Can Britain remain in WWII following the Fall of France against a stronger Italy that takes Malta

BooNZ

Banned
The Axis being in a stronger position makes Lend-Lease more probable not less. The UK has still defeated Hitler in the BoB and is still the only platform from which the USA can realistically project power in Europe
The US public was isolationist and had no interest in projecting power into Europe - according to a Gallup poll in 1940 only 15% of the US public favored European intervention. In this scenario, the British may have starved off an invasion, but have lost Europe, have lost the Med and are in the process of losing the Middle East - the apparent chance of Britain liberating Europe without US intervention is exactly zero.

Britain would simply trade Gibraltar for Spanish Morocco and bypass the straits.
I understand the British maintained a force on standby to seize the Canary Islands if Gibraltar was under serious threat.

If Italy is putting together serious plans to invade Malta then it needs to do so before the start of WW2 i.e. it needs to be planning a war between itself and the British Empire which even Mussolini would think was a bad idea.
Therefore without foreknowledge of the actual situation in 40-41 the Italians would have no reason to do so,
The USA had "war plans" for Canada and Britain, which together also had "war plans" for the USA. To suggest a vaguely competent Italian military would not have "war plans" for dealing with Malta is bizzarro

The US stratigic interest was in reopening European markets to the US. Even during the worst of the Depression half the US economy was dependant on exports, and the bulk of the trade was still with Europe. Between Axis economic mismanagment of the occupied nations, and the British blockade the US was looking at more years of stagnation & retrenchment. The Warhawks who were pushing Roosevelt were at their core motivated by the economics of the situation as anything else.
How exactly is Axis mismanagement (i.e. coping without food and fuel) to blame for the closing of European markets to the US economy? Surely the elephant in the room would be the Royal Navy blockade. If Britain is forced to exit the war, then those mismanaged European markets will swiftly reopen to the US economy - that's economics. I suspect most US warhawks were struggling to keep up with FDR, let alone push.
 
The only thing that would get Britain to quit by the time of the BOB is invasion. After the BOB the Brits were pretty safe from even a pathetic attempt. By mid 1941 they were fully mobilized, well armed for defense, their aircraft factories churning out warplanes at a higher rate than the Germans, and their island essentially invulnerable, esp. with the Germans now focussed on Russia and not having the resources to build up the powerful surface navy that an invasion would require. I can't see how getting forced out of the Mediterranean would change the Brits' resolve. They were already forced out of three-quarters of the Med, so now they lose Egypt (which had no oil) but they still have their Navy and control of the sea lanes of western, southern and eastern Africa and across the Indian Ocean to Australia and India. And they would have sabotaged the Suez Canal, thus bottling up the Italian navy for a year or more. The Brits only lost control of the Bay of Bengal and the skies over Ceylon for a few days in 1942 to Japanese carriers that would never return (and could NOT return after Midway). And the result of that incursion? Operation Ironclad: the Brits took Madagascar, location of the one harbor (at Diego Suarez) the Japanese could have used as their base for a sub war against the British convoys (now presumably rerouted to the Persian Gulf), although it is doubtful the Japanese would have chosen to expend their resources on doing such a favor for the Germans and Italians when they already had their hands full in a desperate battle against the most powerful nation on earth.

For the Italians to defeat the Brits in North Africa early on (like, before the morale stiffening of the BOB) requires a POD dating back at least 15 years, since there is no way, even with an aggressive general, that the Italian army which actually existed in 1940 was up to moving quickly or even to accomplishing the task at all. Taking Malta would not in itself be a big enough blow. And even if forced out of the Med altogether, including Gib, the Brits could keep up the short-term morale of their people and their Empire by taking the Spanish colonies (and the Canaries), Italy's East African colonies, the Azores (if Portugal was forced to join the Axis) and of course Madagascar. Churchill would never give up the war simply because Egypt was lost, nor would his staunch ally Jan Smuts.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
The only thing that would get Britain to quit by the time of the BOB is invasion.
Again, OTL Britain had already run out of foreign reserves by the end of 1940 and would have no option but to quit, unless it was being propped up by the USA (per OTL). Britain may struggle for such sponsorship if it had been continually beaten by both Germany and Italy.
 
Again, OTL Britain had already run out of foreign reserves by the end of 1940 and would have no option but to quit, unless it was being propped up by the USA (per OTL). Britain may struggle for such sponsorship if it had been continually beaten by both Germany and Italy.

Britain was paying large sums to the US throughout WWII, so they were hardly 'out of foreign reserves'. They also had huge amounts of Sterling, but the US refused to take this as payment (unlike every other country trading with Britain). In any event, the importance of Lend-Lease has been wildly overstated.
 
