The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

My opponent has pointed out, rightly, that Rommel lacked caution and was very aggressive, and that the Soviet tactics were very clever and would've countered him. But Hitler, not Rommel, was Commander-in-Chief, thus Hitler made the decisions on where to attack and when. Now, Rommel's Afrika Korps would've been very useful in the Battle of Moscow, which would've deeply dropped Russian morale if captured, that's if Stalin HADN'T surrendered. Hitler was like Montgomery: cautious, but still strategic and clever. You really think that in Russia, with Hitler being Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in Russia and Rommel simply guiding a few divisions as to Hitler's order, that Rommel would charge the Russian lines? Rommel KNEW where the enemy was weakest: the British, fortunately, found this out before late. So Rommel would've stopped his aggressive thought of mind, FOR ONCE, and obeyed Hitler's orders. I highly doubt he would've denied them, and if he did, he, and his army, would pay. Meanwhile, about Italy, the Italian army was simply a liability. Completely useless. Let me take the example of Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) It took Mussolini's army 8-9 months to capture Ethiopia, and, at this rate, even with tactical brilliance and massive armies, it would've taken them 16-18 months to completely capture Egypt. But they didn't, for their armies were a joke. Almost all offensives by pure Italian (no German) force prior to the landings by Erwin Rommel were useless. Heck, they couldn't defeat the French alpine divisions when they entered the war. I repeat, The French. Had this poor leadership, along with lack of fighting spirit, lack of military skills and above all, scattered divisions try to fight the British, I think we'd all agree the Italians would be beaten out of North Africa. Obviously, to remove this (pathetic) Italian threat, Churchill would've dispatched Wavell and Auchlineck's forces onto mainland Italy itself, along with Free French, Indian, South African, Dutch, Australian and New Zealand divisions. The above is probably all that was needed to stop the Italians. And then what? The Allies would sweep through France easily, assisted by a landing in the South of France (like Operation Dragoon) and the North of France (like Operation Overlord) The Allies would've then opened up 2 fronts: Spanish and Germanic. The Allies would sweep through the (also) pathetic Spanish forces, who are (if possible) worse then the Italians, and liberate Madrid from fascism. The deal is simple from there: the troops already fighting Germany on the German Front would be assisted by the Allies who had fought in Spain about 4-10 weeks later. This, along with the (supposed) men from the landings of Northern and Southern France, would be enough to trap the Germans, who's forces are (remember?) still pinned up in Russia. Along with the Russians, the Allies would (if possible) land in Norway, beat the Germans out of Norway, then cut off the Narvik route, move along into Denmark, liberate Denmark, and then attack Hamburg and Berlin from the North. Meanwhile, the Russians would push and push and push the Germans back into Poland. The Allies claim Berlin, the Russians claim Warsaw, and the War is over in about 1943-44. All because Hitler aligned himself with Mussolini and Rommel was never dispatched to North Africa. ^ I know this was a (possibly) crazy hypothesis and estimation, and I never refuted the arguments above, but I would like to point out that the above could be consequences of Hitler and Mussolini's alliance. Also, The US would lose next to no men this way, along with Japan. If Japan were still to attack Pearl Harbor, after the German defeat, the Allies, along with Russia, would just pit ALL forces onto the tiny archipelago called Japan.