After September 1939, Paris and Rome tried to get Rome to join the war
I noticed a typo.
After September 1939, Paris and Rome tried to get Rome to join the war
Because the Nazi's always did smart things. I could see them think it could be a useful springboard if France doesn't fall easily. Of course they didn't constantly do stupid things either, so its perfectly possible they won't.
*snip*
Of course. I meant that if (due to the diversion of an Alpine front) the drive into France is not totally successful the Germans might try an incredibly stupid attack into Switzerland. Or they might not.
Oh well, 'La nostra guerra' and 'L'inattesa piega degli eventi' are a little weak regarding the historical side and contain a lot of things that in this site we consider rightly ASB. Nevertheless are two greatly written book (Brizzi it's one of my favorite author), with great characters and a fantastic outlook on how the italian society will have developed if Italy remained fascist.
Can you pls outline the story of the book? And the things that could be "ASB"? I'm very interested
I doubt it. France is the bigger threat, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. The Germans could attack both.only rationale is to preclude Italy and France, and since it circumvents the Maginot (and Siegfried) Line(s)?
do think Germany might attack Italy before France in this scenario?
Why would Free France not set up shop in Corsica? Provided most of their navy escapes they should be able to hold it.
How similar do you want to base it on my timeline?
As I've said, I have very, very serious doubts the re-militarization of the Rhineland, let alone Anschluss and Munich, would have proceeded along the same path with a Hoare-Laval Pact as a POD, but I'll still follow this with interest.
I share the same doubts. It looks to me that the ATL revival of the Stresa Pact had some (beneficial) effects for Italy but did not produce any change on the way Hitler approached the war much less on the reaction of France and UK to the more and more aggressive German moves. Even more surprising is that there are scant or no information on the period between the ATL Stresa pact and the war in the west.
Leaving aside my comment above, I cannot believe that France is going to fold exactly in the same way as they did in OTL. As a minimum, a chunk of the Luftwaffe would have to be left to protect Austria and southern Germany (and this would change the situation in France too, where there should be a presence of the Italian air force: It would be particularly stupid even for Musso to pull Hitler's moustache with the bombing of German cities but not to send a few wings of airplanes to France). Are we to believe that the German blitzkrieg works as well as it did IOTL (even better I would say, since France does not surrender and the Germans magically manage to occupy all of it)?
Subscribed but I have a nitpick. Why the French soldiers evacuate in North Africa? They could have relocate more easily towards Italy, which surely will have appreciated the additional divisions at disposal to defend the North.
Plus I guess Hitler will push for total occupation of France already to move German troops on the Western Alps, so no Vichy regime as well?
Well, to nitpick, France didn't get defeated in exactly the same way. They lasted two weeks longer than IOTL. As far as Luftwaffe reinforcements to Austria are concerned, I didn't figure they'd make a significant difference to the outcome of the Battle of France. Neither did I believe that whatever token forces Musso might send to France would matter much. In fact, given the inadequacies of the Italian armed forces, I suspected that Mussolini would stay on the defence. That's what I'd do if I knew I had a piss poor army.