OTL the British were broke by December 1940 and would have been unable to continue the war effort without lend-lease. If the POD is a competent Italian war effort, including seizing Malta and the Suez, then the British would have been on the receiving end of crushing defeats by both the Germans and the Italians for well over a year. With Europe seemingly united against a seemingly hapless Britain, how does FDR convince the US public that Britain is not a lost cause, or even worse, an impediment for peace.

In this scenario, Britain bears an uncanny resemblance to Monty Python's Black Knight.

This old chestnut.
  1. Gallup poll March 14th 1941.

    Do you think the United States should risk war with Japan, if necessary, to keep Japan from taking the Dutch East Indies and Singapore?

    Yes................................40%

    No................................ 39

    No opinion.........................21

    ------------------------------------------

    Gallup poll, April 7th 1941 [on the European theatre]

    Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

    Keep out........................... 33%

    Help England.......................67%

    ---------------------------------------------

    Gallup poll, April 28th 1941 [at this time 11% of US felt Germany & Italy would win the war, vs 57% who felt UK would defeat both alone]

    If it appeared certain that there was no other way to defeat Germany and Italy except for the United States to go to war against them, would you be in favor of the United States going to war?

    Yes................................ 68%

    No................................ 24

    No opinion......................... 8

    ---------------------------------------------

    Gallup poll, September 7th 1941

    Should the United States take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if it means risking a war with Japan?

    Yes................................ 70%

    No................................ 18

    No opinion......................... 12

    ---------------------------------------------

FDR was pushing against an open door. Strangely the US public could see that a Nazi dominated New World Order would not have been friendly to America.

I think something about the conquest of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France made many US citizens sceptical that Britain was the "impediment to peace" in Europe!
 
It doesn't take more resources for the Italian military to capture Malta, just a tiny of foresight. I thought Britain had written Malta off as indefensible originally. Any coherent Italian war plan should have included steps to seize or neutralize Malta as an opening move. It's as if Japan started the war in the Pacific against United States, but neglected to consider how they would go about capturing Guam.
IMHO the same logic can be applied to a successful invasion of Egypt and the Sudan in the summer of 1940.

Having said that I think that the best thing for the Italians to do with the money saved from not invading Abyssinia was to build up stocks of oil, iron ore, coking coal and all the other raw materials they won't have access to in a long war.

After that to get their finger out developing an effective air-launched torpedo and build more S.M.79s so that by June 1940 there were 150 of them in 5 groups of 30 aircraft one of which would be based in the Horn of Africa. IOTL the Italians had 8 submarines, 7 large destroyers and 2 small destroyers based at Massawa, but they weren't able to do much with them for lack of fuel. With more fuel and the support of the torpedo bombers it would make at much harder for the British to send reinforcements to Egypt.

Third I would build up a bigger transport force with as many S.M.82s as possible.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Gallup poll, April 28th 1941 [at this time 11% of US felt Germany & Italy would win the war, vs 57% who felt UK would defeat both alone]
You are citing polls from a time when most US citizens expected the US would be dragged into the war regardless and the poll did not specify Britain would defeat Germany and Italy "alone". The question is would the US be as keen to heavily back a horse it did not expect to win - OTL there was only luke warm US support for the Soviets until they had proven themselves. Another forum member has referenced a poll from mid 1940, where <25% of the US population expected an Allied victory.

You have chosen to cite polls after lend-lease had already been in place for a number of months and by some measures FDR had already entered the US into the war. Citing polls after the fact ignores the potential impact of the PODs of poor British military performance might have in the US choice of Britain as their champion in Europe.

FDR was pushing against an open door. Strangely the US public could see that a Nazi dominated New World Order would not have been friendly to America.

I think something about the conquest of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France made many US citizens sceptical that Britain was the "impediment to peace" in Europe!

No. There are at least half a dozen Gallup polls through 1940-1941 where the percentage of US citizens favouring US intervention in Europe was <20%. There was no grass roots support for US intervention into Europe. Per OTL, the US entry into the war would need to be carefully crafted against the isolationist wishes of the general public. #inconvenient facts
 
If Italy doesn't invade Ethiopia, then it remains either Allied or at least hostile to Germany and benevolent to the Allies from neutrality. It's the thing that dragged Mussolini from "that damn German poseur" to "I need friends and Germany is one".
 
You are citing polls from a time when most US citizens expected the US would be dragged into the war regardless and the poll did not specify Britain would defeat Germany and Italy "alone". The question is would the US be as keen to heavily back a horse it did not expect to win - OTL there was only luke warm US support for the Soviets until they had proven themselves. Another forum member has referenced a poll from mid 1940, where <25% of the US population expected an Allied victory.

Nah.

The question was "who do you believe will win the war - England, or Germany and Italy". They said England.

As for opinions in mid 1940... fasten your seatbelt.

