Neutral Italy in WWII
- Thread starter Alex1guy
- Start date
Such thing is only possible if Germans are a lot less successful in Battle of France. Mussolini's territorial ambitions made it virtually certain that he would go to war eventually and he only waited for the most opportune moment to do so.
If neutral, Italy would probably be something like Spain. However, I think it would be very hard for them to import very much. IMHO, Allies would block them out of the world market if thy gave Germany any sort of advantage, thus negating any beneficial effect neutral Italy would have.
One thing, though. It is within realm of probability that Italy would actually find oil in Lybia in '40/41. IIRC, the American surveyors were contracted by AGIP, with the equipment that could result in discovering oil deposits at Syrt, however as Italy joined the war, the mission was cancelled. If they could develop wells and start producing oil, they would probably traded it with Germany.
If neutral, Italy would probably be something like Spain. However, I think it would be very hard for them to import very much. IMHO, Allies would block them out of the world market if thy gave Germany any sort of advantage, thus negating any beneficial effect neutral Italy would have.
One thing, though. It is within realm of probability that Italy would actually find oil in Lybia in '40/41. IIRC, the American surveyors were contracted by AGIP, with the equipment that could result in discovering oil deposits at Syrt, however as Italy joined the war, the mission was cancelled. If they could develop wells and start producing oil, they would probably traded it with Germany.
Mussolini staying neutral is plausible, Italy wasn't really ready for war and in his own words, "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought". If he decides that the UK will not come to terms and will be supported by the US, he probably stays out.
It would have caused big changes, both positive and negative. The absence of the desert war means massive reinforcement of Malaya, with Singapore probably becoming the centre-point of the war in the east, more easily supplied by convoys going through the Med. But the absence of combat experience in North Africa will mean an even more grinding, attritional Normandy campaign.
It would have caused big changes, both positive and negative. The absence of the desert war means massive reinforcement of Malaya, with Singapore probably becoming the centre-point of the war in the east, more easily supplied by convoys going through the Med. But the absence of combat experience in North Africa will mean an even more grinding, attritional Normandy campaign.
Italy, weapons exporter?
If Italy was to remain neutral, it could make a killing in the weapons market. If things were "modern" they could sell Ciclone class DE to the RN to sink the Marconi class Subs they would sell the Germans
I'm presuming a neutral Greece would be a possible consequence?
If Italy was to remain neutral, it could make a killing in the weapons market. If things were "modern" they could sell Ciclone class DE to the RN to sink the Marconi class Subs they would sell the Germans
I'm presuming a neutral Greece would be a possible consequence?
If everything else goes as OTL (and with Hitler still in charge nothing can butterfly the attack on the Soviet Union), the Germans wouldn't have to delay Barbarossa to mop up Greece and Jugoslavia, nor would they have to send men to Africa.
Furthermore, Italy is still one of the major industrial nations and would trade with the Germans. That gives the Germans much more supplies.
So we're talking about Barbarossa starting some weeks earlier and thus the Nazis going farther into the Soviet union and have better supplies. The overall behavior still ensure their doom, though, but with more supplies and a deeper advance the war should be even more costly for both sides.
Furthermore, Italy is still one of the major industrial nations and would trade with the Germans. That gives the Germans much more supplies.
So we're talking about Barbarossa starting some weeks earlier and thus the Nazis going farther into the Soviet union and have better supplies. The overall behavior still ensure their doom, though, but with more supplies and a deeper advance the war should be even more costly for both sides.
If Italy was to remain neutral, it could make a killing in the weapons market. If things were "modern" they could sell Ciclone class DE to the RN to sink the Marconi class Subs they would sell the Germans
I'm presuming a neutral Greece would be a possible consequence?
IF Italy didn't declare war on France and later on England, maybe the American AGIP surveyors would have found the Oil Deposits in 1940 and might give rise to German / Italian Capital being used to drill and Italy can export Oil, refined gasoline, Aviation fuel, bunker fuel and lubricants to Germany for the up and coming Operation Barbarossa .... intriguing tho....
