base which was 70% more. Both Germany and USSR vastly out performed him.

I have not taken population into account for all countries.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

They should definitely have all of their battleships!

 

[GundamMerc]

He did terribly economics wise for a 22 year long dictatorship.

Let's compare all major in 1925 (in terms of 1960 US $) (approx. the time Stalin becomes absolute Dictator and Mussolini becomes one too, Hitler is still far away) & 1938(last pre-war year)

In 1925 Italy has a GDP of 18.50 Billion and in 1938 of 23.70 Billion (28% increase)
Germany has 45.00 and 77.20 (72% increase) - despite all the turmoil
USSR has 32.60 and 75.90 (132% increase) - despite all the unmentionables, maybe also partially due to it.
France has 36.20 and 39.20 (8% increase)
UK has 43.70 and 56.10 (28% increase)
Europe as a whole has 257.40 and 376.90 (46% increase)

Shows he did as good as the UK with a vastly lower Base. Italy started at 40% of UK and went on to remain the same in percentage terms. Though he did better than France, France has a base which was 70% more. Both Germany and USSR vastly out performed him.

I have not taken population into account for all countries.

This is rather misleading, as it fails to take into account the massive drop in GDP of belligerent countries after WW1.

 

[tommylotto]

Fat Idiot Mussolini ruled for 22 years, from late 1921 to mid of 1943. That is a very long time to do things. Even taking the first 3/4 years out of the way, from 1926 onward he was dictator, this meant he had 13 years before the war started

That is not a particularly long time for the invisible hand to do its thing. But you are right, he certainly did not give it a chance, but he was not alone in that regard.

Not everywhere is America.

A shame, I know

I don't believe the 'invisible hand' would have been able to work out Italy without the country sliding into civil war.

You might be right, that was why I said Benito had to be seen doing something to remain popular.

 

[Praetonia]

He did terribly economics wise for a 22 year long dictatorship.

Let's compare all major in 1925 (in terms of 1960 US $) (approx. the time Stalin becomes absolute Dictator and Mussolini becomes one too, Hitler is still far away) & 1938(last pre-war year)

In 1925 Italy has a GDP of 18.50 Billion and in 1938 of 23.70 Billion (28% increase)
Germany has 45.00 and 77.20 (72% increase) - despite all the turmoil
USSR has 32.60 and 75.90 (132% increase) - despite all the unmentionables, maybe also partially due to it.
France has 36.20 and 39.20 (8% increase)
UK has 43.70 and 56.10 (28% increase)
Europe as a whole has 257.40 and 376.90 (46% increase)

Shows he did as good as the UK with a vastly lower Base. Italy started at 40% of UK and went on to remain the same in percentage terms. Though he did better than France, France has a base which was 70% more. Both Germany and USSR vastly out performed him.

I have not taken population into account for all countries.

Taking this data at face value also suggests that the best economically governed country in this period was the USSR - something that I hope you agree was not the case! Italy's growth of 1.1% annualised is not bad for a 22 year period encompassing 9 years of depression; it is what a modern country would expect. So to me the Germans and Soviets look more like outliers, a combination of recovery growth from the war (both were still below their 1913 GDP per capita peak in 1925, while none of the Entente powers were) and relative immunity to the effects of the Great Depression due to mandatory full employment.

Again, I'm not denying that Mussolini's economic policies were bad, only that they were significantly worse than what others were doing. As this data shows, Italy fits at the upper end of the Western European countries, which is what I'd expect from a country where bad management is offsetting convergence growth.

That is not a particularly long time for the invisible hand to do its thing. But you are right, he certainly did not give it a chance, but he was not alone in that regard.

Mussolini wasn't really an "invisible hand" kind of guy.

 

[Loke]

That is not a particularly long time for the invisible hand to do its thing. But you are right, he certainly did not give it a chance, but he was not alone in that regard.

A shame, I know

You might be right, that was why I said Benito had to be seen doing something to remain popular.

My guess - if Mussolini had stepped down from power and retired right after the Abyssinian conquest and stayed in retirement during WWII, he would probably become one of Italys most popular historical persons.

 

[keynes2.0]

It was a mistake to mention the S-word, given how close it is to current politics; suffice to say that nothing Mussolini did was unprecedented or particularly against educated advice at the time. Creating closed currency zones with artificially mispriced currencies was certainly harmful but Germany, the USSR, the UK and the US did it too.

The US was really concerned with the proper management of the dollar. The Hoover administration really screwed the pooch but literally his first week in office FDR completely overhauled government policies towards the dollar and the exchange rate. There was a sense in the US that fixing this screwup was priority number one. By his first summer in office, FDR went to London and told reporters at a major conference on currency exchange rates that sustainable a stable international monetary policy required a change in the regime.

