Italy remains neutral in WW2?

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Yes, but this thread is premised on a neutral Italy. If you can't accept that you might be in the wrong place.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, but this thread is premised on a neutral Italy. If you can't accept that you might be in the wrong place.

OK the neutral Italy which dropped 44 tons of bombs on the UK in the Battle of Britain and was routed in North Africa is neutral, and then it is occupied by Germany or invaded at some time by the UK and USA. Your thread cant create an invisible force field around a country that ignores all historical reality. The Italians didn't have the equipment to fight in mountain passes or in the air, all of that was done by German equipment and people. Northern Italy is a flat plain behind the Alps and it is just over the water from Germany's main source of oil.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Your thread cant create an invisible force field around a country that ignores all historical reality.

Brother, we get you, we understand, you feel that the premise of Italian neutrality is not realistic or possible. You've exhausted a lot powder trying to convince everyone of this POV. But if you feel the premise is rubbish, why are you here?

It's akin to sitting in a movie theatre and shouting to anyone that will listen that the movie's plot is implausible, but instead of walking out you sit down and continue to grumble. Why, when the door's right there?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your thread cant create an invisible force field around a country that ignores all historical reality.

It's a what-if thread. If you reject the premise and argue historical facts, you've missed the point. It's a hypothetical. Some what-ifs might be realistic, others less so, but the entire point is a mental exercise, not an appeal to history. The question is "how might history be different if this or that hadn't happened?"

If you don't like entertaining those hypotheticals, why get involved in them? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

The Italians didn't have the equipment to fight in mountain passes or in the air, all of that was done by German equipment and people. Northern Italy is a flat plain behind the Alps and it is just over the water from Germany's main source of oil.

Afghans didn't have much equipment either, but they've tired out how many interlopers? The UK, the Soviets, and the Americans. Mountain-fighting requires more stamina than equipment, I think; it requires more hardiness than hardware.

Having said that, the German use of terrain in Italy was masterful, and I doubt the Allies would violate Italian neutrality because they'd have to cross the Alps against German resistance.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a what-if thread. If you don't like entertaining those hypotheticals, why get involved in them?

This.

 

[pbehn]

Brother, we get you, we understand, you feel that the premise of Italian neutrality is not realistic or possible. You've exhausted a lot powder trying to convince everyone of this POV. But if you feel the premise is rubbish, why are you here?

Because it is a discussion forum, Italy had no more option of being neutral than Belgium, Netherlands or Iceland did. It is actually an interesting premise, if Italy didn't join with the Axis as it did, what would have happened, but Italy couldn't have remained neutral.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because it is a discussion forum, Italy had no more option of being neutral than Belgium, Netherlands or Iceland did. It is actually an interesting premise, if Italy didn't join with the Axis as it did, what would have happened, but Italy couldn't have remained neutral.

Disagree. The Brits fo sho did not want another enemy in June 1940, and wouldn't have willingly added one to the list trying to break into Germany through the Alps.

 

[The Basket]

Depends what kind of neutrality I guess.

Total rejection of Germany or sell every Beretta and be the back door to bypass British blockade.

The British would have free reign in the Med so easy life and can send ships to the far east or the Atlantic.

But if Italy neutrality is sell every Littorio, Carcano and Beretta and be Germany's sweatshop then that would be a major hurdle. Britain wouldn't want to fight Italy but angry German noises would make conflict with italy inevitable.

Can you imagine if Italy sold the Littorios to the Kreigmarine? Neutral or not that's war talk.

Italy would have to be kept very sweet by the allies and that would be very costly. So a belligerent neutrality would be bad for Britain as it would mean keeping over sized resource in north Africa and the Med which better elsewhere.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Depends what kind of neutrality I guess.

Total rejection of Germany or sell every Beretta and be the back door to bypass British blockade.

The British would have free reign in the Med so easy life and can send ships to the far east or the Atlantic.

But if Italy neutrality is sell every Littorio, Carcano and Beretta and be Germany's sweatshop then that would be a major hurdle. Britain wouldn't want to fight Italy but angry German noises would make conflict with italy inevitable.

Can you imagine if Italy sold the Littorios to the Kreigmarine? Neutral or not that's war talk.

Italy would have to be kept very sweet by the allies and that would be very costly. So a belligerent neutrality would be bad for Britain as it would mean keeping over sized resource in north Africa and the Med which better elsewhere.

As is often pointed out with American LL, with our supply of armaments to the UK before our involvement in WWII, or escorting ships to include firing on sub sightings and providing the Brits with radar/sighting info, such actions are not neutral. They are, in legal terms, acts of war, and shooting back or declaring war is acceptable.

The only reason why we could get away with that stuff is, in three words: the Atlantic Ocean. Had we been in Europe such actions would have almost certainly dragged us in. So, too, I believe, would Italians selling battleships to the Germans have dragged them in.

I think the Turkish -- or Swedish -- model could have provided an outline for how Italy might have threaded the needle.

 

[pbehn]

This.

What on earth is your problem? Your what if is that Italy is neutral, which it was until June 1940, I am just saying that if Italy hadn't invaded France and declared war on UK it would have been occupied by Germany or invaded by UK with or without USA assistance, that is my opinion on your what if and that historically is what happened. Germany wouldn't allow Italy to be uncontrolled so close to its own border and the UK wouldn't allow a nation so politically aligned with Adolf to straddle its main route for supplies through the Med. Don't ignore the speed with which things changed, BEFORE Italy joined the war the British had placed the orders which became the Packard Merlin powered P-51, that is, before they even joined the game they were behind the game.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Spain stayed neutral; Hitler didn't invade. Vichy France stayed neutral even after the pressure in autumn 1940 (Hitler visited Petain; the latter told his cabinet that Hitler's proposal would take six months to consider, and six months to forget). Hitler didn't invade Vichy until Torch.

