Italy remains neutral in WW2?

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

Germany does not benefit from a neutral Italy. The Allies do.

I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut. The Germans lost 200,000 men in Africa, and I don't know how many planes or tanks. The German economy being limited, it could not support a two-front war, much less a three-front war (which it gets courtesy of Pointblank). Neutral Italy = no African front.
 
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.
It would be interesting to see what the RN's aircraft carriers get up to if they're not defending Malta, etc. U-boats may be very active in the Mediterranean as convoys of materials to Britain and Russia may be coming through Suez.

Could British carriers enter the Black Sea? Did Turkey prevent all combatants from transiting the Bosporus? Hmm.... I've answered my own question below, so no.



Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits - Wikipedia
  • Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression.
  • Non-Black-Sea powers willing to send a vessel must notify Turkey 8 days prior of their sought passing. Also, no more than nine foreign warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of 15,000 tons, may pass at any one time.
  • Furthermore, no single ship heavier than 10,000 tonnes can pass.
  • An aggregate tonnage of all non-Black Sea warships in the Black Sea must be no more than 30,000 tons (or 45,000 tons under special conditions), and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days.
  • Only Black Sea states may transit capital ships of any tonnage, escorted by no more than two destroyers.
  • Black Sea states are also allowed to send submarines through the Straits, with prior notice, as long as the vessels have been constructed, purchased or sent for repair outside the Black Sea.
 
Ok.

Back to aviation, what do you see as the impact?
USA and UK attacks on German assets in Poland, Austria and South Germany start much sooner. I worked at an Italian steel plant that was flattened by the US air force on 6 July 1944, easy to remember because that date is now the company address.
PIAZZA CADUTI 6 LUGLIO 1944 1 DALMINE , BERGAMO, 24044

If the US attacked it in mid 1944 they would certainly have done so earlier given the chance. though in Italy it is only a couple of hours by car from Austria via the Brenner pass.
 
P pbehn good points, but I suppose Italy could still sell war materials or resources to Germany, and be immune to US or British bomber attacks. Same as the Swedes, where at the height of the war almost 40% of Sweden's foreign trade went to Germany.

Sweden thread the needle of neutrality very well, managing diplomatic demands from the US and Britain whilst trading with everyone. They used blockade runners to export ball bearings to Britain and iron ore to Germany, while arming its airforce with Italian and US fighters.
 
Last edited:
Let's assume that Italy is completely neutral and does not allow German military transit. Now, the Mediterranean can be used by Royal Navy without a risk.

Let's look East.
In real history:
USSR presented its ultimatum to Romania on June 26.
The final war plan, presented by Vatutin to Timoshenko on June 03, included the following tasks for the Soviet Navy:
1. To eliminate the navy fleet and naval bases of the enemy and to provide total superiority in the Black Sea.
2. To seize Turkish Straits and to lock them.
3. To protect the Black Sea coast of the USSR... etc.
(according to the book "Bessarabsky vopros mezhdu voinami 1917-1940" by Mikhail Meltyukhov).
Turkey probably (it is mentioned in Wiki without references) confirmed its treaty obligations towards Romania.

In this alternate historical scenario:
All above is true.
Romania still hopes for British support and decides to fight. Turkey comes to help. The Soviet Navy rushes through the Bosporus. Landing operations begin north and south of the strait.
Do the British have the will and resources to interfere? The path is clear up to Dardanelles. Soviet Navy is weak.
How Italy reacts to this daring attempt to shift the balance in Mare Nostrum?
The first week of July 1940...
Swordfishes and Z.506s attacking Soviet troop transports in the Sea of Marmara... I-16s taking off from airstrips near Istanbul, under the hail of bombs dropped by the squadron of Martin B12s from Ankara airbase...
 
