If italy Joined the allies World War 2

[ljadw]

The Molotov - Ribbontrop Pact sealed the fate of Poland and the Baltic states. Hitler wanted Lebensraum in Poland, Stalin wanted the former territories of the Russian Empire. To say that the Soviets and Germans didn't coordinate the invasion of Poland is simply not tenable. The sectors to be occupied by each invader had been agreed upon before the invasion. German forces that had pushed beyond the agreed upon boundaries withdrew when the Soviet forces arrived, and turned over prisoners. Eastern Poland was territory incorporated into the nascent Polish state following the Polish - Soviet War of 1919-21, and was predominantly populated by Ukrainians, Jews, and Belarussians. Perhaps this is why the Western Powers did not strenuously object to Stalin's takeover, as this territory was not part of the original Polish state created in the Treaty of Versailles.

ONE correction : Stalin did not want the former territories of the Russian Empire, but only some of them : before 1914 the biggest part of Poland ,including Warsaw,was a part of the Russian Empire,but Stalin wanted only the Eastern part,because he knew that Poland was a poisoned chalice for the USSR and that even the communist Poles were hostile to the USSR . He preferred that ''fascist '' Germans should occupy ''capitalist '' Poles .
About the coordination of the Germans and Soviets : the Germans did not know when the Soviets would invade, because the Soviet attack was depending on the success of the German attack and on the failure of the Wallies to be in Berlin on September 15 .If after the German attack,there was a coup of the German generals and the French were advancing to Berlin, Stalin would not move .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ONE correction : Stalin did not want the former territories of the Russian Empire, but only some of them : before 1914 the biggest part of Poland ,including Warsaw,was a part of the Russian Empire,but Stalin wanted only the Eastern part,because he knew that Poland was a poisoned chalice for the USSR and that even the communist Poles were hostile to the USSR . He preferred that ''fascist '' Germans should occupy ''capitalist '' Poles .
About the coordination of the Germans and Soviets : the Germans did not know when the Soviets would invade, because the Soviet attack was depending on the success of the German attack and on the failure of the Wallies to be in Berlin on September 15 .If after the German attack,there was a coup of the German generals and the French were advancing to Berlin, Stalin would not move .

been reading some of your posts with great interest - a question; do you have a reference for this?

 

[pbehn]

Has anyone seen Koopernic post recently?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I disagree with this :
CZ had 2 choices : to say no to Hitler or to say yes to Hitler . They said yes because they knew that the West could not save them and that after the defeat of Hitler ,they would become a Soviet satellite .
Poland also had the same 2 choices :
they said no to Hitler because initially they were convinced that Hitler was bluffing .He needed a deal with Stalin and he would never negotiate with Stalin . Thus Poland was safe .
after the M-R Pact, Poland continued to say no , because they knew that if they said yes, Hitler would still attack .
After the Pact Hitler could not say to Stalin : the Pact no longer exist,because Poland is accepting my demands and thus I will not invade her .
In 1908 (the Bosnia-Herzegovina crisis ) Russia received a German ultimatum,which was : to accept openly the annexation of BH and to abandon Serbia, or to refuse this demand and face war .
While Germany hoped that Russia would refuse and that it would have finally its war, Russia gave away, for several reasons,one of which was that France refused to support her .France had no intention to fight for something insignificant in the Balkans .
The same thing happened in the 2 Agadir crises .
In 1938 Austria also had 2 choices : to fight or to capitulate . For a lot of reasons, they capitulated .

My point is logical, not historical. If someone is unaware of an alternative, them not selecting said alternative is not a choice, it's them acting in a fog of information. So again I ask you: did the Poles have any intel indicating, before deciding to fight the Germans, that the Russians were planning their own invasion? Please address this question.

 

[nuuumannn]

the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too

In your imagination. Let's be real for a minute here, If Italy goes to war against Britain in 1939, how are its aeroplanes going to reach the UK from Italy? In 1939 Italy had NO worthwhile combat aircraft that could fly non-stop to the UK and return. let alone a biplane fighter. The Fiat BR.20 certainly couldn't. In late 1940 Italy took advantage of the fact that Germany had invaded Belgium and launched its attacks from there. Germany didn't begin its invasion of mainland Europe until Spring 1940. The Italians did not have a long-range bomber that could attack Britain, but the British had bombers that could attack Italy from the UK. Whitleys carried out raids against Italian cities in 1940.

So, let's say that this highly implausible scenario of yours could come about and Italy can somehow attack the UK in 1939 via air attack? Spitfires represented around a third of the available fighters that Fighter Command had, therefore in total it outnumbered the Italian air force fighter arm by a considerable margin. Let's not forget that Britain also had the world's only comprehensive coordinated air defence system of its nature. Traditionally, the Italian air force was no match for the RAF in 1940 and there is little reason to believe that would have been any different in 1939.

