Italian Army Seems Underpowered

[Secret Master]

I don't think it's as simple as Mussolini being some fat idiot who couldn't do anything right.

His track record is really poor in other areas besides his decision to join the war. I don't feel it's inappropriate to disparage him as an idiot with multiple failures. The Battle of the Lira is a great example of a failed policy (which applies to the wider problem of poor living standards throughout the tenure of Mussolini and the PNF). Then there's the whole Battle for Wheat. (Really? Wheat? He's not even trying to win Vic2. ) Some of his foreign policy in the 30s had merit, but even he recognized that Italy was being less of a Great Power and more of a German sphereling as time went on (hence attacking Greece in the first damn place).

If he had a better track record prior to 1940, his gamble might seem more audacious. But in light of his other actions, it seems more like going for Germany's scraps than an audacious attempt to gain influence as a Great Power.

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the absurdly high costs of war in Ethiopia and Spain compared to Italy's GDP. That, to me, is a strategic failure to plan ahead.

 

[Turboflex]

I don't think it's as simple as Mussolini being some fat idiot who couldn't do anything right.

Mussolini was fighting a very 19th century war for what he thought were 19th century stakes. His plan was to enter a war that was as good as won and stake his claim to marginal expansion at the borders of his empire as a prize for joining the winning side. This plan blew up in his face because the British didn't give in and the Germans attacked the Soviets, but in late 1940 it wasn't obvious that would happen.

If WWII had ended in December 1940 and Mussolini had eaten Greece and perhaps part of Egypt "for free" he would not look like a fool with hindsight. He looks like a fool with hindsight for not committing to the total war WWII became but it was never his intention to join that war. If he had known that allying with Germany meant joining that war, chances are Italy would have stayed neutral.

Mussolini's instinct was to stay neutral, as was his foreign minister & son-in-law Ciano (whose diary we have to thank as a huge source of insight). Their advisers told them Italy wasn't ready for war and they listened.

Hitler had to meet with Mussolini a dozen times and apply every psychological pressure to get him to join in the attack on France even after everything went perfectly for the Germans and only then did he plunge in. Hitler tried the same with Franco too but he had just more nerve than that.

 

[MANkoto]

Mussolini's instinct was to stay neutral, as was his foreign minister & son-in-law Ciano (whose diary we have to thank as a huge source of insight). Their advisers told them Italy wasn't ready for war and they listened.

Hitler had to meet with Mussolini a dozen times and apply every psychological pressure to get him to join in the attack on France even after everything went perfectly for the Germans and only then did he plunge in. Hitler tried the same with Franco too but he had just more nerve than that.

Franco also knew Spain wasn't ready for a war, and wouldn't be ready for a decade. Mussolini's armed forces, despite being highly outdated, would flatten every non-great power. Even Mussolini's advisers didn't know how unprepared Italy actually was, since the people in-charge of these things were all yes men, totally unreliable.

 

[Beagá]

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the absurdly high costs of war in Ethiopia and Spain compared to Italy's GDP. That, to me, is a strategic failure to plan ahead.

Going for Ethiopia of all places clearly showed UV rays fried his bald brain.

I do wonder how an Italy that DOWs Yugoslavia early should work. It was a rather gamey war.

But I wouldn´t consider the intervention in Spain dumb. It was a smart decision overall - the problem was what happened 2 years later due to Hitler being TOO enthusiastic for major war.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Ethiopia was the only low-hanging colonial fruit to put in the Italian Empire basket, plus there was a history with an embarrassing 19th century defeat to redeem. That it was not a lean and efficient operation was par for the course.

Hitler was not enthusiastic for war in 1939 - he was convinced that Britain would not fight over Poland, and British and French conduct up to that point gave him every encouragement. Mussolini had a more considered and prudent perspective on great power diplomacy and what aggressors could get away with.