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 5/5-10/40

Survey #193-K Question #2a

The war between England and France and Germany has been going on for eight months. Which side do you think is ahead so far?

Germany........................... 67%

England and France................. 8

Even............................... 13

No opinion......................... 12

Interviewing Date 5/5-10/40

Survey #193-K Question #2b

Which side do you think will win the war?

Allies.............................. 55%

Germany........................... 17

No opinion......................... 28

Oh, and also this gem.

Interviewing Date 5/5-10/40

Survey #193-K Question #la

Do you think the United States will go into the war in Europe?

Yes................................ 51%


No................................ 49

As for neutrality....

MAY 10 NEUTRALITY

Interviewing Date 4/19-24/40

Survey #191-K Question #7

If you were voting for President, which type of candidate (on card) do you think you would be more likely to vote for: (A) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war and refuses to give any more help to England and France than we are now giving them, even if they are being defeated by Germany; or (B) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war, but who is willing to give England and France all the help they want, except sending our army and navy.

Refuses help........................ 34%

Aid except troops.................... 66

Nine per cent expressed no opinion.

Pre-fall of France opinion on what essentially became lend-lease

MAY 24

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 5/16-21/40

Survey #194-K Question #6

If England and France are unable to pay cash for airplanes they buy in this country, do you think we should sell them planes on credit supplied by our Government?

Yes................................ 51%


No................................49

Views on the war immediately following the Fall of France

Interviewing Date 6/27-7/2/40

Survey #199-K Question #12

Which side do you think will win the war?


Allies.............................. 32%

Axis............................... 35

No opinion.........................33

Keeping in mind the polls now narrowly show an Axis victory is predicted by the US population

JULY 19

AID TO ENGLAND

Interviewing Date 7/5-10/40

Survey #200-K Question #3d

Do you think we are giving enough help to England, or do you think more ways should be found to give England help, short of going to war?

Give more help...................... 53%

Enough help now....................41

Give less help....................... 6

Ten per cent expressed no opinion.

SEPTEMBER 23

NEUTRALITY

Interviewing Date 9/5-10/40

Survey #209-K Question #2

Which of these two things do you think is the most important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?

Keep out...........................48%

Help England....................... 52

Five per cent expressed no opinion.

NOVEMBER 18

AID TO ENGLAND

Interviewing Date 10/11-16/40

Survey #215-K Question #1a

If it appears that England will be defeated by Germany and Italy unless the United States supplies her with more food and war materials, would you be in favor of giving more help to England?

Yes................................ 90%

No................................ 10

Six per cent expressed no opinion.

You have chosen to cite polls after lend-lease had already been in place for a number of months and by some measures FDR had already entered the US into the war. Citing polls after the fact ignores the potential impact of the PODs of poor British military performance might have in the US choice of Britain as their champion in Europe.

Think I've put this one to bed now.

No. There are at least half a dozen Gallup polls through 1940-1941 where the percentage of US citizens favouring US intervention in Europe was <20%. There was no grass roots support for US intervention into Europe. Per OTL, the US entry into the war would need to be carefully crafted against the isolationist wishes of the general public. #inconvenient facts

Boots on the ground; yes. No appetite. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise.

What I said was that the public were firmly behind Britain, wanted Britain to win, and were supportive of any and all measures to help Britain win.
Britain had no military victories to speak of in the period covered - BoB I guess - and our performance in the war was worse than could possibly have been imagined. And yet America didn't write Britain off as a bad bet. Making Britain's performance a bit worse would have had no discernible impact.
 

BooNZ

Banned
What I said was that the public were firmly behind Britain, wanted Britain to win, and were supportive of any and all measures to help Britain win. Britain had no military victories to speak of in the period covered - BoB I guess - and our performance in the war was worse than could possibly have been imagined. And yet America didn't write Britain off as a bad bet. Making Britain's performance a bit worse would have had no discernible impact.

What you have illustrated is US support for Britain was initially lukewarm, until it had managed a few substantial victories. BoB was critical because it confirmed a going concern assumption, but if Britain was being routinely thumped by the Italians instead of the spectacular OTL Allied victories in Northern Africa, then doubts about British manhood would have started to creep into US thinking. What expectations would the US public have of Britain liberating Europe if it was incapable of standing against either Germany or Italy.

US opinion would have probably held until such time as Britain lost the Suez, which would have caused a crisis of confidence. From that point it would be clear to the US public that ongoing support for Britain would require US boots on the ground. Instead of the OTL mission creep to war, the US public would have to make a decision between being isolationist and the desire to support Britain. The US public could no longer be deluded into thinking it could do both.

As an aside, the fall of Suez is not expressly contemplated by the OP and probably requires a series of PODs going back a decade. The supposed competence of the Italian services in WW2 to the extent it can wipe the floor with the Allies is not a minor thing.
 
Top