Allied invasion of France in 1943...what becomes of Italy?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

So assuming the Allies decide to charge into France in 1943, which means foregoing Operation Torch (let's assume that the Pacific operations aren't to be touched) and the Mediterranean. So what then happens with Italy while the Allies bear down on Germany in 1943? Are they allowed to switch sides by the Allies and can Germany really do anything to stop them in say 1944? Do the Allies bother with bombing Italy in the meantime? Assuming that Germany is defeated more quickly does Italy become a major NATO ally if they are willing to switch sides and window dressing remove Mussolini? And what happens to Bennie the Moose?
 
So assuming the Allies decide to charge into France in 1943, which means foregoing Operation Torch (let's assume that the Pacific operations aren't to be touched) and the Mediterranean. So what then happens with Italy while the Allies bear down on Germany in 1943? Are they allowed to switch sides by the Allies and can Germany really do anything to stop them in say 1944? Do the Allies bother with bombing Italy in the meantime? Assuming that Germany is defeated more quickly does Italy become a major NATO ally if they are willing to switch sides and window dressing remove Mussolini? And what happens to Bennie the Moose?
If it's left alone, but the Allies bear down on Germany, Italy definitely switches sides. It might even be by hand of Mussolini himself - who, in the last months before the Armistice, had been pressured to surrender to the Allies, had even requested to meet Hitler in order to tell him directly... but then chickened out, probably intimidated by Hitler expecting something of the sort.
 
The 1943 France campaign would be an epic grinder as German commitments in Italy and Balkans could remain minimal. Without Torch 1SS Panzer could be out east or moving east when Stalingrad pocket forms, which means Germans could be in better shape in the east in 1943 too, which could allow greater reserves east, especially if the invasion is pre Kursk and the Germans call off their summer offensive and the Germans throw everything in defeating the invasion.

So if the Allies grind out and capture Paris in October 1943. Italy and everyone else will changes sides. Mussolini flees to Spain. Might have time to disappear completely before war ends.

Italy in much better shape when war ends. Would the Soviets demand an occupation zone from a less devastated Italy?
 
This could prevent a communist Germany with the Allies being able to reach further east than OTL. Thoughts?
 
Wouldn't an invasion of France in 43 be a disaster for the Allies?

It could even lead to Hitler making peace with Stalin if it is a full on invasion, Paris is likely destroyed in this scenario and do the Allies have the political will to finish the job alone? with Millions dead?
 
So assuming the Allies decide to charge into France in 1943, which means foregoing Operation Torch (let's assume that the Pacific operations aren't to be touched) and the Mediterranean. So what then happens with Italy while the Allies bear down on Germany in 1943?

my reading on 1943 (speculative) invasion of France is limited but some argue the Cotentin Peninsula could have been seized and supplied directly from US?

since it is removed from Med would it be as decisive as invasion of Sicily for Italy?
 

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't an invasion of France in 43 be a disaster for the Allies?

It could even lead to Hitler making peace with Stalin if it is a full on invasion, Paris is likely destroyed in this scenario and do the Allies have the political will to finish the job alone? with Millions dead?
Not according to some people on this very forum. Carl Schwarmberger has said it would have been more successful than in 1944 due to the pressure on Germany all around, not sure if in his scenario Torch still happens though, he and others have posited that both were possible with a totally defensive posture in the Pacific in 1942-43. Stalin though wouldn't make peace with Hitler, especially with the Allies opening up a second front just like he wanted. It will take the pressure off of him massively in 1943, as that means no German offensive like Kursk is possible. Things are tougher for him until the Allies do land in France, but from then on out the Eastern Front is increasingly less tough and Stalin would be very happy about that and not want to drop out and let the Wallies take Central Europe. Yeah Paris is likely in trouble.
 