There are all sorts of aspects to that, 40% went to Germany so 60% didn't. As long as Sweden is neutral they would supply Germany, but Germany had to pay, how do they pay? The factory I was at in Italy, like many plants I worked in all over Europe was made to produce seamless pipes by a forging process, they were made to make gun barrels in the main.
 
As long as Sweden is neutral they would supply Germany, but Germany had to pay, how do they pay?
If the Italians are smart they'll follow Sweden's example and sell arms, goods and resources to anyone who wants them. Considering how desperately short Italy was for oil, the country may help its economy. As for Germany, I don't know how they paid the Swedes, but they may offer Italy future payment on credit until/if Germany wins the war, since Mussolini was Hitler's pal.

Circling back to aviation matters, under the above terms of trade Britain would likely receive the 300 Re.2000 fighters it ordered in 1940. Perhaps these can be shipped to Malaya. How does the Re. 2000 compare to the Ki-27 and early Ki-43? All three are lightly armed with twin .303 machine guns. Wikipedia has the Re.2000 and Ki-43 each with the identical 330 mph top speed above 12,000 feet. The Re.2000 is heavier, but with a more powerful engine.
 
Last edited:

I would imagine that the IJAAF pilots have more experience with their indigenous types than would the Brits with the hypothetical Re.2000 purchase. That can make a difference.
 
You cannot discuss aviation alone without discussing neutrality. Sweden isn't Italy. The allies cant invade Sweden and have no reason to. If Germany invades Sweden it will get less than it does as a Neutral country. Germany got more out of France and Russia in peacetime than they did at war. Italy on the other hand, it was not a strong military power, very quickly Germany had to join the fight against Malta as it did in N Africa and when the allies counter attacked and invaded Italy most of the equipment they faced was German. In terms of neutrality warring powers should not overfly neutral countries, but this is pure politess and politics, what would Italy do about it? Complain to the League of Nations? The British invaded Iceland just as Germany invaded Netherlands and Belgium, Italy would have been invaded unless the Germans took steps to prevent it, to do that they have to violate Italy's neutrality.

Edit. RAF Lancasters flew over Sweden on their approach to the Tirpitz, I don't know if they apologised for this violation, but they didn't care and did it again.
 
Last edited:
[...] Italy would have been invaded unless the Germans took steps to prevent it, to do that they have to violate Italy's neutrality.

By the Allies? To what benefit? What mission?

To secure a latent threat? Okay, perhaps that's plausible. But a sound cost-benefit analysis would likely conclude that it's too much work for too few benefits. An invasion would probably push them into the arms of the Germans, without much prospect of actually seizing Italy proper, given its rough terrain and distance from Allied bases.

I think Italy could have stayed out if it wanted to, without worry of an Allied invasion.
 
Italy would have been invaded unless the Germans took steps to prevent it, to do that they have to violate Italy's neutrality.
The Italians would have taken steps to prevent it. Presumably this is sometime in 1942 or 43. The Italian navy has six or seven battleships, more than 20 cruisers, over 120 destroyers and large torpedo boats, plus over a hundred submarines. Their airforce has over sixty combat squadrons, and the army when mobilized for WW2 had over 2.5 million troops. Unlike Operation Husky et al in 1943, the invaders would not be facing a war weary, economically starved and politically divided Italian military and civilian populace. Instead you're facing an united people defending their homeland. This will not be the soft underbelly of Hitler's Europe, but instead would present a hard rock to crack.

For starters I can't see the US Congress permitting it, a declaration of war against Italy for what? Being a convenient location to invade Germany? If it wasn't for Hitler's declaration of war on the US we can't even be certain when/if the US Congress would have permitted a DoW against Germany, let alone Italy. It was certainly a Congressional challenge FDR faced throughout 1940 and 1941 even as Britain was on the ropes and U-boats were sinking US shipping.

