1940 - Italy Stays Neutral

Italy was not really prepared for war in 1940 and entered the war largely because it thought the war was over.
Let's assume Il Duce is more cautious. He remains neutral. After a few months, with Germany and the UK at one another's throats, he decides to be opportunistic. His war aims always were Corsica,Tunis, Djibouti, Nice, Savoy - why not use the chaos to achieve them.
So in the Fall of 1940, he seizes Djibouti and French Somaliland from the French. He doesn't declare war on anyone. He just moves in. The Vichy government protests. Hitler sends him a mild protest. The UK stays silent hoping for a conflict between Italy and Germany. After a week or two - nothing.
So - a couple of months later. Italy seizes Tunisia. This is a nastier fight but the Italian Navy dominates the sea and land forces breach the Mareth line from Libya. The fight lasts a couple of months but Hitler leans on Laval to back off. Again, nasty protests from the Vichy government and a mild rebuke from Hitler.
In succession now, Italy grabs Corfu, Fiume, several Greek islands in the Aegean and now sets its sights on Corsica.
What next?
 
Every French ship that can sail from Toulon joins the French ships based in Algeria. The RN in the med comes along as well. If the Italians don’t declare war, the English might not either.
Most likely the Regia Marina get smashed up and retreats to home waters. I doubt they will be able to support any offensives in the Agean. They will be stretched trying to protect convoys to Tunis and Tripoli.
The Germans have to either persuade Italy to stand down or occupy Vichy. Given the spirit of the thread, I will assume the latter.
North Africa and most French colonies go Free French. Italy gets pincered between the Brits in Egypt and French in Algeria. Hitler is POed, so there will be no bailout from the Germans.

End result: Allies secure Libya, East Africa, Madagascar, and Middle East earlier than OTL. The Battle of the Atlantic goes better as well with the addition of French ships fighting UBoats.
 
Last edited:
Not a smart move for Italians. As a neutral Italy can sell both sides stuff and make more money than seizing places with disgruntled and uncooperative populations. The Brits would exercise formal and informal economic sanctions that would cost the Italian economy more than decades of return on the new territories. Later when its clear who is going to lose Italy can join the winners and sit in on the spoils post war.
 
And what will keep those colonies and the Vichy French forces from believing that Hitler hasn't ordered the Italians to do this? Nothing. Which means the French in each of those colonies will declare for DeGualle, the MN in metropolitan ports will sail for N. Africa, and the RM will be fighting for its life in short order. Not saying Benito wouldn't do this, but that it would be a colossal mistake to even start this process.
 
And what will keep those colonies and the Vichy French forces from believing that Hitler hasn't ordered the Italians to do this?

not disagreeing with your analysis but the French might think the British (also) have an understanding with Italy? especially as this course by Italy starts AFTER attack on Mers-el-Kebir and Dakar? (unless butterflies have stopped those)
 
not disagreeing with your analysis but the French might think the British (also) have an understanding with Italy? especially as this course by Italy starts AFTER attack on Mers-el-Kebir and Dakar? (unless butterflies have stopped those)

Good Point! I missed that. I think it will complicate things, but don't believe it will keep the French from fighting back, and it will still sway many more to the Free French side. The book "MUSSOLINI AS DIPLOMAT:IL DUCE'S ITALY ON THE WORLD STAGE" Lamb, Richard, Fromm International, New York, 1999 goes into detail regarding British and French diplomacy with the Italians, in trying to revive the Stresa Front or at least keep Italy neutral. The French felt he was duplicitous then, the possibility of an alliance with the UK wouldn't IMO seem as likely as Mussolini acting as an opportunist. The reaction of Germany would also be gauged carefully by the French in determining the likelihood of a secret British/Italian agreement. I don't think they will believe it.
 
I think that the UK goes ahead with the attack on Mers and then, shortly after Mers, the Italians take Djibouti and wait for a reaction. The French are so steamed about Mers that Djibouti is a sideshow in comparison.
Both sides - the UK and Germany - tended to overestimate the Italian war potential because - on paper - Italy had a large army and navy.
So I don't think much happens in response to the taking of Djibouti.
Tunisia is a bigger deal. But neither the UK nor Germany want Italy to come into the war against them. With the French navy at Mers destroyed the Italian navy is able to dominate the central Mediterranean against anything the French can send out from Toulon and airplanes from Sicily provide air cover. Again, there is some noise in response and the French put up a fight but Tunisia falls and things settle down.
No one wants to antagonize Italy so Fiume, Corfu and a few islands in the Aegean do not provoke much of a response.
Italy continues to import and then sell to Germany at a profit. Again the UK does not want to take action that could push Italy into the war.
Conceivably Italy stays out of the war entirely and Mussolini becomes a Franco-like figure after the war.
 
This topic seems to be rehashed every two months or so.

I don't see this as a significant POD or a particularly clever idea on M's part for all it matters: unless there's at least a private agreement of some sort with the allies (and even this before invading any part of metropolitan France), things are going to go as per OTL.
 