The only thing Italy had that Hitler wanted was a position straddling the routes to Suez. No real resources, and no geographical position to help with Barbarossa. Would he commit how many divisions to control the country, and how many Kampfgruppe to threaten the British routes, when he already had his eyes upon the USSR? Had Italy remained neutral, I think Hitler would've used Italy as a snorkel if he could (like Sweden).

It was Drang Nach Ost, not Drang Nach Sud.

And fighting for its life, alone, would the UK have deliberately added another enemy by invading Italy? Churchill had some nutty ideas at times, but I think Brooke would have talked him down from this particular ledge.

 

[pbehn]

Spain stayed neutral; Hitler didn't invade. Vichy France stayed neutral even after the pressure in autumn 1940 (Hitler visited Petain; the latter told his cabinet that Hitler's proposal would take six months to consider, and six months to forget). Hitler didn't invade Vichy until Torch.

The only thing Italy had that Hitler wanted was a position straddling the routes to Suez. No real resources, and no geographical position to help with Barbarossa. Would he commit how many divisions to control the country, and how many Kampfgruppe to threaten the British routes, when he already had his eyes upon the USSR? Had Italy remained neutral, I think Hitler would've used Italy as a snorkel if he could (like Sweden).

It was Drang Nach Ost, not Drang Nach Sud.

And fighting for its life, alone, would the UK have deliberately added another enemy by invading Italy? Churchill had some nutty ideas at times, but I think Brooke would have talked him down from this particular ledge.

Vichy France was a puppet government, that isn't neutrality, the terms of the armistice for Vichy France left the young and the old in rural France suffering from malnutrition. Hitler was fooled into committing more tanks than he could afford to stop an invasion of Greece, Hitler wanted everything in 1940-41 he didn't have the capacity to do all he wanted. You can say "the only thing Hitler wanted was a position straddling the routes to Suez" as if that is small beer, neither he and his navy or the Italians with their navy and air force could obtain the little request the corporal only required. Laughably, what no one knew at the time is that there are massive oil resources in Libya and Morocco. Both sides accused the other of poisoning water wells with oil it was actually oil seeping into the water table. I had 2 very pleasant years in Greece working on coated pipes for pipelines on various BP projects for "In Amenas" which is on the Libya Moroccan border.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What on earth is your problem?

None, you do you, it's all good.

 

[pbehn]

None, you do you, it's all good.

Any chance of something coherent?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can you imagine if Italy sold the Littorios to the Kreigmarine? Neutral or not that's war talk. Italy would have to be kept very sweet by the allies and that would be very costly.

I agree, and I can imagine Rome making increasing demands on Britain and the USA. Maybe some aero engines. The later Italian Fiat G.55 looked great in its Merlin-powered bubble-canopied G.59 guise.

Is this not one of Italy's best looking fighters?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Vichy France was a puppet government, that isn't neutrality, the terms of the armistice for Vichy France left the young and the old in rural France suffering from malnutrition.

Yet and still Petain had no problem with ignoring Hitler's request for active involvement in the war against the UK. Hitler didn't invade or threaten, at that. He griped to his subordinates, that was the extent of his response. For that matter, Hitler didn't seize the French Navy, anti-British as it was, out of respect for the armistice between the two nations. And that was a big prize.

Vichy was a puppet, but it wasn't strongly controlled, and was able to rebuff Hitler until Torch happened. Why shouldn't a neutral Italy do the same? What would drive Hitler to invade a neutral Italy with relatively little industry and no resources? Cutting off the Suez? He could do that by wolfpacking the Straits of Gibraltar if that was important to him. Dumb decision, but still possible.

Italy's invasion only became inevitable once they entered the war and the Allies decided to take them out first. So long as they stay neutral, they would've been unmolested.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Italy's invasion only became inevitable once they entered the war and the Allies decided to take them out first. So long as they stay neutral, they would've been unmolested.

If Italy can hold its neutrality what do we see its air force looking like by 1944? Older fighters like the Fiat CR.32, CR.42 and G.50, plus the Macchi C.200 should be replaced. Can Italy have just one or two single seat fighters?

 

[The Basket]

Italy is a powerful economy and numero 4 in mainland europe in terms of industry.

It can build and design its own warships and aircraft and small arms so it has an ability albeit at a low rate.

So having a non combat ally like Italy or at least keeping the Italians out of the war is a good idea.

So if it can trade freely with Germany and other axis allies then that's all good for Germany. But that's a big problem for the USA and the British Empire

This may involve sanctions or a blockade of Italy which would drag Italy in the war. So Italy could play both sides for best gain.

Invading Italy offers no benefit to Germany especially if Italy is willing to trade freely.

If the Royal Navy is trying the fight the Kreisgsmarine and the IJN then the Regia Marina is an absolute zero option. If Italy is blockaded then the Italian warships are a real threat.

So a neutral Italy would be a headache but far preferred than a belligerent Italy. Italy if they played their cards right could have played both sides and made off like bandits.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So a neutral Italy would be a headache but far preferred than a belligerent Italy. Italy if they played their cards right could have played both sides and made off like bandits.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see if Italy joins NATO postwar or if they stay out "officially", like Sweden.

 

[The Basket]

If Italy stays neutral and things go badly for Germany and Japan then it will stay out, cut ties with Germany and be best pals with America.

If Franco was a buddy or <insert tinpot Sgt Pepper uniform wearing dictator of your choice> then Mussolini wasn't a problem either.

Mussolini was clever to stay out the war at the beginning and then stupid to jump in when France was over run. He could have lived out his days in the lap of luxury on the dime of the American taxpayer but instead decided to hang from a lamp post. He chose poorly.