Next, the CR.42, G.50 and MC.200 might be a match for the Hurricane (lets for a minute assume all things being equal, let's also not forget that the MC.200 was not sent as part of the attacking force against Britain in 1940; oddly, Italian pilots actually didn't trust it on its debut and the frontline units that it entered service with relinquished them for CR.42s), but let's not forget that during the Battle of Britain that the RAF achieved a 2 to 1 kill ratio against the Luftwaffe, which was equipped with far superior fighters than the Italian ones. This means they shot down more German aircraft of all types, bombers, fighters, long-range fighters, dive bombers etc than the Germans were able to shoot down British fighters, and the Luftwaffe had more fighters than Fighter Command.

During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was comprehensively defeated because of tactical and strategic errors and missteps. It started off with more aircraft, bombers, fighters, etc than it ended up with. Fighter Command however had more fighters at the end of the battle than it began it with. So, how do you think Italy will do? The total number of aircraft the Luftwaffe was equipped with far exceeded that of the entire RAF, not just Fighter Command, yet this was insufficient to force Britain to surrender. Germany didn't have the capacity to replace the aircraft it was losing as quickly as the British could replenish its fighters. Let's not forget the Luftwaffe was probably the best air force in mainland Europe in 1939 and 1940 so again, bearing in mind that it was defeated by Fighter Command over Britain, how do you really think the Italians would do?

Let's look at what the Corpo Aereo Italiano achieved against the UK, No RAF fighters were shot down by any of the CR.42s and G.50s. None. The Italian fighter pilots claimed a lot of RAF aircraft, but the reality was they damaged a few, but none were destroyed by them. One G.50 was shot down and a couple of CR.42s and BR.20s, with total losses of between 10 and 15 aircraft of 170 that was fielded against Britain in late 1940. Let's also not forget that by the end of October 1940 RAF had more than 700 fighters available to it.

Here's a good account of the CAI's outing against Britain in late 1940:

Another Italian Misadventure in the Battle of Britain (historynet.com)

 

[pbehn]

This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too

At the fall of France the numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes available to the RAF were approximately the same at 250 each. Hurricane production was higher than Spitfires especially at the start. During the battle the Spitfire Mk II was introduced and by the following March the MkV was being made.

 

[Glider]

I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. This they could have been trained and supplied with.
Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.

 

[GrauGeist]

Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.

A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.

My understanding is that especially with regard to airframe construction the Italians were less automated and factory-lined, and more hand-built.

Correction welcomed if this is wrongly held by me.

 

[swampyankee]

Italy was probably the least industrialized of the European major powers involved in WW2. While it did have a competent industrial sector, capable of producing well-designed and well-constructed hardware, it did not have the mass of industry and the availability of material resources (iron, coal, oil, etc) as did the other European powers. Some of the Italian weapons were also less than successful because that's how they were specified, most notably the CR.42, but also the G.50, where weapons load and configuration were set by the officers of the RAI. The Italian armed forces had other problems, many due to the somewhat fraught relationship between Italy's north and south. While the Italian Army's elite units (Alpini, Bersaglieri, San Marco Brigade) were as good as anybody's, the bulk of the army was inadequately trained, not well-officered (this may have been a result of Cadorna's mismanagement during WW1), with (usually) mediocre equipment.

While Germany wouldn't be diverted into the Mediterranean littoral, this also means that the Royal Navy wouldn't have to worry about its critical maritime routes through the Suez Canal, dealing with the powerful Italian surface fleet, or the large number of Italian submarines. Basically, the entire Royal Navy Mediterranean Fleet is now available to deal with Germany or Japan. Tell me how that benefits Germany.

 

[ljadw]

My point is logical, not historical. If someone is unaware of an alternative, them not selecting said alternative is not a choice, it's them acting in a fog of information. So again I ask you: did the Poles have any intel indicating, before deciding to fight the Germans, that the Russians were planning their own invasion? Please address this question.

The answer is : yes .
The proof is : the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
This pact meant that a successful German attack would be followed ( when was not known ) by a Soviet one .
Poland did not need any intel, the Soviets said it openly .
Besides, this was known after 1920 : a German attack was possible only if the Soviets agreed, a Soviet attack was possible only if the Germans agreed .
A German attack would be followed automatically by a Soviet one, a Soviet attack would be followed automatically by a German one .
Germany would not allow the Soviets to occupy the territories it had lost in 1918, the USSR would allow Germany to occupy the core part of the territories it had lost in 1918 ,territories with a Polish population,because the Soviets were better off without the Poles, but they would not allow the Germans to occupy the easteren part of Poland,which had mainly a Russian/Ukrainian population .The danger of a German/Ukrainian coalition ( SS/OUN ) was too great .