Would Mers-el-Kebir happen in this TL?
OTL, the UK was worried with that the French and Italian Navies would join forces against them.

ATL the RN will be more comfortable that they can hold of the French alone in the Med since Italy is neutral. One Italy loses neutrality and seizes colonies, the French Navy is firmly aligned with the RN.
 
not disagreeing with your analysis but the French might think the British (also) have an understanding with Italy? especially as this course by Italy starts AFTER attack on Mers-el-Kebir and Dakar? (unless butterflies have stopped those)

Good Point! I missed that. I think it will complicate things, but don't believe it will keep the French from fighting back, and it will still sway many more to the Free French side. The book "MUSSOLINI AS DIPLOMAT:IL DUCE'S ITALY ON THE WORLD STAGE" Lamb, Richard, Fromm International, New York, 1999 goes into detail regarding British and French diplomacy with the Italians, in trying to revive the Stresa Front or at least keep Italy neutral. The French felt he was duplicitous then, the possibility of an alliance with the UK wouldn't IMO seem as likely as Mussolini acting as an opportunist. The reaction of Germany would also be gauged carefully by the French in determining the likelihood of a secret British/Italian agreement. I don't think they will believe it.

IDK ... it might been seen as all of one piece ... BEF evacuated, proposal for "union" of some type, attacks on French fleet, attempted landing at Dakar, AND ... silence in face of Italians seizing their colonies? (even if not in collaboration)

historically Italian fleet was bombed in Nov. 1940 (that's likely NOT happening?) while BOTH countries are technically neutral?

my view Italy would not be able to take Tunisia, that was scenario French were prepared for, the easy German occupation later was due in part to confused situation (not be able to take Tunisia easily or quickly)
 
Would Mers-el-Kebir happen in this TL?
OTL, the UK was worried with that the French and Italian Navies would join forces against them.

ATL the RN will be more comfortable that they can hold of the French alone in the Med since Italy is neutral. One Italy loses neutrality and seizes colonies, the French Navy is firmly aligned with the RN.

the OP said fall of 1940 when Italy moves on French colonies (and Greek and Yugoslav territories) Mers-el-Kebir would have already occurred.
 
the OP said fall of 1940 when Italy moves on French colonies (and Greek and Yugoslav territories) Mers-el-Kebir would have already occurred.

Since the Italians wouldn't have declared war in 1940 then no it wouldn't without the threat of the RM and MN joining up the RN would be content to simply keep an eye of the French Fleet
 
Would Mers-el-Kebir happen in this TL?
OTL, the UK was worried with that the French and Italian Navies would join forces against them.

ATL the RN will be more comfortable that they can hold of the French alone in the Med since Italy is neutral. One Italy loses neutrality and seizes colonies, the French Navy is firmly aligned with the RN.

This is a real issue. The UK might not have done Mers with Italy neutral. I have read that the UK wanted to show it was serious about continuing the war against Germany and that the Mers operation helped convinced the USA that the UK was serious and would continue the war. So the motivations for Mers were complex. If there is no Mers, then the French reaction to Djibouti in the summer of 1940 would be more serious. Still the Italians probably can walk in and the bottom line is probably that no one does anything about it.
Tunisia is a tougher issue both in terms of Italy's ability to pull it off and in terms of the reaction to it. But - even in the absence of Mers, I think that the Italians should be able to pull it off and after a lot of huffing and puffing that nothing is really done by the UK or Germany in response because neither of them wants Italy on the other side in the war.
 
This is a real issue. The UK might not have done Mers with Italy neutral. I have read that the UK wanted to show it was serious about continuing the war against Germany and that the Mers operation helped convinced the USA that the UK was serious and would continue the war. So the motivations for Mers were complex. If there is no Mers, then the French reaction to Djibouti in the summer of 1940 would be more serious. Still the Italians probably can walk in and the bottom line is probably that no one does anything about it.
Tunisia is a tougher issue both in terms of Italy's ability to pull it off and in terms of the reaction to it. But - even in the absence of Mers, I think that the Italians should be able to pull it off and after a lot of huffing and puffing that nothing is really done by the UK or Germany in response because neither of them wants Italy on the other side in the war.

I still don't think Italy can get away with pinching any French Territories and getting away with it. France will react, militarily. They have no reason to believe Mussolini will honor anything he says, his proclamations before, during and after the Ethiopian conquest have shown his character plainly. France will feel it is left with no choice, as Germany can't exercise any real control over Italy. In fact, the Germans may well turn a blind eye to French operations and preparations in Vichy aimed at retaking any colonies taken by Italy. Italy did not consult them before doing this, allowing the two to fight it out keeps Germany from having to occupy Vichy to back the Italians, and if the Italians are humbled, then they will be more amenable to German guidance in the future. You are correct in that both sides wanted to keep Italy on their side, I agree with you there. However, I think Britain will at least exert significant economic pressure on Italy, most of her imports were carried in British ships, and the majority of Italian coal imports (a vital necessity) were from Britain.
Something else to consider, in Sept. 1940 the Japanese took French Indochina. France couldn't react, it was simply too far. Djibouti is not, and if the Italian attempt follows that of the Japanese, the French will feel doubly inclined, even forced, to react. Otherwise her colonial empire will be seen as there for the taking.
In all honesty, I think an author could make a decent case for any of the above (including those who I disagree with) in a TL. Much depends upon Mussolini, who was impulsive at best.
 
