But if that snake reaches Baku (80%-90% of USSR oil production), Soviet attempts to cut it from the North will be short-lived.
Italy remains neutral in WW2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But if that snake reaches Baku (80%-90% of USSR oil production), Soviet attempts to cut it from the North will be short-lived.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
All the more reason to be skeptical of a pincers on the Levant. The Soviets standing to lose so much more ensures stiffer resistance.
- Thread starter
- #63
Admiral Beez
Major
With a neutral Italy and a much more limited MTO war would Britain be open to sending RAF units to fight alongside the Soviets? Essentially an expansion of No. 151 Wing RAF - Wikipedia
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I couldn't honestly say. I think they were more willing to help with materiel than combat forces, but that's just my general impression and not something I'd stake a claim on.
- Thread starter
- #65
Admiral Beez
Major
I'd like to think that if there are surplus RAF aircrew and aircraft that they'd go to Burma, Malaya, PNG and Australia first.
Notwithstanding the now stronger RAF and overall British military position, the Japanese are still in an economic pickle forcing them to either stand down in China and FIC or go to war, and ASAP as their reserves are rapidly dwindling. If there are three hundred first line RAF fighters plus bombers at Malaya, plus additional RAF and RAAF squadrons in Burma and PNG, in addition to a sizeable RN fleet and army presence, the Japanese will need to consider their chances.
Last edited:
Well they were neutral before the war and the allies invaded them during the war, to remove the people who violated their neutrality, same for countries in North Africa. Being neutral only goes so far when a world war breaks out. Italy being where it is and having the fleet and colonies it had could not be neutral, the question was only which side would they be on.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Perhaps. But sitting at the end of a long supply line, cluttered with many different types, and without a coherent doctrine of support, I'm not sure it would help much. I think the Brits lost Malaysia before the war broke out there in 41, myself.
You can go between Italy and Austria Germany without passing the Alps as mountains, it is just high ground, put your bombers on the northern plains of Italy and you are a very short distance from Munich and a huge part of German and obviously Austrian industry. It is actually what was done allied troops entering Austria in April/May 1945.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
However, fighting your way through defended passes is another equation altogether, especially if you want to bring the armor needed to subdue Germany. If the roads aren't precipitous, that means they're in the passes that are overlooked. Putting mechanized forces into mountainous areas is tough sledding, and especially given the state of Allied armor and quality of infantry in the first half of the war, I doubt it would happen.
Hell, the period between Salerno and the end of the war, 20 months, saw the Allies fighting Italian terrain as much as Nazis. The Germans were very skilled at taking advantage of terrain, and would have exacted a terrible price on, say, the 8th Army fighting its way through the Brenner Pass.
Of course the 15th AF flew missions from the fields at Foggia and elsewhere. But while airpower can fight over mountain ranges, it's hard-pressed to assist ground forces in the mountains. Air-power, especially then but even today, suffers difficulties in such ragged terrain.
By April and May 1945, resistance was broken in the Nazis, so I don't think that's really useful as an example of what could have happened in, say, 1942 or 1943. Violating Italian neutrality in the earlier years would have been a bloodbath; violating Italian neutrality in later years would likely be useless, because if you've got the strength to march through the Alps, you've got the strength to invade France, and much better terrain for both fighting and air-support , and supply lines from Channel ports there, to boot.
I personally think invading Italy at all in 1943, as per history, carried two benefits: mollifying Stalin, and drawing German formations away from France. The question is, at what cost?
Pretty pricey, seems to me.
Last edited:
If Italy was neutral you wouldn't be fighting up through Italy, that is my point. You are discussing the skill of the Germans in defence, but they wouldn't be there unless they invaded first. My actual point is that Italy, because of where it was and what it had could not be neutral, like the French Fleet at Oran, they had to choose one side or the other.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, and my point is that if Italy declared neutrality, it would not have been violated, because the difficulties at the top of the boot. I didn't have anything to say about the wisdom or folly of Italy's war stance, at all. I was specifically addressing the what-if of the OP.
If Italy had decided to stay neutral, I think they could have, because it is not the easy way into Germany from England. The Allies would not have invaded. Had the Allies invaded, the Germans would as well, if for no other reason than to seize the routes leading into Austria.
Had the Allies left Italy alone, I think Hitler would have kept chewing the rug in Russia.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
All this talk about invading neutral Italy to attack Germany misses the obvious method of making it worthwhile for Italy to join the Allies.
But Turkey did manage to stay neutral until 1945 despite the pressure from both sides and all temptations. I assume that neutral Italy in Admiral's scenario becomes the same contested area in terms of diplomacy and espionage. And at the end of the day, it all depends on the skills of politicians in Rome.
- Thread starter
- #74
Admiral Beez
Major
IMO, if Italy is neutral, Britain, USA and the Free French invade Provence. Southern France is lightly defended and given how badly things must be going for Germany in the east, the neutral Italians may not (and definitely not the Swiss) allow Germans to march across their territory to reinforce Southern France; so it is a very long march for the Germans. It is Provence, not Sicily that is now the soft underbelly of Hitler's Europe.
Once the Allies are securely in Southern France with air bases near Marseille, any factories in Italy that think of supplying the Germans will be in easy range of the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command. Rome will quickly measure the wind and stand down, happily increasing trade with the Allies. I expect that by now Mussolini has been removed from power by the King.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
This is much more plausible, to me. Anvil would actually have meaning at this point, even if its co-ordination with Overlord or other Atlantic invasion is separated by a couple of months as in OHL; it would serve to keep the Germans guessing, much like FUSAG did but on a large, and real, scale.
- Thread starter
- #76
Admiral Beez
Major
It will be an interesting world postwar. Presumably Italy has retained its foreign colonies. This would put Italian warships into the Indian Ocean well into the 1950s after Britain has presumably lost India, Burma, Aden and Malaya.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think decolonialization would have spread to those lands as well, myself. Ideas have an urgency of their own, and whether or not Italy was a belligerent, Britain and France even as victors losing most all their colonies in the 15 years after the war would have spread the idea.
Many countries did and each case was different. The Irish Republic was neutral, but on the understanding that if any representations were made towards Germany their ports would be mined. Switzerland was but it was surrounded by the Axis countries who needed it for many reasons, mainly finance, and invading Switzerland which was and still is very well armed would soak up huge resources which Germany didn't want to use. Spain was neutral but why would Germany invade it, it hadn't even invaded all of France, half of France was run by a puppet (Vichy) government. In winter 1941 there were 100,000 German troops in France which is the low point, from there it was increased to counter increased threats. Occupying places like Greece, France, North Africa along with Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark was a drain, then the Balkans and the vast regions to the east were added, Germany just didn't have the manpower for it.
Napoleon ended up needing an army of close to a million in Spain because he had abused the Spanish and needed to escort every wagon, Hitler made the same mistake. Blitzkrieg allowed Adolf to take areas he didn't have a hope of defending
Yes, the British would cheerfully wave at the Italian fleet as it developed all its settlements in North Africa, next to the French settlements next door south of Gibraltar, no issues at all, why would there be?
In June 1940 it must have seemed the obvious thing to do for Benito, somewhere between 6 months and three years later he must have said "why the "F" did I do that". The situation in the summer of 1940 makes it hard to make any argument for Italy to not join in with Germany that isn't based on hindsight.