In the final days of the Battle of France, Italy could have negotiated with Britain/France for joint control of Tunisia, cheap rates for Suez canal use, some rights on Malta (Italian as an option taught in schools etc..), the Aouzou strip in Chad. The Allies were willing to deal on that sort of thing.
Its not a new Roman empire but combined with Albania and East Africa (which such a deal would have practically guaranteed these things after the war) Italy would have gained much for little cost in the facist era.
Plus Italy can continue to negotiate with both sides, perhaps joining the good guys late, or refusing to trade with Germany after a certain point, might score Cyprus or some such place after the war.
The POD could be, Mussoilini starts asking Hitler what kinds of things he might get joining the war, and receiving non commital replies, backs off, or consults the Italian Ambasadors to Britain on their mood, or looks at some of the things happening in Poland occupation wise and figure these aren't my kind of right wingers.
Italy neutral has many positive advantags to Britain that can't be discounted.
1) Does France still go Vichy?
2) Even if it doesn't Britain can start picking on all the Vichy colonies much more agressively than OTL.
3) The Mediterranean is secure and British shipping can use the sea.
4) Britain can reinforce south east asia, an extra division, a brigade of tanks, 100 hurricanes, an extra formidibable class air craft carrier with the Prince of Wales , it might be enough to just beat the Japanese in December-January 42 in Malaysia.
5) Britain can deploy a much larger lend lease effort through Murmansk earlier once the Germans turn east, Stalin might in his October 41 desperation stage allow even a flying tiger like squadron of 100 spitfires on the eastern front.
6) The British would have the resource to raid Norway more heavily in 41 and invade maybe in the far north in 42.
I think 42 would loom with the Germans not that much further in the Soviet Union, the Japanese stuck, without capturing oil and a major 1943 cross channel invasion coming.
Its not a new Roman empire but combined with Albania and East Africa (which such a deal would have practically guaranteed these things after the war) Italy would have gained much for little cost in the facist era.
Plus Italy can continue to negotiate with both sides, perhaps joining the good guys late, or refusing to trade with Germany after a certain point, might score Cyprus or some such place after the war.
The POD could be, Mussoilini starts asking Hitler what kinds of things he might get joining the war, and receiving non commital replies, backs off, or consults the Italian Ambasadors to Britain on their mood, or looks at some of the things happening in Poland occupation wise and figure these aren't my kind of right wingers.
Italy neutral has many positive advantags to Britain that can't be discounted.
1) Does France still go Vichy?
2) Even if it doesn't Britain can start picking on all the Vichy colonies much more agressively than OTL.
3) The Mediterranean is secure and British shipping can use the sea.
4) Britain can reinforce south east asia, an extra division, a brigade of tanks, 100 hurricanes, an extra formidibable class air craft carrier with the Prince of Wales , it might be enough to just beat the Japanese in December-January 42 in Malaysia.
5) Britain can deploy a much larger lend lease effort through Murmansk earlier once the Germans turn east, Stalin might in his October 41 desperation stage allow even a flying tiger like squadron of 100 spitfires on the eastern front.
6) The British would have the resource to raid Norway more heavily in 41 and invade maybe in the far north in 42.
I think 42 would loom with the Germans not that much further in the Soviet Union, the Japanese stuck, without capturing oil and a major 1943 cross channel invasion coming.
Would be interesting if Italy attempted to establish their own sphere of influence in the Balkans, specifically with Romania and Bulgaria. Romania would still lose South Dobrudja, but would not as easily accept the Vienna Diktat with Italian and Bulgarian support. Hitler, while not amiable to Romanian or Italian intransigence, would put those issues aside with Barbarossa looming.
Except for Tunisia (doubtfoul that France will realistically offer it) that was what the allies proposed in exchange of italian neutrality...and honestly is a good price for do nothing; Benny will try to add a free hand on the balkans aka permission to invade Yugoslavia (Greece is out of the question as british ally, but maybe some diplomatic coercion for some minor concession but not much more)
The big target is Yugoslavia, but maybe with some more negotiating Djibuti can be obtained and maybe the sell of Somaliland, other things i doubt it.