However, I think Britain will at least exert significant economic pressure on Italy, most of her imports were carried in British ships, and the majority of Italian coal imports (a vital necessity) were from Britain.
I agree that HMG would want exert significant pressure on Italy, but I'm not sure how effective that pressure would be because Italy might be suffering economically anyway.

After the Fall of France I'm not sure that the UK could spare any coal to export to Italy (in spite of the French coal trade ending in June 1940). Furthermore with German U-boats operating from Biscay ports would it have had the merchant shipping to carry imports to Italy in pre-June 1940 quantities?
 
I agree that HMG would want exert significant pressure on Italy, but I'm not sure how effective that pressure would be because Italy might be suffering economically anyway.

After the Fall of France I'm not sure that the UK could spare any coal to export to Italy (in spite of the French coal trade ending in June 1940). Furthermore with German U-boats operating from Biscay ports would it have had the merchant shipping to carry imports to Italy in pre-June 1940 quantities?

More good questions. Why would the Fall of France affect the export of coal to Italy? I'm missing something here. The U Boats would of course have tried to intercept the shipping, but they are doing so anyway, and the British are already shipping it to them in British ships, so it seems a wash. The only change is they (U-Boats) now have the Biscay ports to operate from. The Italians have to get it from somewhere, and Germany can't supply enough to make up the shortfall. Even if they did raise production they still have to ship it to Italy and the rail lines and tunnels can't handle the increase. This still leaves the UK as the primary source of supply.
 
Why would the Fall of France affect the export of coal to Italy?
The UK can use the coal it isn't sending to France anymore for something else like exporting it to Italy. However, I suspect that after the Fall of France the UK would have had no coal to export because I think all the coal it produced would be needed by the expanded British war economy.
 
The U Boats would of course have tried to intercept the shipping, but they are doing so anyway, and the British are already shipping it to them in British ships, so it seems a wash. The only change is they (U-Boats) now have the Biscay ports to operate from. The Italians have to get it from somewhere, and Germany can't supply enough to make up the shortfall. Even if they did raise production they still have to ship it to Italy and the rail lines and tunnels can't handle the increase. This still leaves the UK as the primary source of supply.
After the Fall of France the British had to, "up their game," if that is the correct expression. In common with coal production a greater proportion of the available merchant shipping was needed for domestic use resulting in less being available for the carrying trade.
 
A few things to consider:

1. Without Italy declaring war without warning, Britain doesn't get most of the Italian merchant marine for free
2. The Italians don't really have that much fuel for fleet operations. HOWEVER, the French have almost no fuel for fleet operations, meaning they can't really 'fight back' all that much.
3. Fiume was already Italian since 1924. Seizing the narrow strip of land that connects it to Italy leads to war with Yugoslavia, as the Italians had given that up in 1924 as part of the Treaty of Rome (approved by Mussolini no less)
4. Invading any Greek territory leads to war with the UK, as Britain had guaranteed Greek independence at the same time they issued their guarantee to Poland
5. I doubt the OTL Italian army has the capacity to breach the Mareth line in anything approaching a reasonable time frame, keeping in mind that they would be forced to keep substantial forces in eastern Libya, just in case. (the distance from the border to it is about the same as the one they advanced historically into Egypt before their logistics couldn't cope anymore)
 
I still don't think Italy can get away with pinching any French Territories and getting away with it. France will react, militarily. They have no reason to believe Mussolini will honor anything he says, his proclamations before, during and after the Ethiopian conquest have shown his character plainly. France will feel it is left with no choice, as Germany can't exercise any real control over Italy. In fact, the Germans may well turn a blind eye to French operations and preparations in Vichy aimed at retaking any colonies taken by Italy. Italy did not consult them before doing this, allowing the two to fight it out keeps Germany from having to occupy Vichy to back the Italians, and if the Italians are humbled, then they will be more amenable to German guidance in the future. You are correct in that both sides wanted to keep Italy on their side, I agree with you there.
Something else to consider, in Sept. 1940 the Japanese took French Indochina. France couldn't react, it was simply too far. Djibouti is not, and if the Italian attempt follows that of the Japanese, the French will feel doubly inclined, even forced, to react. Otherwise her colonial empire will be seen as there for the taking.

Spain had taken Tangier Zone (ok, a special case) after fall of France, maybe Italy occupies Djibouti quickly after (any) British attack on French fleet (which occurs IMO, they have military as well as political reasons) if followed by attempt on Tunisia? and as you pointed out Indochina.

unless there is planning for Italy and Japan to sign Axis Pact per historical think they might be disinvited from the party? their planning (such as there was) did not include German occupation of French colonial empire but neither would they want it dismantled by interlopers.
 
Top