The Soviets of course had a simple situation. Their poor international credit meant that they needed to maintain a trade surplus to get foreign currency. They didn't want a closed zone, it was forced upon them.

The British didn't really have a closed zone. The pound was still the global currency, although the dollar had started to have a pretty far reach.

So it's really a comparison to the Germans, who were generally recognized as destroying their currency in the name of imperialism. Germany faced repeated credit crisis due to their policies of mucking up trade in the pursuit of weapon programs.

My guess - if Mussolini had stepped down from power and retired right after the Abyssinian conquest and stayed in retirement during WWII, he would probably become one of Italys most popular historical persons.

He wouldn't be hated but he wouldn't have too much to recommend him.

 

[Beagá]

They should definitely have all of their battleships!

Well they should have their 1936 OOB (hurr durr...) but it begs the question if they should bother with the refits and building new ones. Again, depends on what UK does, how France campaign is balanced to happen etc etc

Hard coded build orders are crap build orders.

 

[shri]

This is rather misleading, as it fails to take into account the massive drop in GDP of belligerent countries after WW1.

All that is accounted for. (these figure are $ million in 1960 US $)

Country / Region 1913 1925 1938
France 27,401 36,262 39,284
Germany 49,760 45,002 77,178
Italy 15,624 18,510 23,701
Russia/USSR 52,420 32,600 75,964
United Kingdom 44,074 43,700 56,103
Europe 2,56,845 2,57,434 3,76,947

 

[shri]

Taking this data at face value also suggests that the best economically governed country in this period was the USSR - something that I hope you agree was not the case! Italy's growth of 1.1% annualised is not bad for a 22 year period encompassing 9 years of depression; it is what a modern country would expect. So to me the Germans and Soviets look more like outliers, a combination of recovery growth from the war (both were still below their 1913 GDP per capita peak in 1925, while none of the Entente powers were) and relative immunity to the effects of the Great Depression due to mandatory full employment.
Again, I'm not denying that Mussolini's economic policies were bad, only that they were significantly worse than what others were doing. As this data shows, Italy fits at the upper end of the Western European countries, which is what I'd expect from a country where bad management is offsetting convergence growth.

Germany in 1925 was slightly below their 1913 peak but not by much, USSR was 33% below and the 5 years plans of 1928 onward did the trick for them, the UK was about par for the 1913 figures and Italy was actually higher than its 1913 peak.
These figures are calculated by the economist Paul Bairoch in his book, i have a hard copy but they are available on the internet, you are free to refute them if you have better sources.
Like i mentioned earlier, in the UK and France democracy flourished and bloodshed was tending to "0", a Dictator essentially sheds blood in one form or another and pay-offs have to higher due to the higher risks involved, these pay-offs are missing in Italy even though Italy started from a much smaller "BASE". Shows Fat Musso was a poor administrator and had no clue about economics.

 

[Praetonia]

Germany in 1925 was slightly below their 1913 peak but not by much, USSR was 33% below and the 5 years plans of 1928 onward did the trick for them, the UK was about par for the 1913 figures and Italy was actually higher than its 1913 peak.
These figures are calculated by the economist Paul Bairoch in his book, i have a hard copy but they are available on the internet, you are free to refute them if you have better sources.
Like i mentioned earlier, in the UK and France democracy flourished and bloodshed was tending to "0", a Dictator essentially sheds blood in one form or another and pay-offs have to higher due to the higher risks involved, these pay-offs are missing in Italy even though Italy started from a much smaller "BASE". Shows Fat Musso was a poor administrator and had no clue about economics.

Not really; Mussolini Italy wasn't a bloodbath like the USSR, in fact nor was Nazi Germany at this point. It's true that Italy should have grown faster than France and the UK because it started at a lower level of development - it should have enjoyed convergence growth - but then Italy did grow considerably faster than France.

I do not disbelieve the figures, but I do dispute the interpretation. I think Mussolini had no clue about economics but think that is also largely true of Stalin, FDR, Hitler, etc. Even Churchill screwed up badly by returning to the gold standard at a rate that belied the WWI inflation, causing massive deflation in the UK and arguably starting the Great Depression.

 

[amalric de g.]

My guess - if Mussolini had stepped down from power and retired right after the Abyssinian conquest and stayed in retirement during WWII, he would probably become one of Italys most popular historical persons.

Il Duce is one of the most popular persons in Italy, still today. If you don´t believe it google him.

In Italy, you can buy nearly all stuff with his face on. Cups, calendars, busts, wine and so on.

 

[Loke]

Il Duce is one of the most popular persons in Italy, still today. If you don´t believe it google him. View attachment 172832

In Italy, you can buy nearly all stuff with his face on. Cups, calendars, busts, wine and so on.

I know that, I just think he probably would have been even more popular if resigning after Abyssynia.

 

[MANkoto]

He did terribly economics wise for a 22 year long dictatorship.

