How successful would Neutral Italy's wars of expansion be during world war 2

given the alternatives what do you recommend? Convince the French to launch an attack before mobilisation? - the correct answer is to declare war in 1936 but only in hindsight.

Launching a serious offensive instead of an half-hearted attempt that was stopped the moment serious resistance happened or using the airforces in something more usefull than 'pampleth raid' will have helped. The wallies strategy basically sacrificed Poland (and before that Czechoslovackia) to gain time and to bleed Germany...unfortunely the time was wasted, so yes in the end the Anglo-French had effectively sacrificed their allies and all for nothing
 
Bizarre, I would have thought declaring war in line with a public commitment and continuing that war through six years until the German armies surrendered in the field was not selling Poland to the Germans.

It wasn't called "Phoney War" by chance. And it was declared only on Germany, not on the Soviets who had occupied the other half. Plus, it was left to the latter after the war.
 
Without those frontlines the Yugoslavs got a chance to inflict crippling casualties on the Italians. Even, if the Yugoslavs get smart and retreat into the hills, i don't think the Italians can break them at all.

To make my point clear, I don't think this would work (or would be worth the trouble) if there's still a "Yugoslavia". If there's sufficient pull towards independence at least for Croatia, then internal unrest can be supported (Musso was good at this sort of troublemaking, one of his few talents), followed by direct involvement.
 

hipper

Banned
It wasn't called "Phoney War" by chance. And it was declared only on Germany, not on the Soviets who had occupied the other half. Plus, it was left to the latter after the war.

Both the British and French armies needed time to mobilise after WW1 everyone knew hasty military offensives with newly raised troops produce nothing but casualties. Satisfying American Newspaper Headline writers was low down on the Allies priority list. war with the Soviet Union was Discussed but dismissed as impractical.
 

hipper

Banned
Launching a serious offensive instead of an half-hearted attempt that was stopped the moment serious resistance happened or using the airforces in something more usefull than 'pampleth raid' will have helped. The wallies strategy basically sacrificed Poland (and before that Czechoslovackia) to gain time and to bleed Germany...unfortunely the time was wasted, so yes in the end the Anglo-French had effectively sacrificed their allies and all for nothing

Poland’s military position was hopeless from the start. The only thing that would have been worse would have been doing nothing.
 
The italians in the end will not capture city or town...they will level them as even the italian command know how costly is urban warfare or simply bypass them cutting them from supply if possible; regarding stopping the italian invasion due to the terrain...well as border with Austria, the border with Jugoslavia was agreed because it gives Italy the best defensive terrain and OTL the Rupnick line aka the Jugoslavian fortification complex at the italian border was not completed at the time of the invasion and was not a serious obstacle

I don't know specifically what tactics the Italians will use when invading Yugoslavia properly, they might avoid towns and cities or level them, probably. That wasn't my point though, my point is the Italian need to advance, they need to outmaneuver the Yugoslavic forces and not advance a few kilometers and then dig in.

You talk about Italy having the best defensive terrain, but the Italians are not on the defensive. The Yugoslavs are and they have a perfect position for defensive operations in the hills and mountains of the balkans. The forticifation complex would have helped more but the natural fortifications would have been enough on its own. The Italians lacked proper mountaineers, engineers and the terrain would make air support less effective as well.

To make my point clear, I don't think this would work (or would be worth the trouble) if there's still a "Yugoslavia". If there's sufficient pull towards independence at least for Croatia, then internal unrest can be supported (Musso was good at this sort of troublemaking, one of his few talents), followed by direct involvement.

Its a possibility, but i don't think the Croats trust the Italians as much as they do the Germans because Hitler was a lot more practical concerning Yugoslavia. I mean Italy needed those territories and would annex a lot more of the lands the Croats would consider their own and were even promised by Mussolini like Bosnia. Besides the partisan activity will probably force Italy to take more and more control as Mussolini didn't like leaving that sort of thing in the hands of others.
 
Both the British and French armies needed time to mobilise after WW1 everyone knew hasty military offensives with newly raised troops produce nothing but casualties. Satisfying American Newspaper Headline writers was low down on the Allies priority list. war with the Soviet Union was Discussed but dismissed as impractical.

In other words, the Poles were on their own and after Yalta left to the brotherly embrace of Stalin.
Don't get me wrong, that's Realpolitik at its best: hardly any country is going to waste blood and treasure only for someone else's benefit or on a point of principle. But an alliance is not supposed to work like that, at least on paper.

Anyway if you want another less controversial pawn, there's Sudetenland.
 
Its a possibility, but i don't think the Croats trust the Italians as much as they do the Germans because Hitler was a lot more practical concerning Yugoslavia.

There's another scenario: Italy waits and joins the allies around 1944 and pushes into the Balkans with them.
With Yugoslavia possibly being seen axis-aligned, a land grab is less controversial. Dastardly, but possibly effective.
 
There's another scenario: Italy waits and joins the allies around 1944 and pushes into the Balkans with them.
With Yugoslavia possibly being seen axis-aligned, a land grab is less controversial. Dastardly, but possibly effective.

yeah thats not going to happen. If Yugoslavia is neutral the Allies won't ever compromise their sovereignity. Certainly not with the Fascist Mussolini at the helm of a preemptive invasion.

Anyway its not in Mussolini's nature to join the allies.
 
yeah thats not going to happen. If Yugoslavia is neutral the Allies won't ever compromise their sovereignity.

The premise is Yugoslavia being somehow involved with the Germans or even occupied by the Axis.

Anyway its not in Mussolini's nature to join the allies.

The man was a weasel. If he thought a benefit would have come
from it, I doubt he would have had too much heartache going in
that direction (cf. the about-face with Germany after 1935).
 

hipper

Banned
In other words, the Poles were on their own and after Yalta left to the brotherly embrace of Stalin.
Don't get me wrong, that's Realpolitik at its best: hardly any country is going to waste blood and treasure only for someone else's benefit or on a point of principle. But an alliance is not supposed to work like that, at least on paper.

Anyway if you want another less controversial pawn, there's Sudetenland.

the UK was not in alliance with Poland it was the casus belli for a war with Germany.
Going to war with Germany over the Sudetenland would have been a much better idea many people said so at the time, however not those in Government. Given the casualties of the first world war I find it it difficult to condemn them for not starting a war which would kill millions if it was not necessary.
 
Top