A neutral Italy in WWII?

An earlier Japanese defeat means the first use of atomic weapons might come later.. or are used on Germany.
Or not at all, if they're not ready in time. I mean seriously, if Singapore holds, Japan is facing attack not just from long-range American submarines, but medium- and Long-range British ones too. And you know what, British torpedoes actually work.
 
Agree with Jackson.

The Med is still a somewhat 'closed affair' with a neutral Italy and Spain.

It means the entire Italian armaments industry can be integrated into the German efforts - like Switzerland's was.

The Allied cannot start bombing campaign of a neutral country; hence the German armament industry is safe in Italy (and Switzerland).

If Germany had been a bit smart (my horror scenario), it would have kept Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain as neutrals.
Offer France a decent peace, recognizing France as an equal partner

That would have meant the creation of the Coal-and-Steel union in 1940 and then the world would have looked a bit different

The proto-EU in 1940.
 
Agree with Jackson.

The Med is still a somewhat 'closed affair' with a neutral Italy and Spain.

It means the entire Italian armaments industry can be integrated into the German efforts - like Switzerland's was.

The Allied cannot start bombing campaign of a neutral country; hence the German armament industry is safe in Italy (and Switzerland).

If Germany had been a bit smart (my horror scenario), it would have kept Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain as neutrals.
Offer France a decent peace, recognizing France as an equal partner

That would have meant the creation of the Coal-and-Steel union in 1940 and then the world would have looked a bit different

The proto-EU in 1940.
Except Switzerland isn't having a bar of it, Sweden is as neutral as they can be, Spain is broken, Italy is badly managed, and France is politically untrustworthy.
 

deanna

Banned
If the war ends before nuclear weapons are used, that means that they will be used for the first time years later, and possibly in much more dangerous circumstances.
 
not joining the Axis, something akin to Paris Protocols that promised bases for reduced occupation costs, maybe easier for Germany to contemplate than costs of supporting Spain.

was thinking along the lines of u-boat base somewhere on the Med coast in France, an extension if you will, of the bases constructed on the Atlantic?

the Med Strategy (or at least one version) originated with Adm. Raeder, under this scenario though the British might have to keep watch on the Italians, their traffic through the Med would otherwise be unimpeded?

I'd imagine the British would start attacking Vichy in that case and Vichy would know it.

Also what is going on with Italy during June 1940? Would France continue to resist if Italy wasn't in the war?

well, my initial question was whether France would continue fighting, but assuming the fewest other changes to historical events (for instance maybe Italy and France shooting at one another across their border? but short of declaration of war) was speculating on Vichy regime coming to power.

under that scenario, am failing to see where 5 Atlantic and 1 Med u-boat bases would be more provocation than 5 Atlantic u-boat bases? but you may be correct, without distraction of battling Italy the UK might focus on collaborator regime.
 
If you look at the geopolitical map, the Cold War doesn't look that different for the west.

Italy's core sphere of influence is going to be Austria (Neutral OTL), Libya (Soviet OTL), Yugoslavia (Neutral OTL), Albania (Neutral OTL), Bulgaria (Soviet OTL), Spain (Non-NATO until 1982), Yemen (anti-western OTL), and East Africa (half western-aligned, half soviet-aligned OTL).

Italy's Empire is mostly in territories that were neutral or Soviet OTL.




Salazar, despite being seen as Fascistic, was sort of anti-fascist OTL. He admired some of what did Mussolini did in his own country, but whereas Fascism was in many ways anti-intellectual, Salazar was an intellectual asked to assume power by the military. He thought Italian Fascism was a pagan Caeserist political system that recognised neither legal nor moral limits. It'd be interesting to see Spain drift further into the Italian sphere and Portugal move further into the Western Camp.
 
Last edited:
The other big question with regards to Europe is how the German-Soviet War goes. The Greek and Yugoslav campaign OTL pushed Barbarosa back a little bit, but weather also had a good part to do with the delay.

Per Wiki:
According to Robert Kirchubel, "the main causes for deferring Barbarossa's start from 15 May to 22 June were incomplete logistical arrangements and an unusually wet winter that kept rivers at full flood until late spring."
.

The Germans will have more men and resources to send east, but the timetable won't be all that different.



I can see the Italians entering the war opportunistically towards the end. They'd open a third road to Berlin. Austria will undoubtedly be an Italian satellite, but the question of South Germany (Bavaria especially) is more open.

An independent and neutral south Germany, like OTL Austria, wouldn't be an unreasonable outcome. You get the benefit of a neutral buffer and a weaker Germany - in the Roosevelt, Churchill, and Morgenthau plans the idea of establishing a united and separate south German state was put forward. I can see Mussolini supporting such a thing.