And besides, with a neutral Italy, a smarter and likely more politically expedient move is at hand, namely to shift the US and British invasion a few kilometres to the west and focus on an earlier execution of Operation Dragoon. With no Italian opposition this landing should go ahead very nicely. Why go to war with Italy when you can be eating Bouillabaisse in Provence by the afternoon?
Agreed. Invading Italy just no makes no sense, especially when an essentially undefended French Mediterranean coast is just to the left.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that the IJAAF pilots have more experience with their indigenous types than would the Brits with the hypothetical Re.2000 purchase. That can make a difference.
Good point. There's also the maintenance, as the Brits will have little to no experience working on Italian engines like the Falco's Piaggio P.XI. Let's hope the purchase came with spare parts, metric tools and English pilot markings and mechanic manuals.

Another point about Italian aircraft, do you think neutrality will impact Italy's access to the license-built Fiat RA.1050 R.C.58 Tifone? My feeling is that without the distraction of the war, Italy's airforce may have competely switched over to the Re.2005, Fiat G.55 and Macchi C.205 by 1943. A thorough modernization of the Italian air force would further challenge Allied ideas of an easy invasion.
 
Last edited:
Eh? For the same reason they actually did invade Italy, so they could get into Austria and Germany which were the same entity at the time. Linz and Donawitz in Austria was and still is a huge steel making centre I have been there many times witnessing steel production, immediately post war they developed the Linz Donawitz L-D process of steel production, known in the English speaking world as Basic Oxygen Steel (BOS) production. Since Italy was invaded and Rome fell at the same time as D-Day I cant see what your argument is for not invading a neutral Italy, when the Fascist regime in Italy fell, the Germans didn't politely retreat to their own borders.
 

I hadn't considered the maintenance-training angle when I wrote that. That would certainly be a hurdle.

Fiat G.55 and Macchi C.205. A thorough modernization of the Italian air force would further challenge Allied ideas of an easy invasion.

Neutrality wouldn't necessarily prohibit licensing the DB-series engines that powered their best fighters from Germany, would it? I mean, a couple of Balkan states bought 109s while staying out of the war for a couple of years. I don't see why the Italians couldn't do that either.

I can't see an arms purchase being a casus belli, myself.

I think neutrality would have been best for Italy because its industrialization quotient, so to speak, was relatively low. I also think that both the Allies and the Axis had a harder time of it for Italy's joining the war. Ain't that a funny thing, there?
 
Last edited:
Well, I have done my best, so I willingly step back. You feel that an allied invasion of neutral Italy is inevitable. I commend your steadfastness.
Italy couldn't be neutral, how can a nation with colonies be neutral? The Allies invaded neutral Belgium and Netherlands as well as Italy, just as Germany did. Italy borders on Austria which was part of Germany, Adolf himself was an Austrian. Maybe its because I spent years driving and flying betwixt and between many places that were significant in WW2 because they made steel I see things differently.
 
For starters I can't see the US Congress permitting it, a declaration of war against Italy for what? .
War already existed de facto, I think I told you that the Americans flattened a steel works I worked at on the 6th of July 1944, that is long after Benito had been deposed, they were bombed by US bombers also based in Italy.
 

That's a pretty hard way to break into the Reich when you look at the other avenues. You're literally invading on the opposing side of a tough mountain range ... after you've fought up the spine and shoulders of one.

I am not saying the Allies had any scruples about invading neutral countries (Iran, anyone?), but I am saying that operationally, choosing a fight that requires a slog through a mountain range doesn't seem wise. Italian neutrality might receive pressure politically in this what-if, but militarily, they're not really a neutral you want to violate unless you want to fight the Apennines and the Alps as well.

Belgium and/or the Netherlands, not so much.

If Italy chose neutrality, I think the Allies would forgo it as an invasion route, for that reason.
 
Last edited:
War already existed de facto, I think I told you that the Americans flattened a steel works I worked at on the 6th of July 1944, that is long after Benito had been deposed, they were bombed by US bombers also based in Italy.

Was this northern or southern Italy?
 

Users who are viewing this thread