Benny was very prone to impulsive action.
I strongly think so
Is an option, or maybe without the Regia Marina menace the British will feel not pressed to deny the French Fleet to the Axis.
Bad for the Japanese and bring interesting butterfly for the post-war situation
is more probable that without other front Stalin will be more wary of the German and will listen to the warning (maybe)
i have a bad feeling about this
As you should. Here you have basically an unoccupied Britain, and Chruchil is known for his crazy schemes, like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Catherine
Churchill will be pushing for all sorts of raids, ways to help the Soviets, a big attack on Kirkens in Norway or Petasmo in Finland, close enough to the Kola peninsula so you might be able to get some air support.
--------------------------
Good point about Vichy, Oran could butterfly easily away, of course that might lead to less anti British sentiment and some colonies going Free French naturally. Britain can be patient.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also good point about Italy and Yougoslavia, if a neutral Italy attacks a neutral Yougoslavia in October 40, its hard to imagine Britain at that doing a DOW on Italy, especially if Italy states her claims and these are somewhat limited. Of course I could see Italy just failing in such an attack too.
Again, it depends on what Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria do. I tend to think that Romania and Bulgaria would enter the Italian sphere of influence, while Hungary that of Germany. Without German involvement, the fight would be much harder, but I am not sure if the Yugoslavian military be able to fight them all off at once.
If it is Italy alone however, the Yugoslavs should at least manage to hold them back while they mobilize their forces. Possibly then push them out of Albania, and back to the border on the northern front.
If it is Italy alone however, the Yugoslavs should at least manage to hold them back while they mobilize their forces. Possibly then push them out of Albania, and back to the border on the northern front.
Difficult, i don't say that for the italian armed forces it will be an easy target, but unlike Egypt and Greece, this will not be a rushed think but utilize plan studied for years, the logistical situation will be better for Italy (and the terrain better than Greece) and she can concentrate all her asset in a single target, plus Yugoslavia has serious internal problem and equipement even more obsolete than the italian one. As i said it will not be a short and easy war, but a long affair with a worse occupation but beating Yugoslavia is on italian capacity.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
in reply mostly to catspoke post no. 7
By remaining neutral, how much of a risk is italy incurring of a german invasion? Will Germany allow Italy to remain neutral? Per Sadkovich, Mussolini greatly feared Hitler would not forgive him for sitting out the war and his earlier opposition to anschluss if he did not join german side. for his part Hitler could be tempted to loot and occupy Italy. he had always been exceptional on the german right for not claiming italian territory. he might give in to anti italian voices.
a deal with the allies over territory might just raise german suspicions more.
italy would not be able to help germany much as a neutral. britain was an expert at restricting neutral trade to deny reexports to its enemies as it had shown in wwi.
italy not getting in to the war is definitely a net minus for germany and a net plus for britain. the west needed to fight the italians for three years in otl.
with no med front britain has to be more active in northwest europe. while britain actually cannot do an early france invasion the germans can never deplete their occupation forces there as much as they did in otl. this also begs for an invasion of norway in 41or 42 at the very latest.
it leaves churchill with little alternative in europe but to do norway or send troops to either the arctic flank or southern flank within the ussr as stalin actually requested in 1942.
no italy in war means an opportunity to defend better in the east versus Japan. it might also convert alanbrooke into a stanch japan firster as admiral king or macarthur if his only options in europe involve facing germans in france norway or the ussr. thoughts on this last point?