I have always wondered if Tunisia and Italy bypassed in a rush to S. France, where historically they captured good ports ... understand the Allied side didn't make rash moves as a rule like that would be ... meaning after Torch and skipping Sardinia , Corsica, at least initially

(admit this could be disaster)
 
Hitler using the OTL resources wasted on Zitadelle and then some against landings in France sound like a potential huge disaster for the allies imo. Their troops might be thrown into the sea and /or captured. Hitler can surely afford to slowly trade some ground in the east (because still large areas of USSR are under german control- besides, isn't everyone saying that Hitler should have stayed on the defensive in the east in 1943 and attrit USSR as much as possible?) and hold the front there while he deals with the allied invasion, which have nowhere near the superiority, especially in the air, that they had in 1944. The german war and oil industry was barely touched at this point.
 
again the power of allied battleships would have prevented the Germans from completing driving the allies into the sea
 
again the power of allied battleships would have prevented the Germans from completing driving the allies into the sea
german u boats could make that interesting along with whats left of the Luftwaffe. gratned Germany has most things tied up in the east, but its no slouch in france, depends on where they invade
 
Only an earlier victory in the BOA (late 42 as opposed to May 43) - dialing down on the Arctic Convoys (which were each a major fleet operation) and possibly reductions in Amphibious assets, supplies and troops to the Pacific Theatre as well as a shift in focus from the 'Soft underbelly' to a direct 'Cross channel invasion' approach (so possibly no Husky?) would allow for a 1943 invasion of France.

And IMO sitting safely at my desk in 2017 its what they should have done.
 
german u boats could make that interesting along with whats left of the Luftwaffe. gratned Germany has most things tied up in the east, but its no slouch in france, depends on where they invade

Throwing U-boats in the channel against the entire allied ASW net and under heavy cover for the air I wonder how well that would work. The allied invasion forces were always paranoid about german subs I highly doubt that would change. As for the Luftwaffe throwing planes against allied ships under air cover is another way to ground the Germans down.
 
still the channel isn't that wide and if you have an extreme concentration of ships it might be worth it to throw what you have to hurt the enemy in as many wasy as possible. otherwise you wind up with D-day and france being taken back. it would still be a major concern
 
that is the entire point the allies could simply clutter up a ton of ASW ships in the channel and goodbye and any U-boat that tries. The Luftwaffe was neither trained nor experienced in naval bombing. It doesn't matter what the Germans try the allies will have a secure beachhead that cannot be breached.
 
most of them at least. I should have been more specific. Still my point stands sending bombers to hit allied ships in the channel is a great way to lose planes
 

Deleted member 1487

most of them at least. I should have been more specific. Still my point stands sending bombers to hit allied ships in the channel is a great way to lose planes
Depends on how many fighters the Germans were willing to commit to protect them. In 1943 that is still viable by Summer if the Luftwaffe makes a maximum effort, but it will be costly and preclude air support on all other fronts and probably have 'Big Week' results several months earlier. The question is whether the Luftwaffe can still get through and do enough damage. They did manage to do a fair bit of damage at Salerno and during Operation Husky IOTL despite Allied air superiority. Without Torch the Luftwaffe can concentrate probably several thousand aircraft in Western Europe if they clean out Germany and deprive all other fronts.
 
Yeah that will go down super well in the east I mean losing air support for what a week the Soviets would have a field day
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah that will go down super well in the east I mean losing air support for what a week the Soviets would have a field day
They basically did anyway; by Spring 1943 75% of single engine fighters were outside of the Eastern Front, while even during the 'surge' during Kursk it was still ~65% of single engine fighters outside of the East. Twin engine fighters were 90% outside the East. Plus from November 1942 when Torch happened through May 1943 the Luftwaffe lost about 2400 aircraft fighting for Tunisia, then several hundred more fighting for Sicily. IIRC the Luftwaffe had committed and lost/fielded about 4000 aircraft just for Tunisia and Sicily between November 1942-August 1943. That isn't counting what was in the East or in Germany/Western Europe. So without Torch and pulling the Luftwaffe out of the Mediterranean the Luftwaffe could field an additional 4-5000 aircraft by Summer 1943 in Western Europe. Discounting transports, recon, and other non-combat aircraft, we are still looking at probably 3000 combat aircraft in addition to what was there IOTL as of Summer 1943....but so too do the Allies then have their Torch/Husky forces and potential draw downs of RAF combat aircraft from the Mediterranean to use in France. On the balance the Germans save a ton more, as losses were really lopsided in Tunisia due to the Axis supply situation and how many aircraft were lost when airfield were overrun on the ground in Spring 1943.
 
Top