Franco-Italian War in the early to mid 30s
- Thread starter fasquardon
- Start date
No, it's Ethiopia we are talking, sure that's were a rebellion even if fragmented...unfortunely for everyone involved it was Graziani in charge at the time and his method were a little on the genocidal side, so if even the Ethiopians in some manner received more help i don't know if it help so much, even because there were not a united front.
The army of the 1940 was depleted of materials and just out of a 'reform' that really made it more weak, not counting that equipment wise it was at the start of a process of modernization as everyone know that the material was quickly become too old and used, not counting that the French have their problem of aquisition and command and more importantly i don't see neither side committed seriously at this kind of hostily.
Frankly is more probable that after a short war and the littlest destruction possible both side will come to term and a stutus quo ante will be the accord.
Difficult, even with three years of humiliating defeat, constant bombardent and a direct invasion, getting out Benny from his seat was not a given.
At least we can see his personal power severely lessened, with the King and other notable taking more responsability on the goverment.
probably have a neutral Italy for (almost) duration of WWII?
might have same effect on France agreeing to armistice as their (OTL) invasion 1940? since they would fear Italy jumping in to resume their earlier conflict?
Italy invaded ALBANIA, which was an Italian satellite anyways. Mussolini wanted an easy conquest to boost his prestige versus Hitler. Deciding to attack France instead of Albania would really require France to do something that makes it look very weak, like (as OTL), have Germany go through its army like a hot knife through butter.
The problem I see for your coup/civil war goal is that you need two Italian factions whose views are utterly opposed to each-other, and who believe that the destruction of a civil war is (in the long term) better for Italy than whatever the status quo is. In OTL, that occurred only in the twilight of WW2, when the Italians committed to the German cause (and sure the Germans were going to pull another miracle, or, if not, would, before their inevitable defeat at least hurt Italy/their families worse than a civil war would) were utterly opposed to the Italians who saw that they needed to very quickly and convincingly show that Italy could be useful to the United States.
I have difficulty imagining what could set the Italians against each-other so badly before Italy was a battlefield of two occupying forces... Perhaps, if Mussolini falls and is replaced by some of the violently pro-German Nazi-wannabes. I don't remember any names, but if I remember right, the Nazi-wannabes were dumb, dangerous people. So after some time to brutalize Jews and upset some power groups (while also bribing other power groups shamelessly), they jump in on the opening phases of the Franco-German war. We see Italian armies getting massacred when they attempt to force the Alpine passes, and the German armies doing significantly worse as this French army, while still tired from the French-Italian war, has also had some sense knocked into them. So France is losing to Germany, but has stopped the Blitzkrieg, is winning against Italy, and the Royal Navy and British expeditionary force in Northern France are just starting to gear up - making the more sane Italians think they should get out of this WW1-rerun as soon as they can. The Italian Crypto-Nazis get wind of this, and do something stupid, like locking up the King. Rumours fly that the King has been killed, British and French secret agents stir the pot aggressively, and vioala! One civil war, as WW2 rages around Italy.
That is all completely thrown together, but what do people think?
fasquardon
I must admit this idea is rather interesting. I'd be delighted if it blossomed into full timeline or perhaps a TLIAD.
was thinking along the lines of what point on timeline would Mussolini miscalculate and stumble into conflict with France instead of Albania not equating the two potential opponents.
not an expert on relative strength of French and Italian forces, would think any attack or action against Tunisia would be much more difficult and costly than (counter)attack against Tripoli?
the civil war/coup idea would be predicated on an Italian loss or withdrawal from conflict, the idea that powers in Rome caused/aided the defeat. there IS a north-south or north-Rome split historically.
not sure who could bring the "vengeance forces" together? maybe better if Mussolini is a matyr, possibly Graziani is at least the figurehead. realize they cannot take Rome, base themselves in north. what would be German interests? keep Italy out of alliance with France and Britain, control the factories in the north, South Tyrol, maybe control Italian submarine force if it was still intact.
not an expert on relative strength of French and Italian forces, would think any attack or action against Tunisia would be much more difficult and costly than (counter)attack against Tripoli?
the civil war/coup idea would be predicated on an Italian loss or withdrawal from conflict, the idea that powers in Rome caused/aided the defeat. there IS a north-south or north-Rome split historically.
not sure who could bring the "vengeance forces" together? maybe better if Mussolini is a matyr, possibly Graziani is at least the figurehead. realize they cannot take Rome, base themselves in north. what would be German interests? keep Italy out of alliance with France and Britain, control the factories in the north, South Tyrol, maybe control Italian submarine force if it was still intact.