 

[ljadw]

I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. This they could have been trained and supplied with.
Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.

There was an other big advantage : the Italian DOW of 1940 forced Britain to use the long route ( via South Africa ) for its convoys to and from the East of Suez, which was a major obstacle for the war against Japan . If Italy was an ally, Britain could use the short route through the Mediterranean .
This applies also for Lend Lease : LL convoys from the US to Iran via Africa lasted 82 days, through the Mediterranean 55 days . A savings of 33 % .

 

[ljadw]

been reading some of your posts with great interest - a question; do you have a reference for this?

In August 1944 there was the insurrection of Warsaw,which,essentially,was an attempt to install an anti-Soviet government before the arrival of the Soviets .
In 1956,there was trouble in Poland and in Hungary : the Poles demanded liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky ( A Russian who commanded the Polish army ) . The Poznan protests in June 1956 were crashed not by the Polish police/army,but by the Soviets : there were at least 57 deaths .
The majority of the Polish leadership backed by both the army and the Internal Security Corps brought Gomulka and several associates into the Politburo and designated Gomulka as First Secretary .
The historian Raymond Pearson said that Poland changed from a colony to a dominion .
A delegation of the Politburo went to Warsaw,meanwhile,the Soviet forces in Poland received the order to be ready . The delegation was (not ) welcomed by a Polish delegation : communists, military and even secret police opposed the Soviet demands . And the Soviets moved back and the Poles got what they wanted : liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky and thousands of Soviet advisers .
Thirty years later there was Walechsa and the Soviets did not intervene .
In the 19th century there were several revolts in Poland against the Russians .
Some sources :
Polish October
1956 Reconsidered why Hungary and not Poland
The Polish-Soviet confrontation in 1956 and the attempted Soviet Military Intervention in Poland .
Other source : the Polish operation of the NKVD : thousands of ethnic Poles living in the USSR ,among whom a lot of members of the Polish communist party,were arrested and shot during the Purges before WWII .
Stalin knew that most Poles were hostile to Russia and communism ,he also knew that he could not kill them all and he preferred that Hitler would be at Warsaw .
Poland was a poisoned chalice .

 

[Glider]

A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.

True I agree, but Mass Production is something that could fairly easily be taught and the Merlin (if I remember correctly) was easier to produce than the DB 601/5. Even concentrating on the production of spare parts for the front line aircraft, would be a significant boost to the British.

What the Allies need to avoid is the mistake Germany made when they took over France. The French had a long tradition of building aircraft but instead of utilising this capability they tried to extract the value and made little use of what was there.

The Italian Army on many occasions fought well but were let down by the quality and quantity of their trucks, soft vehicles and other equipment. Their navy was a similar example. The ships themselves of all types were generally as good as anyone's and some had very clever and unique features, but they were let down by the lack of modern fire control, anti submarine, anti aircraft and radar systems.

 

[Glider]

There was an other big advantage : the Italian DOW of 1940 forced Britain to use the long route ( via South Africa ) for its convoys to and from the East of Suez, which was a major obstacle for the war against Japan . If Italy was an ally, Britain could use the short route through the Mediterranean .
This applies also for Lend Lease : LL convoys from the US to Iran via Africa lasted 82 days, through the Mediterranean 55 days . A savings of 33 % .

An excellent point

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The answer is : yes .
The proof is : the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
This pact meant that a successful German attack would be followed ( when was not known ) by a Soviet one .
Poland did not need any intel, the Soviets said it openly .

Not so. The appendix dividing up Eastern Europe was not made public; it was kept secret. The parts of the pact made public made no mention of attacking anyone. Period, full stop. So which Polish intelligence agency had information regarding that clause?

There is a big difference between knowing and surmising. The words are not synonymous.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In August 1944 there was the insurrection of Warsaw,which,essentially,was an attempt to install an anti-Soviet government before the arrival of the Soviets .
In 1956,there was trouble in Poland and in Hungary : the Poles demanded liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky ( A Russian who commanded the Polish army ) . The Poznan protests in June 1956 were crashed not by the Polish police/army,but by the Soviets : there were at least 57 deaths .
The majority of the Polish leadership backed by both the army and the Internal Security Corps brought Gomulka and several associates into the Politburo and designated Gomulka as First Secretary .
The historian Raymond Pearson said that Poland changed from a colony to a dominion .
A delegation of the Politburo went to Warsaw, meanwhile, the Soviet forces in Poland received the order to be ready . The delegation was (not ) welcomed by a Polish delegation : communists, military and even secret police opposed the Soviet demands . And the Soviets moved back and the Poles got what they wanted : liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky and thousands of Soviet advisers .
Thirty years later there was Walechsa and the Soviets did not intervene .
In the 19th century there were several revolts in Poland against the Russians .
Some sources :
Polish October
1956 Reconsidered why Hungary and not Poland
The Polish-Soviet confrontation in 1956 and the attempted Soviet Military Intervention in Poland .
Other source : the Polish operation of the NKVD : thousands of ethnic Poles living in the USSR ,among whom a lot of members of the Polish communist party,were arrested and shot during the Purges before WWII .

