1940 - Italy Stays Neutral

hipper

Banned
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.

Er initially it was German coal exported to Italy through Rotterdam in Neutral Ships. In early 1940 the British stopped that as the Italians would not sell them aircraft. Instead the Germans sent coal to Italy through Switzerland. Which worked well untill 1943 or so. Germany was always italics main coal supplier.


There’s a nice paper here on the effect of theoretical League of Nations coal and oil sanctions on Lybia in the 1930s
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/paper14/14paper.pdf
 
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.

IN 1940-41, neither side really wanted Italy to go over to the enemy so that I think that they could have gotten away with it. And even after getting away with it, I think either side would have welcomed Italy as an ally.
 
IN 1940-41, neither side really wanted Italy to go over to the enemy so that I think that they could have gotten away with it. And even after getting away with it, I think either side would have welcomed Italy as an ally.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point. I still maintain the French will react vigorously. The "Pact of Steel" was signed in 1939 (further confirming Mussolin's character) so I cant see the British still clinging to the hope that Italy will come in on the Allied side.
 
Er initially it was German coal exported to Italy through Rotterdam in Neutral Ships. In early 1940 the British stopped that as the Italians would not sell them aircraft. Instead the Germans sent coal to Italy through Switzerland. Which worked well untill 1943 or so. Germany was always italics main coal supplier.


There’s a nice paper here on the effect of theoretical League of Nations coal and oil sanctions on Lybia in the 1930s
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/paper14/14paper.pdf

I was apparently remembering Italy's WWI importation of coal, perhaps entirely incorrectly. The author of the paper makes some good points (and I hope he got a decent grade, if for no other reason than he is writing it as a counterfactual, giving validity to the usefulness of the practice) and I must concede the point that the majority of Italy's coal was of German origin.
If anyone wishes further reading on the 2nd Italo-Ethiopian War, "Prevail" by Jeff Pearce is a good source, and it details the political intrigues between Italy, France and the UK, with the US thrown in for good measure. AHF has a whole thread on this (which I've not read through yet) https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=132969&sid=c441822434fb6af9f11214a65566506e
 
Er initially it was German coal exported to Italy through Rotterdam in Neutral Ships. In early 1940 the British stopped that as the Italians would not sell them aircraft. Instead the Germans sent coal to Italy through Switzerland. Which worked well untill 1943 or so. Germany was always italics main coal supplier.


There’s a nice paper here on the effect of theoretical League of Nations coal and oil sanctions on Lybia in the 1930s
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/paper14/14paper.pdf

So do you think that the UK would provoke a war with Italy in order to protect Vichy colonies?
 

hipper

Banned
So do you think that the UK would provoke a war with Italy in order to protect Vichy colonies?

No but they would probably try to take Syria Lebanon, French Somiland for themselves as well as Protecting those areas that supported De Gaulle.
 
Does Vichy France still happen as in OTL with Italy still neutral? It would be easier for France to continue to resist in such a scenario as even Corsica is safe.

If Vichy does happen, Germany is not going to let neutral Italy just grab Vichy territory without consequences. The whole point of the armistice for Germany is take away the French empire and fleet from the list of Germany's enemies, and secure Germany's behind so she can invade the Soviet Union. Italy doing this is just going to bring colonies over to the Free French.
 
So do you think that the UK would provoke a war with Italy in order to protect Vichy colonies?

No, because the act of taking colonies is tantamount to a DOW, and England was going to act in its own best interests, which is to not allow the Italians to take them, there is no need to provoke war, its already there. If the Brits allowed Italy to take those colonies, then Italy could make vital convoys through the Med almost impossible if she later chose to declare war against the UK. And again, I don't think Vichy would allow it, nor the FF who are allied with the British.
 
No, because the act of taking colonies is tantamount to a DOW, and England was going to act in its own best interests, which is to not allow the Italians to take them, there is no need to provoke war, its already there. If the Brits allowed Italy to take those colonies, then Italy could make vital convoys through the Med almost impossible if she later chose to declare war against the UK. And again, I don't think Vichy would allow it, nor the FF who are allied with the British.

As the British Empire had fought the Japanese taking Indochina and directly menacing Malaysia and Australia? While i believe that Italy taking French colonies will be extremely difficult and unprobable and both the British and the German will try to stop this attempt with anything short of a Dow, post-fall of France the UK is not in the condition to have another enemy, not one that can already block the meditterean colony snatching or not.
The British will not declare war to Italy, not while London is under the blitz, not after the army lost the bulk of his heavy equipment at Dunkirk and not while the U-boat have their first happy time...and not surely for Rome grabbing French colonies; hell Churchill was ready to give up Malta post-Dunkirk to keep the italian neutral, i doubt if Djibouti or Tunisia (for how much unlikely it will be that they will be occupied) will give him many problems
 

hipper

Banned
hell Churchill was ready to give up Malta post-Dunkirk to keep the italian neutral
That’s untrue Churchill discussed relinquishing Malta if that was all that was required of a peace settlement with Germany. But He pointed out that fighting on was the best option. The neutrality of Italy was not a factor.
 