Let's compare all major in 1925 (in terms of 1960 US $) (approx. the time Stalin becomes absolute Dictator and Mussolini becomes one too, Hitler is still far away) & 1938(last pre-war year)

In 1925 Italy has a GDP of 18.50 Billion and in 1938 of 23.70 Billion (28% increase)
Germany has 45.00 and 77.20 (72% increase) - despite all the turmoil
USSR has 32.60 and 75.90 (132% increase) - despite all the unmentionables, maybe also partially due to it.
France has 36.20 and 39.20 (8% increase)
UK has 43.70 and 56.10 (28% increase)
Europe as a whole has 257.40 and 376.90 (46% increase)

Shows he did as good as the UK with a vastly lower Base. Italy started at 40% of UK and went on to remain the same in percentage terms. Though he did better than France, France has a base which was 70% more. Both Germany and USSR vastly out performed him.

I have not taken population into account for all countries.

The reason for the Soviet Union and Germany's massive increases is simple: nationalization. When you seize the assets of the people and corporations(In the SU's case) or from a specific group of people(In Germany's case), you tend to have more money to work with. Mussolini didn't really nationalize much, and he also invaded and conquered a country of ~15,000,000 people, finished off conquering a massive desert, and led the most direct involvement in a certain civil war, while putting billions of lire into public works projects, like the draining of the Pontine Marshes. Really, it's a miracle that Italy's economy didn't enter recession.

 

[SaydaNeen]

Yeah but there are better ways to change it than forcing binary divisions that didn't exist in 1936 (especially when an Italian player can be at war in 1936 in theory).

You are right, Italy's main reason for doing so poorly in WWII was economy. Italy was broke, its technology was outdated, it lacked resource development, and its industry was totally unprepared for war. This however was not a permanent problem, it was just their problem at the time.

The solution then is to make Italian factories cost more, or put a modifier on them, or something. Changing their military makeup and reducing the number of units they actually had makes no sense to achieve this goal. Taking away units and divisions Italy actually had in WW2 in a ww2 simulation game has nothing to do with gameplay or making it more real, it has to do with Paradox focusing too much on their German-Swedish-UK-US focus and not bothering to properly consider what is still one of the greater powers of the world to make sure they are properly balanced.

Agreed, i guess what they could do is as a national focus, in some way increase economic stability but that i cant see being in the first release as it would take a bit to implement a whole new focus tree and its rewards n such. That would put Italy at a disadvantage in the beginning which is historically accurate, but if you invest in time and resources Italy could become a major contributor to the Axis powers economically and eventually militarily.

 

[Sweed Raver]

The reason for the Soviet Union and Germany's massive increases is simple: nationalization. When you seize the assets of the people and corporations(In the SU's case) or from a specific group of people(In Germany's case), you tend to have more money to work with. Mussolini didn't really nationalize much, and he also invaded and conquered a country of ~15,000,000 people, finished off conquering a massive desert, and led the most direct involvement in a certain civil war, while putting billions of lire into public works projects, like the draining of the Pontine Marshes. Really, it's a miracle that Italy's economy didn't enter recession.

I tend to compare nationalizing assets (which is what planned economies do, be it communist or fascist ideologically) to activating a choke valve on a combustion engine. It lets you start the engine, or in this case the economy, when it would otherwise fail due to harsh conditions. In both cases, as you say, you have more resources to work with, thus enabling a cold start. When it is up and running, however, it will be wasteful of resources and generally under perform.

Perhaps if Mussolini had nationalized assets when he took power, and then gradually privatized them again after a set number of years, he could have saved the economy?

 

[MANkoto]

I tend to compare nationalizing assets (which is what planned economies do, be it communist or fascist ideologically) to activating a choke valve on a combustion engine. It lets you start the engine, or in this case the economy, when it would otherwise fail due to harsh conditions. In both cases, as you say, you have more resources to work with, thus enabling a cold start. When it is up and running, however, it will be wasteful of resources and generally under perform.

Perhaps if Mussolini had nationalized assets when he took power, and then gradually privatized them again after a set number of years, he could have saved the economy?

Forced nationalization would be against the doctrine of Fascism. Plus, Mussolini never had complete power. If he ever overstepped his bounds, the Grand Council of Fascism and the King could simply remove him from office, like what happened after the fall of Sicily. Stalin and Hitler could do what they wanted, Mussolini couldn't, hence the difference in economic growth.

 

[keynes2.0]

You say that as if it's easy for a dictator to create growth. History is littered with dictators who failed.

 

[Anichent]

Forced nationalization would be against the doctrine of Fascism. Plus, Mussolini never had complete power........ Stalin and Hitler could do what they wanted, Mussolini couldn't, hence the difference in economic growth.

Both of those statements are opinion not fact. Wrong opinions, but opinion nonetheless.