Italy remains neutral in WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

A

Admiral Beez

Major
9,319
10,608
Oct 21, 2019
Toronto, Canada
Being an aviation forum I suggest we look at this potentiality from an air war POV. After consulting with Franco about the benefits of neutrality in the coming war, Mussolini does not invade France in 1940, and does not attack French or British possessions in North Africa. Instead Mussolini comes to a political agreement with the British over Italian East Africa.



Hitler is furious, but eventually sees the benefit that Italy will not allow British or French forces into his territory, and there's no need to divert German forces to hold the Med or North Africa or to protect Germany's southern border.

How is the war from an aviation POV impacted?
 
The Germans are still going to have to deal with Yugoslavia & Greece before invading Russia, having the potential to have the British attack the southern flank to assist the Russians after they invade Russia seems risky to me. Even if it would free up both air and ground forces for the invasion. It also frees up British forces to attack from southern Europe. With no Italian Fleet to bother the Royal Navy they could reinforce Greece much more efficiently.

Interesting what if, but I don't see it effecting the outcome as I don't see the Italians being able to stay Neutral after the Germans invade Russia. To much pressure being applied, and to big of an EGO involved to let it happen.

But I am interested in hearing others views.
 
cammerjeff said:
The Germans are still going to have to deal with Yugoslavia & Greece before invading Russia, having the potential to have the British attack the southern flank to assist the Russians after they invade Russia seems risky to me.
Click to expand...
Did Britain guarantee Greece or Yugoslavia's sovereignty? If not, maybe Italy invades in order to keep Hitler happy whilst not going to war with Britain or France. If there is a security guarantee preventing Italy from proceeding, all Hitler needs to do is tell the Yugos and Greeks to mind their own business, advising that any British or French troops in their borders will be seen as an act of war against Germany and dealt with in kind. Once France falls these other nations should fall into line.

Britain had ordered 300 Reggiane Re.2000 Falcos in Dec 1940 from Italy. If Italy remains neutral and does not invade the Balkans this sale might go through. Three hundred Falcos would do nicely in Malaya.


Courtesy of Mission4Today :: › IL-2 Sturmovik › Skinning Discussion Forum › Skinning Development Forum › WWII › Having another go at skinning planes

A neutral Italy is a big issue for Japan, since Britain is not distracted by North Africa and Mediterranean matters. Indeed, with these two latter territories at peace we may see Germany offer an armistice with the British and better terms for Vichy French. But this aside, Britain will have more forces for first Norway, and then Malaya. I wonder what the Japanese would make of an Italian battle squadron in the Indian Ocean when they visit Ceylon in April 1942, in addition to the two Italian warships at Nanking. Come 1942 the IJA/N bombers will need to choose their targets carefully.
 
Last edited:
You have to keep in mind that one of the main reasons Yugoslavia was invaded was the pro German government had just been ousted, and a pro allied government was put in its place. I am not sure if Greek sovereignty was guaranteed, but I can not imagine Briton wold not use it as leverage once Russia was invaded. They needed an Ally and where willing to look the other way on everything Russia had done in the 1937-40 time frame to get an Ally.
Briton did not consider Japan a real threat at the time so I don't see much of the air or land forces that would be freed up from North Africa going east. I still think they would back up Greece, and possibly Yugoslavia to irritate Germany and possibly cut off the oil supply from Romania. (a bit far fetched I know)

Also remember that Spain was not a signature to the Axis treaty, and it was easy to justify Spain staying out of the conflict as the 4 year Cival war had just ended.
 
Dare I say that without the war in the desert the UK wouldn't have had to buy so many US aircraft. No P40's, Maryland's, Baltimore's. In turn this would have had a significant impact on the USAAF in Dec 1941 out, as it was to a large degree those orders that started to build the infrastructure needed.
 
If Italy remained neutral the war in Western Europe would have been settled very quickly, not necessarily to Germany's advantage.
 
pbehn said:
If Italy remained neutral the war in Western Europe would have been settled very quickly, not necessarily to Germany's advantage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Italian neutrality does not alter Germany's economic, industrial and resource challenges. The moment Germany invades the USSR the former is toast. But if Germany doesn't invade the USSR they still face rapidly dwindling supplies of materials and money; so Germany must march eastward. By Jan 1942 Mussolini and all Italians will be counting their lucky stars that they stayed out of it.

When France falls, what happens to the French air force and navy in North Africa and the Mediterranean? There's no Italian pressure for starters.
 
Last edited:
A neutral Italy would be very beneficial to the Allies: the Royal [Italian] Navy was a greater threat than the German surface fleet, aircraft flying from Italian lands dominated the Central Mediterranean, and the Italians supplied about 300,000 troops to the Russian front.
 


While North Africa may have been a sideshow to the Germans, without that sideshow the Mediterranean is a British lake, the main route to India is completely unchallenged, the RN and USN faces no significant resistance during Operation Torch, if it even happens, and about 700,000 tons of ships don't get sunk by Italian submarines.
 

Is Torch even necessary with Italy neutral? No Italian invasion of Egypt, no need to be rescued by DAK, no need for Torch, seems to me.
 
It doesn't matter. Anything that distracts from launching the earliest and strongest Barbarossa is bad for Germany. If Germany cannot effectively defeat the USSR and seize the resources it needs before winter 1941 their war is lost no matter what happens in the MTO or Atlantic.

Operation Torch doesn't impact Germany's chances in the east. If America and Britain want to exhaust powder and men invading French territory in North Africa, fill your boots. And forget about invading Italy from the Med. Really, without the fighting in North Africa there's little to do in the MTO. Britain won't be asking for two or three divisions of Australian troops for instance, and (since this is an aviation forum) they'll be no RAF or Luftwaffe involvement in the area.
 
Neutrality didn't actually mean anything, Belgium Netherlands and Iceland were neutral. If Italy had declared neutrality Germany would be forced to invade, simply to prevent the allies doing the same.
 
pbehn said:
Neutrality didn't actually mean anything, Belgium Netherlands and Iceland were neutral. If Italy had declared neutrality Germany would be forced to invade, simply to prevent the allies doing the same.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that invading Italy from the north would be quite the chore.
 
pbehn said:
Neutrality didn't actually mean anything, Belgium Netherlands and Iceland were neutral. If Italy had declared neutrality Germany would be forced to invade, simply to prevent the allies doing the same.
Click to expand...
Why would Germany invade Italy? You've got a well armed, like-minded fascist dictatorship that will counter any Allied attack. There's zero chance that the US Congress or likely Westminster will support a declaration of war on a neutral Italy.

Meanwhile there are no resources in Italy that Germany needs. Again, anything that distracts Germany from the earliest and most powerful Barbarossa is a bad idea.
 
What you described isn't a neutral country.
 

Germany still loses those Italian ground troops and aircraft on the Soviet Front. It also no longer benefits from Italy's naval fleet keeping the RN busy in the Mediterranean. Germany does not benefit from a neutral Italy. The Allies do.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Ok.

Back to aviation, what do you see as the impact?
Click to expand...
Well, the Luftwaffe did use Italian air-launched torpedoes, which was certainly a benefit to the Germans, but other than that, the net effect on the Luftwaffe, and Allies, in the air war would be small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Modern Jets in WW2/WW1
Replies
4
Views
916
GreenKnight121
A
Regia Aeronautica if Italy Remains Neutral in WW2
Replies
8
Views
957
Howard Gibson
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2
Replies
25
Views
508
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register