A few things to consider:

1. Without Italy declaring war without warning, Britain doesn't get most of the Italian merchant marine for free

Conversely a Neutral Italy means that the Mediterranean- Suez Canal route remains open and saves the equivalent of at least One Million tons of shipping.
 
Conversely a Neutral Italy means that the Mediterranean- Suez Canal route remains open and saves the equivalent of at least One Million tons of shipping.

Not a trivial saving. Has anyone done the research and calculation to pin down a more exact number for this expense in days per ton delivered?
 
Conversely a Neutral Italy means that the Mediterranean- Suez Canal route remains open and saves the equivalent of at least One Million tons of shipping.

Yet another reason that the UK would not want to cause Italy to enter the war on the other side. Both the UK and Germany will be unhappy (for different reasons) about the Italian seizure of French colonies, Fiume and various Greek islands. But neither of them will go to the point of declaring war. Germany also probably sees Italy as a useful conduit for imports bypassing the blockade. And in 1940 - everyone overestimated Italian military capabilities.
 
Does Vichy France still happen as in OTL with Italy still neutral? It would be easier for France to continue to resist in such a scenario as even Corsica is safe.

If Vichy does happen, Germany is not going to let neutral Italy just grab Vichy territory without consequences. The whole point of the armistice for Germany is take away the French empire and fleet from the list of Germany's enemies, and secure Germany's behind so she can invade the Soviet Union. Italy doing this is just going to bring colonies over to the Free French.

I would assume that Vichy happens - the Germans could easily overrun mainland France on their own and I don't see the French setting up a rump government in Corsica. I recognize that Vichy and the Germans would be unhappy about the Italian grab of Djibouti and Tunisia but I think Italy could easily manage it and the Germans would not want to go to war with Italy. Before WW2, everyone overrated the Italian war making capacity and so there would be hesitancy to take action which would move Italy into the ranks of your enemies.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Not a trivial saving. Has anyone done the research and calculation to pin down a more exact number for this expense in days per ton delivered?
I've seen calculations of how much shipping capacity was "gained" by the re-opening of the Med by the capture of Siciliy ... somewhere ... might had been at the "France Fights On, Australian Version" site ... or at Warships1 ... or here? ... but I'm not sure ...
 
So do you think that the UK would provoke a war with Italy in order to protect Vichy colonies?

Strictly speaking they did. The Embargos & related actions were as much a British thing as US, & those led straight to Japan's attack on the Commonwealth & colonial nation's in Asia & Pacifica.
 
Strictly speaking they did. The Embargos & related actions were as much a British thing as US, & those led straight to Japan's attack on the Commonwealth & colonial nation's in Asia & Pacifica.

The asset freeze by the US was a key factor and the UK was not exporting oil to Japan so that an embargo would not be a big deal. I guess it is possible and maybe even likely that an embargo would have been issued against Italy if it had taken Djibouti and Tunisia but that is very different from a declaration of war.
 
Depends on the sanctions. Strict enough they threaten economic destruction the same as a blockade. I suspect Italy did not stockpile large reserves of raw materials as Japan tried to do.
 
Depends on the sanctions. Strict enough they threaten economic destruction the same as a blockade. I suspect Italy did not stockpile large reserves of raw materials as Japan tried to do.

I guess a key question on the sanctions is whether the US would join in. Petroleum would seem to be the key issue. With US sanctions against Japan, the domestic oil industry might not have been crazy about the idea of also having sanctions against Italy. Especially where the issue is neutral Italy's grabbing territory from Axis Vichy France's colonies.
 
Yes, the Embargo Acts & related actions were unpleasant for US business in the Japan trade. This had some of the sting taken out by the increased military budgets of 1938-39 which effects were seen in 1940-41. On top of that the mobilization starting in 1940 and the accompanying additional funds and flood of government contracts off set some of the loss of trade with Europe as the British blockade tightened.

I also assume the Italians had the bulk of their oil from the US. However they had also been investing in the Rumanian industry, so perhaps a portion came from that direction. Who the Dutch & BP were selling to I can't say either.

The US had a panic attack when France collapsed, mobilizing every reservist & National Guardsman & setting in motion ramping the Army to 1,600,000 men in eight to ten months, along with handing the Army & Navy a blank check for purchasing equipment. When Japan grabbed French colonies in Asia the US threw a conniption and led in the imposition of economic actions that came within a centimeter of being a DoW. So, if Italy tries the same stunt with Tunisia? I'll leave the readers here to judge for themselves.
 
Top