Well obviously they were based in the south and hit the north, did Benito have a North and South policy for his allegiance and neutrality? You are either neutral or you aren't, if you are neutral you need to make any threat really not worth the effort. The only purpose Italy served was to drag Germany into conflicts it couldn't sustain, like N Africa, Malta and Italy itself. I used to have a friend who lived in North Germany but came from Sicily, it takes a day and a half by car, sharing the driving.
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
Like Iceland then? Iceland was famously given a free hand to decide its position in the conflict and that is an Island miles from nowhere. The North of Italy is the South of Austria/Germany they don't have any place to say "we are not bothered" they have to decide which side they are on, that's what happens in a war.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
I was asking about your specific experience of being bombed-out. I don't know what factory you worked in or where it was. Between 11 Dec 41 and 8 Sep 43, all of Italy was fair game for an American bomber. After the Italian surrender towns under German or fascist control were of course still liable to be bombed. Hence my question.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Kind of puts distance into a relatable concept as opposed to just looking at maps.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
Actually, the British invaded Iceland because it could harbor destroyers and airplanes to defend the trans-Atlantic shipping. Us Americans took over in 1941, before we'd joined the shooting conflict.
My point is that trying to get to Germany through Italy is dumb, militarily. That, and not Allied niceties, is what would have preserved Italian neutrality.
I live in North East England, I drove from home to a place of work in North Germany (Hanover Braunschweig) had a meeting and set off after lunch, arrived early hours of the morning in Dalmine North Italy. Another time I left Piacenza (100 miles south of Milan) at lunch time, drove to Moenchengladbach stayed overnight in a hotel, had a meeting (sorted out my expenses) and then drove home to N England. I live close to former bomber command airfields in NE England, I drove and worked at their former targets on a regular basis, even as far as Zwickau, it can be done in a car in a day, as Milan can (but that is a very, very long day). The adversaries in WW2 in Europe were closer together than many who havnt been there realise, just as the adversaries in the Pacific were further apart. I got the shock of my travelling life when I flew from Japan to Singapore, by a modern jet they are 6 hours apart, I always thought they were quite close.
The British invaded Iceland for many reasons, firstly so that the Germans didn't, it was handed over to the Americans. If trying to get to Germany via Italy is dumb why did you Americans put so much effort into doing so, same with an invasion of Southern France. I have driven a car from Rouen in Normandy to Duisberg in Germany many times it takes 5 hours on modern motorways with no delays. Similarly I have driven from Genoa to Lake Como, Dalmine to Moenchengladbach and Venice to Vienna all can be done in a long afternoon, be careful with your use of the word "DUMB" Thumpalumpacus.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
I don't and won't argue that America made no mistaken moves in the war.
There's a difference between driving city-to-city in a passenger car in peacetime, and transiting the Alps against defenses. Choosing to do the latter when you have the terrain of northwestern Europe as an option is, to me, dumb. Mountain fighting is some of the hardest fighting around. Suggesting that Italy was a back-door to Germany ignores the effects of geography on military operations.
- Thread starter
- #49
Admiral Beez
Major
But can you allow us to discuss aviation? If not in this forum, where?
I suppose not, unless a good portion of the inline engines weren't license made in Italy, but instead bought from Germany. It would be interesting to see how Italy would modernize its air force. This would presumably start with the replacement of the older fighters like the Fiat CR.32 and CR.42 biplanes, and open cockpit Macchi C.200 and Fiat G.50. Do we think the Italians can focus on one of the G.55, C.205 and Re.2005 and achieve economies of scale, or are they destined to have this level of duplication?
What of the later bombers like the Piaggio P.108? Is there a replacement for the Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 in the works? As an attack aircraft the SM.89 looks impressive.
Of course we must also look at the jet fighter program, including the proposed napkinwaffe Reggiane Re.2007.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,166
- Jun 25, 2013
To get to the Mediterranean, those U-boats would have to go through the Strait of Gibraltor. This could be exciting for the crews involved.
In what way were neutral Belgium and the Netherlands invaded by the Allies during WWII?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,166
- Jun 25, 2013
Duplicate
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #52
Admiral Beez
Major
It was good hunting ground. U-Boats operating in the Mediterranean sank the carriers Ark Royal and Eagle, the battleship Barham, for example. Interestingly the Italian subs didn't have much success against RN warships, but did take a toll on transports. Looking at aviation, I expect the FAA and Bomber Command will be actively trying to close down the Med to U-Boats. Of course with a neutral Italy there's less demand to have carriers and battleships in the Mediterranean for U-Boats to find.
I'm not touching this, it's taking over the thread.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,166
- Jun 25, 2013
It would still be an important logistics route for the UK, possibly important enough for Germany to base significant forces in the south of France, but the U-boats would still have to transit through a definite choke point. Regardless, Suez would be under far less threat of closure.
[/quote]
I think that's a wise decision.
- Thread starter
- #54
Admiral Beez
Major
Speaking of the near east, I wonder if an earlier and more focused effort in Barbarossa would have brought German troops to within range of British interests in Iran and Iraq. The RAF in those parts is mostly obsolete Gloster Gauntlets and the like.
Of course you need to get through Armenia and its mountains first, and those folks won't yield easily, but when you look at the map the Germans got closer than we might imagine. If the Germans can take the Caucus oil fields and set up their Reichskommissariat Kaukasus they might be able to regroup and head south to cut off Britain's Middle East oil. Now this would be an epic campaign for the RAF and Luftwaffe, both far from home.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
They simply didn't have the forces to do that.
- Thread starter
- #56
Admiral Beez
Major
I suppose you're right, even with diverting everything sent to the MTO and North Africa they're still facing a massive challenge.
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
... and then guarding the northern flank against the inevitable Russian attempts to seal it off. That snake'll be dragging a lot of tail.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,166
- Jun 25, 2013
They would also have had far fewer troops to deploy, as those 300,000 Italian troops wouldn't be there. The idea that Germany's allies were just dead weight is larger nonsense.
- Thread starter
- #59
Admiral Beez
Major
Stavka thought so, as the Italians and Romanians were specifically targeted at Stalingrad.
Last edited:
In your scenario, Italy is out. So, no skirmishes with the British, and Germany is not dragged into North Africa.
That means (probably) Germany is not much involved in the Mediterranean and can deploy more forces in 1942 in the strike towards Azerbaijan (oil).