By remaining neutral, how much of a risk is italy incurring of a german invasion? Will Germany allow Italy to remain neutral? Per Sadkovich, Mussolini greatly feared Hitler would not forgive him for sitting out the war and his earlier opposition to anschluss if he did not join german side. for his part Hitler could be tempted to loot and occupy Italy. he had always been exceptional on the german right for not claiming italian territory. he might give in to anti italian voices.
a deal with the allies over territory might just raise german suspicions more.
italy would not be able to help germany much as a neutral. britain was an expert at restricting neutral trade to deny reexports to its enemies as it had shown in wwi.
italy not getting in to the war is definitely a net minus for germany and a net plus for britain. the west needed to fight the italians for three years in otl.
with no med front britain has to be more active in northwest europe. while britain actually cannot do an early france invasion the germans can never deplete their occupation forces there as much as they did in otl. this also begs for an invasion of norway in 41or 42 at the very latest.
it leaves churchill with little alternative in europe but to do norway or send troops to either the arctic flank or southern flank within the ussr as stalin actually requested in 1942.
no italy in war means an opportunity to defend better in the east versus Japan. it might also convert alanbrooke into a stanch japan firster as admiral king or macarthur if his only options in europe involve facing germans in france norway or the ussr. thoughts on this last point?
Last edited:
Still after France cleary fall there were no rush for Germany to get Italy in the war. Relationship will not be warm and fuzzy but workable, expecially if Italy commerce with Germany.
Both UK and Italy will play a difficult and dangerous game. The UK cannot restrict everything or be too blunt as Italy is not WWI Netherland or Norway, is still a power who is difficult to bully and a too harsh treatment can bring her to the join Germany. On the other side, Rome cannot be to cozy with Berlin as can bring the UK to a point were she can consider a DOW the lesser evil.
Would he want to open a whole new front against Italy before attacking the Soveit Union. I understand he did so against Britian, but Hitler was right in thinking the British would not take an attack on the USSR sitting down. Invading italy has always been tough, pushing over the Alps and then through the rocky hills to Rome would be a real pain, the Allies had enough of a problem pushing up. Also, attacking Italy would push them right into the Allied camp, and deny the Germans use of the Med, would Hitler want to risk this?
Makes Sense. Germany probably wouldn't attack regardless. The Italian fleet is a big potential asset for the Allies. Its a long peninsula for the Germans to defend and not much to capture in terms of resources.
Likely Mussolini even if neutral would send a "Blue Division" like legion of volunteers to fight on the eastern front and some squadrons of aircraft too.
I wonder if Italy neutral just butterflies away Japanese involment in World War 2. It would be easy for Britain to reinforce Singapore with just a small amout of forces to make it difficult for the Japanese to even think about attacking.
An extra infantry division, 20 matildas, 50 cruiser tanks, 20 spitfires, 80 hurricanes, a formidable class aircraft carrier, a couple of extra destroyers, a light cruiser, a couple of the fast mine layers that were supplying Malta OTL makes Malaysia a tough nut to crack for the Japanese.
Then your talking a British/Soviet Alliance against Germany (with the USA/Japan and Italy neutral) with the neutral USA still able to do massive Lend Lease.
Yes. Italy was neutral for the first 10 months of the war, letting Germany fight by itself.
Yes... it was his decision to hold back for those 10 months; nothing compels him to jump in.
He might have been deterred if, say, the Allies had defeated the invasion of Norway. That wouldn't prevent the fall of France, but it would dent Germany's aura of invincibility.
Believe it or not, the Allies. IMO, anyway. Fighting Italians soaked up a lot of British resources in North Africa and East Africa. North Africa eventually became a drain on the Germans, but they caused an even bigger drain on the Allies.
Plus the Mediterranean was closed to Allied shipping. Ships had to go around Africa, tying up millions of tons of cargo space.
And while Italian troops were mediocre, they weren't useless. There was a whole army of them in the East.
The Italian navy was ultimately ineffective, but between Axis airpower, subs, mines, frogmen, torpedo boats, and what have you, the Royal Navy took more losses in the Mediterranean than any other theater.
Possible first item.
In June 1940, the British were very worried by the threat of Axis invasion. Given what surprising things the Germans had done in the previous few months, there was understandable fear of what they might do in the next few months. But it was still clear that an invasion required support and protection by naval warships, or it would be destroyed by the Royal Navy.