 

[jcd000]

In the context that Hitler wanted war over the Sudetenland, i can only surmise that Hitler was prepared for anything come Poland.
So, whatever he thought of the chances that the Allies would back down, he just did not care one way or the other, really.
He would either take Poland for free, or get his war. win-win.

 

[Beagá]

Ethiopia was the only low-hanging colonial fruit to put in the Italian Empire basket, plus there was a history with an embarrassing 19th century defeat to redeem. That it was not a lean and efficient operation was par for the course.

Hitler was not enthusiastic for war in 1939 - he was convinced that Britain would not fight over Poland, and British and French conduct up to that point gave him every encouragement. Mussolini had a more considered and prudent perspective on great power diplomacy and what aggressors could get away with.

What I meant was that Ehiopia was a waste of time and money, but Spain wasn´t.

Validating Franco validated his own regime back home, and ensured a trading partner and ally in a fascist, catholic, european nation, just like Italy was. At least, that was plan A.

But things outside his control happened. Forcing plan B, which was allying with the tedeschi (you can feel the contempt in that word). The majority of italians... certainly wasn´t very enthusiastic about it.

 

[Invictus5966]

It will be for a lot of people, she's the tutorial nation iirc.

I'm wondering if a serious effort was made Italian troops can be brought up to power... That's gonna be my focus on the playtest

 

[Sweed Raver]

Actually I can answer you this, because this was lively discussed about 6 months ago and I remember that

Italy has binary divisions in HOI 4 in 1936, because PDX wants to force the player to work with this handicap. The italians switched to binary in 1938 ("spent army experience") and thought it would be a smart decision. Turns out it wasn't. Since the player has total hindsight, he would NEVER switch to binary divisions and spent army experience on it. Therefore Italy ingame would not be as week as in reality.
So basically PDX forces binary in 1936 to make for a more interesting gameplay. Just like they "force" you to do the Purge in SU if you want to prevent a civil war.
It's a gameplay decision. Many people are more into historical accuracy and hate this decision. Me personally I find it cool

Perhaps it would be better to leave the option open for the player, but instead forcing the AI to reorganize badly. The game allows you to make mistakes, which is clearly what Italy did historically. As for human players having a hindsight advantage, that is why I am looking forward to the sandbox mode. Furthermore, in a multiplayer session all players including the enemies of Italy will also share said advantage, and not make the mistakes that their countries did. Just as I have argued before elsewhere, it is the difficulty setting that should provide a challenge for humans against computers, and not the "historical" set up.

 

[Secret Master]

But I wouldn´t consider the intervention in Spain dumb. It was a smart decision overall - the problem was what happened 2 years later due to Hitler being TOO enthusiastic for major war.

Given Franco's reluctance to join Italy and Germany in the war (note that Franco made the right choice in my view), it seems like a lot of investment for scoring points at home in terms of domestic prestige.

 

[Anichent]

Given Franco's reluctance to join Italy and Germany in the war (note that Franco made the right choice in my view), it seems like a lot of investment for scoring points at home in terms of domestic prestige.

It may seem that way, but it was not. The impact on government popularity and the population was tremendous in Italy. Take it from someone who had, and still has, family who lived through that time in Italy. Troops got experience, generals got to practice weapons and strategies (ie. think of what Russia is going today in Syria), at home the population gained confidence in their government which is actually the best use of a government's resources, particularly a fascist government.

HOI is a military game, but its important not to let the military primacy of this game impact how we view actual history, which is more often than not not military focused - military is usually just the tool for other purposes, often domestic.

 

[Lifthrasil]

It may seem that way, but it was not. The impact on government popularity and the population was tremendous in Italy. Take it from someone who had, and still has, family who lived through that time in Italy. Troops got experience, generals got to practice weapons and strategies (ie. think of what Russia is going today in Syria), at home the population gained confidence in their government which is actually the best use of a government's resources, particularly a fascist government.

HOI is a military game, but its important not to let the military primacy of this game impact how we view actual history, which is more often than not not military focused - military is usually just the tool for other purposes, often domestic.