What is a TLIAD?
I have been amazed at the response this thread has generated! Usually people aren't too inspired by the questions I post...
I might include this in a TL, but since the PoD in the TL I am working on is in the 20s, it wouldn't quite be our France fighting our Italy...
The scenario I had in mind would be a civil war between the "revenge on France" side, who rashly attack while France is half on the ropes, versus the side who favour sanity and neutrality, and don't really intend to start a civil war, but rather plan a coup and it goes wrong...
fasquardon
Hmm, fleet-in-being made some sense against the RN, but against the French would be a hard sell, since the Regia Marina was designed to face the Marine Nationale. Depending on when exactly the war happens, the Italians might keep their battleships home, given the timing of the reconstructions of the Caio Duillio/Giulio Cesare classes, but the cruiser war will be furious, with plenty of raids on each other's coasts.
Sounds like it would be a glorious waste of men and steel... And quite different from the naval engagements of WW2.
fasquardon
not sure what the French economic situation was exactly but when you look at the expense to Italy of their overseas empire it was tremendous.
about Italian East Africa:
"The colony proved to be extremely expensive to maintain the budget in 1936-37 requested from Italy 19.136 billion lire to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time Italy's entire revenue that year was only 18.581 billion lire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa
just question how long they could sustain any military conflict?
about Italian East Africa:
"The colony proved to be extremely expensive to maintain the budget in 1936-37 requested from Italy 19.136 billion lire to create the necessary infrastructure for the colony. At the time Italy's entire revenue that year was only 18.581 billion lire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa
just question how long they could sustain any military conflict?
Both are in a fragile state - it is the height of the depression. France has the advantage of having a third of the world's gold sitting in its bank vaults, so they'd be alot more able to buy what they needed from abroad. For Italy, when a war happened would be important. Both Abyssinia and the intervention in Spain were very expensive, so if a Franco-Italian war happens before those two things, the Italians have much more in the way of resources to apply to the war.
My bet is that the two powers would be financially exhausted after two years, at most.
fasquardon
that was about my scenario (if even two years duration.) and the rationale why Italy is the loser.
although their fleets are a match the French have multiple ports out of reach and greater economic resources.
envision Italy losing Libya because they are unable to support their troops due to blockade while French can reinforce from Algeria. lose Ethiopia due to financial costs, they retrench to hold the remainder of Italian East Africa.
downside for France they lose some of their fleet and have to draw troops from metropolitan France to N.Africa (and move others from Belgium border to border with Italy.)
this lasts from April 1939 until early 1940, Germany is operating as OTL. the invasion of France occurs, perhaps a bit more successful. the split in Italy occurs when the establishment of monarchy, etc. attempts to remain out of the new conflict https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=312675
I'm thinking there should be many similarities to the battles in the Solomon Islands(which gave the waters around Savo Island the nickname of Ironbottom Sound...), with the added factor of offensive minelaying by fast units - I think that was one of the French contretorpilleurs' envisioned missions(and the Italians would try this as well). This might be bad for the French, since it plays to the Regia Marina's strengths, but whoever the winner is, he won't be in a good shape afterwards.
My thinking is that such a war is highly unlikely to come about. At the VERY most, it starts as a series of border incidents following aggressive posturing by both sides - no way is either Mussolini or the French going to willingly and deliberately go against the other.
So, given that, what's the most likely way such a war can develop ?
For one, the British are going to support the French diplomatically and impose sanctions against Italy, claiming they started it (regardless of whether that's true or not). Meanwhile, the French will be constantly looking over their shoulder, checking what the Germans may be up to, fearing an attack whilst their off on wild goose-chases in the African deserts or Alpine heights.
What does this mean ? Well it means both Italy and France have an incentive to finish the war early - France for fear of a German backstab and due to economic concerns (the main reasons why they didn't contest the Rhineland occupation OTL was that it would have triggered a capital flight out of France that would have led to their default within days), whilst Italy due to the adverse effect of the sanctions and fear of a British entry. Therefor, we can safely conclude that such a war is going to be relatively short.
Now about the action:
French doctrine was centered around static defense of fortified positions, whilst Italian doctrine was all about defending Alpine mountain passes and hills, followed by a counterattack.
Just like the French, the Italians also had their own fortified line along the Alps, and we can safely assume that any French attack in this area, on the off chance that it happens in the first place, is going to be beaten back. Everything - the terrain, the fortifications, the enemy numbers, equipment and doctrine - leads to this conclusion. Likewise for the Italians, on whom we have a historical account of how they fared - after 3 days of fighting (with the main advance held up by a snowstorm), France lost 200 men KIA/MIA and a further 1400 taken prisoner, whilst Italy lost ~ 1200 men KIA/MIA and a further 2600 casualties due to frostbite. So, basically, the Alps are a terrible place to be fighting in, and neither side is going to make any significant gains.