Germany didn't have much of a navy, and it was known that most of it was sunk or damaged in Norway. But Italy had a substantial navy, as did France. Under the terms of the French capitulation, the French navy was to sail to ports under current or potential German control, and the British feared this would lead to Germany taking over these ships.
Adding that to the Italian navy, and the rump of the German navy, the Axis could have a powerful fleet, perhaps strong enough to support an invasion. So the British tried to force the main French battle squadron at Mers-el-Kebir to surrender to them. When they refused, the British attacked them, sinking or damaging three battleships and killing thousands of French sailors.
If Italy remains neutral, the potential threat to British sea control is greatly reduced, and the British probably don't think they have to attempt the Mers-el-Kebir operation. That greatly improves relations between Britian and Free France and the French colonies; more colonies will join Free France.
It's also possible (I don't know what Hitler was thinking) that the "soft" terms given to France in 1940 (the unoccupied zone, etc) were in part because Hitler wanted those ships to help the Axis challenge the Royal Navy. If Italy is neutral, those ships wouldn't be enough. So Hitler may lean harder on France, driving colonies and perhaps the fleet into Free French allegiance.
Economically - it would be a boost for Italy, as a middleman between Axis Europe and the outside world. Britain will try to limit German imports of strategic goods through Italy, but it will be hard to stop.
Assuming Italy stays peaceful - Greece, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria remain neutral, to their great benefit.
A possible knock-on: OTL, parts of the German army were very busy in early 1941 conquering the Balkans and Greece, and fighting the British in Libya. All this surely contributed to Stalin's conviction that Germany would not invade the USSR in 1941, and that any evidence to the contrary was a British provocation to trick the USSR into the war.
If the German army ain't doin' nuthin'; it will be a lot harder to ignore signs of its preparations for the East.
Another knock-on is that with no North Africa, East Africa, and Middle East campaigns, Britain can defend Malaya in strength. If Japan moves to war as OTL, they may not feel they can send the Striking Force against Pearl Harbor.
The war outside the Eastern Front will be the airwar between Germany and Britain, and the Battle of the Atlantic.
Mussolini will survive the war, and Italy will retain East Africa, Libya, and the Dodecanese islands, the city of Zara on the coast of Yugoslavia, and its control of Albania.
Yet another knock-on. Jews in Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Greece will be spared from German extermination efforts; and it will be much easier for Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe to escape to safety. For instance, OTL, Switzerland accepted a certain number of Jewish and other refugees, but soon began to refuse. Such refugees could not go any further, and Switzerland found it difficult to accommodate more than a relative few. If Italy is neutral, the path out of Europe is open, and there would be no blockage.
A knock-on related to this: OTL, with Axis forces under Rommel threatening to march into Egypt and the Axis blitz of Greece, British control of the Middle East seemed fragile, and the British government wanted to avoid provoking Arab hostility or rebellion. So the British government was reluctant to admit Jewish refugees to Palestine during the war because it inflamed Arab sentiments.
If Italy is neutral, the British don't have this worry - or it's not as serious - so Britain may drop its exclusion. This would provide a destination for Jewish refugees, and allow many more to get out in time.
Overall, the above factors could reduce the toll of the Holocaust by 1-2 million. If the whole suite happens, this could mean a Jewish majority in Palestine by the end of or soon after the war. The Zionists would then oppose partition, and the Arabs of Palestine might not dare to launch a war against the Zionists.
Later knock-ons down this chain:
Israel's Jewish population would have a much larger proportion of Ashkenazim. OTL, the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrachim - Jews from Moslem countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Change that...
If the Arabs of Palestine don't fight, they don't get displaced. Israel starts out with about 1M Arabs and 3M Jews, instead of OTL's 150K Arabs and 2M Jews. OTL Israel now has 1.5M Arabs and 6M Jews. That suggests that by now alt-Israel would have an Arab majority!
This is wandering rather far afield - more direct effects on Italy, Greece, etc, are more important, but I don't really know enough to say how they'd play out.
Last edited:
Cook
Banned
Non belligerent. Presumably if Italy didn’t enter the war it would have maintained this status, much as Spain did from ’40 to ’43.