Hungary's attempt at defecting to the allies may be more successful. Germany will try to occupy the country, but the Italians are right to the south and can help defend the place. I can see Hungary either turned into a neutral state post-war of divided along the Danube between an Italian West Hungary (capital Buda) and a Soviet East Hungary (capital Pest).

I wonder if Romania will be partitioned between an east and west Romania. Italian Wallachia, Soviet Moldavia-Transylvania?

Without having to push into Romania and Bulgaria, perhaps the Soviets manage to get further west TTL, dividing Europe along the Elbe. Alternatively, with the Germans spread out more and the British and Americans having more men to focus on the continent, the east-meets-west point could be further east.
 

Deleted member 1487

The other big question with regards to Europe is how the German-Soviet War goes. The Greek and Yugoslav campaign OTL pushed Barbarosa back a little bit, but weather also had a good part to do with the delay.

The Germans will have more men and resources to send east, but the timetable won't be all that different.
Part of the reason for the incompletely logistics was the diversion of men and material to the Balkans. Yugoslavia still probably happens, which means the delay, just not as bad as it would have been including Greece in the attack. Yugoslavia was finished quickly (April 6-18th), much more quickly than Greece (April 6th-30th for the mainland, Crete May 20th-June 1st), so there might be at least an extra week available ITTL for the invasion. IIRC the weather dried up around June 10th-12th, so if the units are back in place after Yugoslavia they'd be able to attack at least a week early. I'd think that the Italians would still participate in the Yugoslav invasion to get their cut and Britain probably wouldn't declare war for that so they don't have to worry about having the Mediterranean shut down to their shipping; it would be a very different situation than the Italians attacking France.

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/balkan/20_260_5.htm
Actually, only part of the delay was caused by the campaigns in the Balkans. Operation BARBAROSSA could not possibly have started on 15 May because spring came late in 19-L1. As late as the beginning of June the Polish-Russian river valleys were still flooded and partly impassable as a result of exceptionally heavy rains
So it sounds like the first week of June was the end of the flooding, which means some time around June 7th-10th would have been the earliest the invasion could happen, which if the Balkans is wrapped up as of mid-April and there is no diversion into Greece could well be a viable start date for Barbarossa.
 
In one of my several books on alternate WW2s, there is a chapter on a neutral Italy... but the POD is the early death of Mussolini, after which the US takes a vested interest in Italian neutrality, sending them shipments of coal to keep them going, etc. IIRC, the Italians do join the war against Germany near the end of it...
 

Deleted member 1487

If Mussolini is alive, but neutral, might we see an Italian legion like the Spanish sent IOTL? If equipped with German weapons and they send their most motivated and well trained troops they could well be quite a bit more effective than their OTL counterparts, especially if lavished with Italian trucks to fully motorize them. As it was IOTL when properly led and equipped they fought exceptionally well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Petrikowka
Total Italian casualties numbered 291 men, of whom 87 were killed, 190 wounded and 14 missing.[17] About 10,000 Soviet prisoners were captured, along with a large amount of weapons and quadrupeds.[18]
 
In one of my several books on alternate WW2s, there is a chapter on a neutral Italy... but the POD is the early death of Mussolini, after which the US takes a vested interest in Italian neutrality, sending them shipments of coal to keep them going, etc. IIRC, the Italians do join the war against Germany near the end of it...

Title please? Just for curiosity
 
... Assuming there isn't a move in Spain then the Soviets catch the brunt of the extra German resources available in June 1941. Depending on butterflies things could go a lot worse for them ITTL then. ...

In 1941 the logistics problem trumps anything else. The additional automotive transport, & pioneer battalions would be useful, as well as the aircraft lost in the Med. But adding more ground combat forces just increases a already insurmountable logistics problem. Later in 1942 & 1943 & when I see the additional forces of use. When the transportation system has been somewhat restored. OTL German resources allowed returning just one of three army groups in the east to offensive capability. With the savings from no Mediterranean campaigns Army Group South can be stronger, and one of the others as well. This could lead to better German advance for the BLAU offensive in 1942, and better resistance to the Red Army offensives As 1943 starts losses on both sides are likely to be larger and the Red Army not as far advanced to the west.

... That also means without having to worry about the Mediterranean in late 1942/early 1943 the Wallies have to go into Europe ...

Rather than go straight into France or whatever, perhaps a secondary campaign in Scandinavia? Using Allied naval superiority and the isolating ground in Norway the German garrisons can be picked off or by passed as needed. Once Narvik is secured Sweden is no longer isolated and can be given arms & material to secure it from German attack.