OK - situations in history, and one reference. Yes it's pretty obvious of the eventual Soviet opposition, but I do know that there were Poles who supported the Soviet alliance ( we have several members here who live in Poland and served in the armed forces during those times, I'll let them chime in if they wish.

Stalin knew that most Poles were hostile to Russia and communism ,he also knew that he could not kill them all and he preferred that Hitler would be at Warsaw .
Poland was a poisoned chalice .

Where was this quoted from??? Are these his words, your words or some author's words???

"because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland," "the Soviet government was trying to atone for those sins." Stalin concluded that "Poland must be strong" and that "the Soviet Union is interested in the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland."

Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had already annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compensated by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet-sponsored provisional government recently installed in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army.

Stalin's comments from Yalta. We know how the rest actually turned out.

 

[ljadw]

OK - situations in history, and one reference. Yes it's pretty obvious of the eventual Soviet opposition, but I do know that there were Poles who supported the Soviet alliance ( we have several members here who live in Poland and served in the armed forces during those times, I'll let them chime in if they wish.

Where was this quoted from??? Are these his words, your words or some author's words???

"because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland," "the Soviet government was trying to atone for those sins." Stalin concluded that "Poland must be strong" and that "the Soviet Union is interested in the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland."

Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had already annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compensated by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet-sponsored provisional government recently installed in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army.

Stalin's comments from Yalta. We know how the rest actually turned out.

The Pact was giving Stalin 52 % of the Polish territory of 1939,but most of it were regions that did not belong to Poland before 1918,and some 40 % of its population ,of whom 5 million Poles .
Hitler OTOH received 48 % of Poland with 22 million people ,and most of this territory and of its population never belonged to Germany, but belonged to Russia .
Who benefited most of the Pact ? Hitler or Stalin ?
Stalin did not say : I want back what Russia lost in 1918, but Hitler said : I want much more than what Germany lost in 1918 . Who was the winner of the pact ?
About Stalin's promises : no one believed them and every one ( not only FDR but also the GOP) knew that it were lies . Every one knew what Stalin would do and every one knew that Stalin could not say what he would do but said the opposite what he would do .
And, no one cared .
Winston cared only about the nearing elections and FDR cared only about the votes of the Polish Americans .
What happened to Poland was not their business,and there was nothing that they could do .A war against the USSR for Poland was out of the question . And, Poland becoming a Soviet satellite was no threat to the interests of the Wallies .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Pact was giving Stalin 52 % of the Polish territory of 1939,but most of it were regions that did not belong to Poland before 1918,and some 40 % of its population ,of whom 5 million Poles .
Hitler OTOH received 48 % of Poland with 22 million people ,and most of this territory and of its population never belonged to Germany, but belonged to Russia .
Who benefited most of the Pact ? Hitler or Stalin ?
Stalin did not say : I want back what Russia lost in 1918, but Hitler said : I want much more than what Germany lost in 1918 . Who was the winner of the pact ?
About Stalin's promises : no one believed them and every one ( not only FDR but also the GOP) knew that it were lies . Every one knew what Stalin would do and every one knew that Stalin could not say what he would do but said the opposite what he would do .
And, no one cared .
Winston cared only about the nearing elections and FDR cared only about the votes of the Polish Americans .
What happened to Poland was not their business,and there was nothing that they could do .A war against the USSR for Poland was out of the question . And, Poland becoming a Soviet satellite was no threat to the interests of the Wallies .

What I quoted were Stalin's exact words from the Yalta conference. Yes, not believable and again history speaks for itself. My point is the "poison chalice" quote is yours, not Stalin's?

 

[ljadw]

Not so. The appendix dividing up Eastern Europe was not made public; it was kept secret. The parts of the pact made public made no mention of attacking anyone. Period, full stop. So which Polish intelligence agency had information regarding that clause?

There is a big difference between knowing and surmising. The words are not synonymous.

The content of the Pact was not the Partition of Eastern Europe, but to make the German attack on Poland not possible, but inevitable . And every one in Europe knew it .The Belgian mobilization started not on September 1, but on August 25 .Two days after the Pact was signed .
As A.J.P. Taylor said on P 318 of The Origins of the Second World War:'' The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland .''
The partition of Poland was the result of the successful German attack and of the inability of France to save Poland .
Stalin, a SOB, did the right thing to defend the interests of the USSR : if he did nothing,, Hitler would occupy the whole of Poland, including 8 million Ukrainians and Russians living in the Eastern Part of Poland.