You made some very good points here!

 

[SaydaNeen]

they should seperate Historical from custom gameplay. They already stated this before in WWW that if you pick historical you will recieve a more historical playthrough with obvious events and such. But when it comes to custom playthrough i do believe they should remove the binary divisions that werent implemented in 1936 and possibly change the whole experience.
That being said, Italy wasn't exactly economically strong, the government by all means was relatively solid but the average person had a low income during that time period compared to other major nations. Corporations were also reluctant to support the Italian government since it was seen as a military disaster but PDX cant implement that into a game, it just wouldnt be fun if your trying to fight a war and your corporations refuse to co-operate. That I believe is why they nerf Italy with the binary divisions etc, otherwise your historical playthrough might see Italy as the main power in Europe not Germany lol that would be absurd!

 

[Anichent]

That being said, Italy wasn't exactly economically strong, the government by all means was relatively solid but the average person had a low income during that time period compared to other major nations. Corporations were also reluctant to support the Italian government since it was seen as a military disaster but PDX cant implement that into a game, it just wouldnt be fun if your trying to fight a war and your corporations refuse to co-operate. That I believe is why they nerf Italy with the binary divisions etc, otherwise your historical playthrough might see Italy as the main power in Europe not Germany lol that would be absurd!

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.

 

[Praetonia]

His track record is really poor in other areas besides his decision to join the war. I don't feel it's inappropriate to disparage him as an idiot with multiple failures. The Battle of the Lira is a great example of a failed policy (which applies to the wider problem of poor living standards throughout the tenure of Mussolini and the PNF). Then there's the whole Battle for Wheat. (Really? Wheat? He's not even trying to win Vic2. ) Some of his foreign policy in the 30s had merit, but even he recognized that Italy was being less of a Great Power and more of a German sphereling as time went on (hence attacking Greece in the first damn place).

If he had a better track record prior to 1940, his gamble might seem more audacious. But in light of his other actions, it seems more like going for Germany's scraps than an audacious attempt to gain influence as a Great Power.

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the absurdly high costs of war in Ethiopia and Spain compared to Italy's GDP. That, to me, is a strategic failure to plan ahead.

Sure, he was a socialist, and socialism doesn't work, but loads of intelligent people in the 30s and 40s thought it did. In fact almost all of them did. Mussolini was far from the only leader to get economic policy wrong at that time, far from the worst of the mis-managers, and was following to reasonable approximation the best educated advice of his day.

Looking at his foreign policy, it only goes wrong when he incorrectly guesses that Britain will throw in the towel in late 40/early 41. Pretty much all disasters flow from that mistake. But that wasn't an unreasonable gamble to make. It looked a lot like that would happen at the time, and it very well might have done. If it had, he would have followed a decade in which he became dictator of Italy and a decade in which he took Ethiopia against international opposition with a decade in which he very seriously laid the foundations of a restored Roman Empire.

Italy didn't become a "German spearling" until the failure of things like the North African campaign and the Greek campaign which forced the Germans to bail them out. The Germans had no interest in Greece, it only wasted their time and resources; Mussolini launched it opportunistically if anything trying to exploit German policy for his own ends rather than vice-versa. His increasing dependence on German troops to maintain his conquests and credibility did make him a puppet as time went on, but that's late 41 and that's only about two years before Italy is knocked out of the war, and almost twenty years after Mussolini took power.

Ultimately Mussolini's ideas were more sound than Germany's. Mussolini did not want to fight a "war of the worlds" with tens of millions dead. Even when he found himself in one, he never mobilised the country for it. What he wanted was to grab marginal expansions for Italy by sound diplomatic manoeuvring. There's some risk involved in that, he gambled and lost. Unfortunate but not necessarily stupid.

 

[zyphial]

Sure, he was a socialist, and socialism doesn't work, but loads of intelligent people in the 30s and 40s thought it did. In fact almost all of them did.