This leaves the other theaters. In East Africa, it's pretty much a given that French Somaliland is going to be taken, and this might well be the only significant gain anyone is going to make.
In the mediterranean islands, nobody really has the numbers or capability to mount a successful amphibious operation.
Regarding naval combat, both countries have similarly sized fleets, and both are known for using them conservatively (especially Italy). I doubt anyone is going to risk their battleships and, if they do, their orders will be such that they'll decline any but the most one-sided of engagements. This means the the brunt of the fighting is going to be carried out by lighter units, and, besides the sporadic raids and counterraids up north, the main objectives are going to be the blockading of Tunis and Tripoli, respectively.
Here, the French are at a disadvantage, since their naval bases at Tunis and Bizerta are very vulnerable to Italian naval and air assets which basically surround them on 3 sides, stationed in Sicilly, Sardinia and Tripoli. It will be much harder for the French to escort merchant vessels into Tunis than it will be for the Italians into Tripoli. Thus, French supplies are going to have to be mostly brought up overland from probably as far away as Algiers, with some of the smaller ports between there and Tunis being either too small, too vulnerable or both. Having to bring their supplies over such a long distance, French commanders are going to be unable to sustain any kind of offensive towards Tripoli for long (not that they would want to attack in any direction anyway), since the large density of troops on both sides (OTL, Italy had 10 divisions sitting at the Tunisian border at the start of the war) would probably require a rate of ammo consumption way above what French supply lines can handle. Moreover, the Italians are fighting in their preferred setting - temperate climate, close to their supply depots, defending a series of hills. The last argument against a French victory, as so many posters seem to fantasize about, is that the French have ZERO experience fighting in such a setting, whilst the Italians can bring up all of their veteran from the Abissinian campaign.
OTOH, if Mussolini will want an offensive into Tunisia, he's going to be severely disappointed, as the French positions along the Mareth Line, again filled to the brim with French soldiers, are going to thwart any attack.
Thus, apart from Djibouti, neither side is going to capture anything of note, and both will be eager to have this stupid war (they didn't want in the first place) over.
So, given that, what's the most likely way such a war can develop ?
For one, the British are going to support the French diplomatically and impose sanctions against Italy, claiming they started it (regardless of whether that's true or not). Meanwhile, the French will be constantly looking over their shoulder, checking what the Germans may be up to, fearing an attack whilst their off on wild goose-chases in the African deserts or Alpine heights.
What does this mean ? Well it means both Italy and France have an incentive to finish the war early - France for fear of a German backstab and due to economic concerns (the main reasons why they didn't contest the Rhineland occupation OTL was that it would have triggered a capital flight out of France that would have led to their default within days), whilst Italy due to the adverse effect of the sanctions and fear of a British entry. Therefor, we can safely conclude that such a war is going to be relatively short.
Now about the action:
French doctrine was centered around static defense of fortified positions, whilst Italian doctrine was all about defending Alpine mountain passes and hills, followed by a counterattack.
Just like the French, the Italians also had their own fortified line along the Alps, and we can safely assume that any French attack in this area, on the off chance that it happens in the first place, is going to be beaten back. Everything - the terrain, the fortifications, the enemy numbers, equipment and doctrine - leads to this conclusion. Likewise for the Italians, on whom we have a historical account of how they fared - after 3 days of fighting (with the main advance held up by a snowstorm), France lost 200 men KIA/MIA and a further 1400 taken prisoner, whilst Italy lost ~ 1200 men KIA/MIA and a further 2600 casualties due to frostbite. So, basically, the Alps are a terrible place to be fighting in, and neither side is going to make any significant gains.
This leaves the other theaters. In East Africa, it's pretty much a given that French Somaliland is going to be taken, and this might well be the only significant gain anyone is going to make.
In the mediterranean islands, nobody really has the numbers or capability to mount a successful amphibious operation.
Regarding naval combat, both countries have similarly sized fleets, and both are known for using them conservatively (especially Italy). I doubt anyone is going to risk their battleships and, if they do, their orders will be such that they'll decline any but the most one-sided of engagements. This means the the brunt of the fighting is going to be carried out by lighter units, and, besides the sporadic raids and counterraids up north, the main objectives are going to be the blockading of Tunis and Tripoli, respectively.