There no reason here to assume Allied deception ops are any less successful than OTL. I expect Hitler and Co can be kept leaping at shadows as OTL, easing the way for Allied operations.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think the biggest change wouldn't be in Europe or North Africa, but in Asia. Without the drain of North Africa, Britain can properly reinforce Singapore/Malaya, and Burma. This puts Japan in a very awkward position, and probably leads to a much earlier defeat.

Actually this may even waive away the Pacific War. With the Commonwealth capable of a proper defense the Japanese may choose the humiliation of giving in and negotiating away the embargo and the 'China Incident'. Or even better talk themselves out of occupation of FIC & avoid confrontation entirely.
 
...
It means the entire Italian armaments industry can be integrated into the German efforts - like Switzerland's was.

....

Fortunately the lack of resources and cash or good credit prevented the full exploitation of Swiss industry. In the case of Italy its a bigger problem. The British blockade was effective at preventing Germany from making best use of neutrals like Sweden, Spain, Turky. More so when the US became fully integrated into the blockade system. Like Spain Italy is too dependent on imports from the Americas & British dominated regions. & then there is the problem of getting paid. The nazis had a credit problem and were cash poor as well. the Italins would over the longer run make a lot more money selling to the Allies. Something like the Portuguese letting the Brits out bid the Germans for their Tungsten ore.
 

Deleted member 1487

In 1941 the logistics problem trumps anything else. The additional automotive transport, & pioneer battalions would be useful, as well as the aircraft lost in the Med. But adding more ground combat forces just increases a already insurmountable logistics problem. Later in 1942 & 1943 & when I see the additional forces of use. When the transportation system has been somewhat restored. OTL German resources allowed returning just one of three army groups in the east to offensive capability. With the savings from no Mediterranean campaigns Army Group South can be stronger, and one of the others as well. This could lead to better German advance for the BLAU offensive in 1942, and better resistance to the Red Army offensives As 1943 starts losses on both sides are likely to be larger and the Red Army not as far advanced to the west.

I'm going over the logistics of Barbarossa because of another thread and depending on where those extra forces are injected it wouldn't actually be a logistical problem. Army Group South would be, as would AG-Center, but North had the best logistics of all due to having to travel the shortest distance from Germany, plus coastal shipping. Plus with the paras and more Panzer divisions and trucks they could clear up Estonia even more quickly as well as the Baltic islands and really vastly improve the logistical situation months earlier. That said of course there is no guarantee that Hitler would do that, but assuming that was what happens ITTL Leningrad is probably going to be taken and Estonia liberated/conquered much more intact, which yields the shale oil industry intact, a pretty big help given how much the German invested into repairing it IOTL, only to have it lost again before being able to yield much from it.

The other part of it was how much the Balkan Campaign really did hurt German preparations and wear and tear on the units committed, so with Yugoslavia being the only part of the Balkans campaign attempted starting off German forces are in a better place than they were at the start of Barbarossa IOTL. That and the addition of hundreds of extra Ju52s would be extremely helpful.

1942-43 would certainly see more recourses in the East to the benefit of the Axis, especially in aircraft. But even in November 1941 2nd Air Fleet wouldn't transfer to the Mediterranean before Typhoon is over, which means they wouldn't leave AG-Center with 8 operational aircraft as of December 1941. On top of that VIII air corps would also avoid the heavy losses of the Greek campaign/Crete and be a lot more rested and ready at the start of Barbarossa than they were IOTL, when part of the unit wasn't even in position as they were still redeploying from Greece.

Rather than go straight into France or whatever, perhaps a secondary campaign in Scandinavia? Using Allied naval superiority and the isolating ground in Norway the German garrisons can be picked off or by passed as needed. Once Narvik is secured Sweden is no longer isolated and can be given arms & material to secure it from German attack.

There no reason here to assume Allied deception ops are any less successful than OTL. I expect Hitler and Co can be kept leaping at shadows as OTL, easing the way for Allied operations.
That makes more sense for the British in 1941 or so, but given the need to take pressure off of the USSR, which is probably in a worse situation ITTL as of 1942 and with no other serious place to divert German troops, the Wallies would probably bow to pressure from Stalin to move on France. He didn't like the peripherial strategy.
 
'Bowing to Stalin' is unlikely. The Brits shined on the Reds with token measures for near three years. Churchill'd have continued had Roosevelt not decided to get on with it. More likely is they remain serious about preparing the way, & figure out solutions to the problem of fighting a large portion of the German ground force.
 
11th Army isn't tied down on occupation duties in the Balkans, so AGS can handle Kiev on its own and thus free AGC for a thrust on Moscow in August-September. Invasion also probably starts on June 10th, as by then the flood waters had receded.
 
Top