You use that word "socialist," but if you are grouping both Soviet "socialism" (marxism) and what Mussolini instituted (facism)... you might want to retake economics 101. It gets obscenely problematic if you're extending that to democratic socialism.

Unless, of course, you think the Soviets invited private corporations to be part of the government...

As for the rest, I think you're closer to the mark. It's a mistake to paint Mussolini as either a cunning genius or a - what was the phrase - "fat idiot" I think someone said before. I agree, Mussolini made some strategic errors that ultimately cost him everything, but there's a reason he was able to take control of an entire country and being an "idiot" certainly wasn't one of them. He made plenty of choices that were quite clever and carried with them an appearance of a great chance for success without the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Klausewitz]

Sure, he was a socialist, and socialism doesn't work, ...

Pretty much all of Europe would like to disagree.
Or what do you think Germany's economy with its high levels of government intervention, tariffs barriers and high levels of redistribution is?
It is even in the name:
Social market economy.

 

[tommylotto]

Off topic, but... I think he is drawing a distinction between central economic planning generally and Adam Smith's invisible hand, which in the long run is probably correct. However, over certain time periods the invisible hand can be out performed by central planning. The invisible hand of capitalism over time created the industrial juggernaught that was the US, but it was FDR's (socialist?) central planners that marshaled it so effectively for the war effort that the invisible hand never could have accomplished. Mussolini kept fighting all these "battles" in the 20's and 30's that may have accumulated political power for him personally but distorted incentives resulting in a moribund economy. Maybe if he had just butted out and let the economy work itself out it would not have been such a basket case by the time the war started. However, I suspect the time frame of his regime was too short for the invisible hand to do its thing and make much of a difference. Plus his need to be seen "doing things" to remain popular outweighed prudent policy considerations.

He looked just smashing in those fancy military uniforms and cool hats, but he certainly did not have much of a strategic military mind. However, he was not just a fat idiot. Politically, I find him to have been intelligent and cunning (sometimes thoughtful) with a great sense for PR and self promotion. Just imagine how many Twitter followers he would have if he were around today.

However, in the end, it is a matter of character. He was a bad man and a political animal. Not necessarily evil, but certainly bad. He saw short term political advantage associating with evil, and being a bad man, he lacked the scruples to see the problem with that. The result, the utter destruction of his nation and him battered into a pile of goo hanging from his feet. We reap what we sow.

 

[shri]

Maybe if he had just butted out and let the economy work itself out it would not have been such a basket case by the time the war started. However, I suspect the time frame of his regime was too short for the invisible hand to do its thing and make much of a difference. Plus his need to be seen "doing things" to remain popular outweighed prudent policy considerations.
.

Usually, your posts are good, on Italy they are great, but here you are making a genuine mistake or turning a blind eye.
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. It was anything but short and the regime was anything but efficient, it was hopelessly corrupt and moribund. Stuffed with YES MEN and SYCOPHANTS.
The inefficiency of Pietro Badoglio the chief planner of the 12 Isonzo disasters in WW1 was well known yet he was retained in a high post, FIAT was bribing the General staff to accept the useless tankettes and nothing was done to stop this. The entire Industry, the top Officers and the top Administrators were hand in glove in retaining useless inefficiencies.
A Dictator usually ends up bloodthirsty and this is his nature, but if blood is spilled and yet results are not achieved shows that either the dictator is incompetent or corrupt.

 

[Klausewitz]

@tommylotto:
Not everywhere is America.
America as a country would have been almost impossible to run into the ground in the first half of the last century.
Plenty of ressources, self-sufficiency in some sectors even (IIRC the US did not need to import oil prior to WW2), a never-ending flow of people working for a pitance so there children might have a chance to be proper Americans, etc.
Italy had almost no ressources of their own, considerable problems even feeding their energy needs, a moribund school system, etc.
I don't believe the 'invisible hand' would have been able to work out Italy without the country sliding into civil war.