Here, the French are at a disadvantage, since their naval bases at Tunis and Bizerta are very vulnerable to Italian naval and air assets which basically surround them on 3 sides, stationed in Sicilly, Sardinia and Tripoli. It will be much harder for the French to escort merchant vessels into Tunis than it will be for the Italians into Tripoli. Thus, French supplies are going to have to be mostly brought up overland from probably as far away as Algiers, with some of the smaller ports between there and Tunis being either too small, too vulnerable or both. Having to bring their supplies over such a long distance, French commanders are going to be unable to sustain any kind of offensive towards Tripoli for long (not that they would want to attack in any direction anyway), since the large density of troops on both sides (OTL, Italy had 10 divisions sitting at the Tunisian border at the start of the war) would probably require a rate of ammo consumption way above what French supply lines can handle. Moreover, the Italians are fighting in their preferred setting - temperate climate, close to their supply depots, defending a series of hills. The last argument against a French victory, as so many posters seem to fantasize about, is that the French have ZERO experience fighting in such a setting, whilst the Italians can bring up all of their veteran from the Abissinian campaign.
OTOH, if Mussolini will want an offensive into Tunisia, he's going to be severely disappointed, as the French positions along the Mareth Line, again filled to the brim with French soldiers, are going to thwart any attack.
Thus, apart from Djibouti, neither side is going to capture anything of note, and both will be eager to have this stupid war (they didn't want in the first place) over.
Would Djibouti fall so easily? It is two-thirds as big as Belgium, and the Italians can't use their full strength in the region to attack.
Good points about the Italian advantages in North Africa. The Italians do have a problem in that they lack rail lines though, whereas the French have rail lines right along the coast.
fasquardon
Good points about the Italian advantages in North Africa. The Italians do have a problem in that they lack rail lines though, whereas the French have rail lines right along the coast.
fasquardon
If there is war it's not the french who will start it. In this period in France most french politician are pacifist with few exception. If crisis happen their will be negotiation still I don't think the french would give any territory without a fight. If there is a crisis tension will build up and both countries will start a build up.
you might be correct but my scenario in any conflict is that they would "switch" colonies, Italy able to capture Djibouti (basing my assumption off their OTL capture of British Somaliland) and France able to capture Tripoli (based off their supply lines to Algeria and Morocco, since Italy could not blockade whole N. Africa coast but France "probably" could maintain an effective blockade of Tripoli)
(think the Brits might lend an unseen hand in the conflict in exchange for Cyrenaica and the departure of Fascists from their western border?)
I was basing my assumption on the fact that, in 1940, the French had 7k men garrisoning the place whilst the Italians had (granted after they had mobilized a large number of Ethiopians) a staggering 250k. Even if we exclude (1) this mobilization (on which I've seen estimates that it doubled the number of men available to the Duke of Aosta) and (2) the fact that Italy still has to garrison large parts of East Africa (lets say 40% of their forces), the French would still be outnumbered at least 10 to 1.
Moreover, from what I've read, planning for an offensive against Djibouti was the cornerstone of Italian strategic thinking in the area ever since their victory against Ethiopia, so they're bound to have at least some idea on how to attack the place.
What's more, the French will be unable to reinforce with units from back home in time, given that they'll have to ship them all around Africa. They could try and rush in forces from Syria, Madagascar or FIC, though I doubt these would be sufficient or in time.
Actually, curiously enough, they do. They have a line running from Tripoli due west, originally built to more easily transport locally produced fruit for export or something.
How, exactly ? Tunis, their main base of naval operations, is seriously exposed and relatively easily interdicted. Units based there will have their hands full defending their base vs Italian raids.
Meanwhile Italy can have her convoys swing as far east as needed and approach Tripoli close to the coast, which puts some distance between them and French bases in northern Tunisia.
France would roll over Italy. Not that this war would happen. The French are rightfully more worried about Germany at this point and want Italy as a possible ally to prevent German expansion.
I agree with the suggestions about Spain. Some rudimentary ideas:
- The fascists are more powerful among the Spanish Nationalists than they were IOTL, where it was mostly dominated, if I recall correctly, by conservative Catholic traditionalists.
- France, consequently, is less sympathetic to the Nationalists and more to the Republicans (I do know that different Frenchmen had very different opinions IOTL in that respect; I'm suggesting that the pendulum shifts towards the Republican side)
- Italy intervenes in the Spanish Civil War as IOTL
- Some very well-equipped French volunteers for the Spanish Republic (our AA guns didn't come from north of the Pyrenées, honest, guv) manage to do some serious damage to Italian forces
- Italy learns of this, and either makes some reckless demands for France to give them over (which will be refused) or captures and executes them
- France and Italy end up at war