Occupation zones in Italy

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
Was there any plan among the Allies to divide Italy into occupation zones, as they did in Germany and Austria? I could see the British getting the northeast (to link up with their zone in southern Austria) and maybe Sicily (Malta was nearby). I could also see the French getting the northwest (near France itself) and maybe the north (to link up with their zone in western Austria) and Sardinia (better communications with Algeria), but that proposal would face the same diplomatic opposition it faced in Germany and Austria. What about the Americans and the Soviets? Would the Soviets even get anything?
 

ninebucks

Banned
The problem is, Italy surrendered in 1943 and the new government swiftly alligned itself with the Allies, only the Northern ISR (under German occupation) fought on. Once Germany fell, the ISR collapsed, and the Kingdom of Italy could retake the North.

The Allies could be reasonably assured that their Italians would be able to reincorporate the North a lot better than they, as foreigners, could. Besides, occupying allied territory whilst the need still exists to occupy enemy territory seems a bit wasteful.
 

CDurham

Yea, prior to its invasion, there may have been some basic ideas for dividing and occupying Italy after the war but any such plans were scrapped after it became an ally.
 

Boom22

If Italy were truned to Occupation Zones the Western Allies would have splilt it amongest themselves (maybe not France;))
 

Chris S

Michele said:
Yes. But Italy did not fight to the finish, so that wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Michele, could you direct us to a source (preferably online, but books are fine too) that has more information on this? I've always been a bit curious myself since I know the Allies always had plans for zones in Germany and Austria (originally British, Soviet and American with the French added later) and in Japan (originally American, Soviet, British and Republican Chinese but later just overall American control with a British Commonwealth Forces Zone). I suspected that before late 1943 they must also have had plans for Italy, but I could never find anything.
 

Michele

Chris S said:
Michele, could you direct us to a source (preferably online, but books are fine too)
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's from a book - and that would be a book in Italian. If you are still interested, I can look up the library and see what book it was.
 

Chris S

Michele said:
I'm sure it's from a book - and that would be a book in Italian. If you are still interested, I can look up the library and see what book it was.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. Even if it is in Italian I might be able to find a copy in English or be able to do rough translations from Italian into English.
 

Boom22


Map of Occupied Italy
Yellow- Australian Zone
Green- British Zone
Red- Canadian Zone
Green- American Zone

Sorry for the shappiness of it.
 

CDurham

Why would Austrailia get a zone?

France would likely have Sardinia and part of North Italy near its boarder occupied.

I could see the Soviets getting the mainland Austrailian zone also

Remember, at this point the Soviets are our Ally, there is no reason NOT to give them one...;)
 

Boom22

The fact that France and the USSR didn't fight Italy is why they don't have zones. Australia has a zone because more of their men fought in Italy then any other theater in the war.
 

Chris S

Boom22, it's a good map, but I have a couple of questions:

1. I don't think anyone else noticed, but you have mistaken put "Green-British zone" and "Green-American zone" without any mention of the blue area. I assume blue is either the British or the American zone.

2. Is this map based off actual Allied plans for the occupation of Italy?

3. If it is based of Allied plans, is it based of the latest Allied plans and what year (if you have sources, could you mention them as well)?

3. Is Rome in the Canadian zone?

4. Was Rome supposed to be under joint occupation and divided into sectors like Berlin and Vienna?
 

Michele

Chris S said:
Yes, thanks. Even if it is in Italian I might be able to find a copy in English or be able to do rough translations from Italian into English.
Click to expand...

The reference is in "Storia d'Italia – L'Italia della guerra civile" by Montanelli & Cervi. However, there is no specific mention of the Allied documents containing the details of the plan, sorry. That's with regard to the Western Allies' possible occupation zones; of course there was also the Yugoslavian occupation zone, which wasn't just a plan, and came into actual being along the Eastern border.

As to the reason why the Soviets should not have received an occupation zone, that's for the same reason why the Western Allies did not receive an occupation zone in Hungary (which fought to the finish, like Germany) or Romania (which didn't, like Italy). I see the irony of the question, but it's a point that was not assessed with irony at the time.
It is worth mentioning that the first Allied nation to establish normal diplomatic relations with the Italian Kingdom in the South, was the USSR (in March 1944). The Soviets did that diplomatic move exactly because they did not do the other thing, boots on the ground. It was a clever move, portraying the other Allies, who were actually fighting to free Italy, in a bad light. But after doing that, there was no way for the Soviets to ask for occupation zones in the metropolitan territory from a government they had acknowledged as co-belligerent and a state they had recognized (that did not prevent the Soviets from putting forth outlandish proposals as to non-metropolitan territories and colonies, such as the Dodecanese and Lybia).
 

Michele

Boom22 said:
The fact that France and the USSR didn't fight Italy is why they don't have zones. Australia has a zone because more of their men fought in Italy then any other theater in the war.
Click to expand...

The fact that France did not fight Italy is, unfortunately, not a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top