If Italy tried to stay neutral after Fall of France, would Hitler let it?

[Deleted member 1487]

1) You still haven’t presented any real evidence that the British would try to strong arm them into neutrality.

Whoa, where did I say they most certainly would? I said it was just as possible as them going soft on Italy given how they panicked after the fall of France.

2) I haven’t looked into the submarine campaign enough. IIRC, an Italian sub was the highest scoring non-German submarine of the war and their surface Fleet isn’t exactly horribly outnumbered anyways.

Well that tells us nothing considering that the Japanese subs were only used as a fleet auxiliary and that was the only other competitor.

Ships sunk by Italy - Axis History Forum

I have some figures regarding Italian submarines during WW2.

From June'40 to Sept'43 Italian boats completed 1,553 patrols, made 173 attacks; fired 427 torpedoes; fought 33 gun actions; sank 23,960GRT of warships ( 4 Light Cruisers, 2 Destroyers, 1 Sub, 3 minor vessels and 1 Auxillary unit) and sank 69,960 GRT of merchant shipping.

But that's a LOT less than the Japanese against just merchant shipping:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Bagnasco credits the Japanese submarine fleet with sinking 184 merchant ships of 907,000 GRT. This figure is far less than achieved by the Germans (2,840 ships of 14.3 million GRT), the Americans (1,079 ships of 4.65 million tons), and the British (493 ships of 1.52 million tons).

3) We’re getting into the weeds here. The Germans would never act like this. In Hitlers vision of the world, the Mediterranean was an Italian sphere and his interests were in expanding at the expense of the Slavs in the East. They weren’t in Western Europe. Hitler might try to pressure Spain’s entry into the war on his side, but he wouldn’t do it by launching an invasion of Spain through the Pyrenees and try to occupy about 1/2 a million km2 of land in Western Europe. He didn’t even want a war with Britain.

And the Italians aren't in this war on his side. Britain is still the enemy. The main attack against Britain failed in Summer 1940. What other option was there given that the British are saving several million tons of shipping per year compared to OTL thanks to having the Mediterranean open? IOTL Hitler contented himself that the Italians had things in order until December 1940, then he got his troops involved and he made his contribution to the Central Mediterranean. That avenue is closed ITTL so Spain is the only route and it is the one Raeder was pushing for; since Raeder was proved right about Sealion he's got more cachet ITTL because there isn't an active Mediterranean theater yet, while IOTL he could say Italy had it covered and then focus on Russia.

Hitler didn't want war with Britain, but he had it on hand and needed to do something about it. It fits in his personality that he could simply force the issue and there was little Franco could do about it, especially after having all the victory disease following the fall of France.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Whoa, where did I say they most certainly would? I said it was just as possible as them going soft on Italy given how they panicked after the fall of France.

Well that tells us nothing considering that the Japanese subs were only used as a fleet auxiliary and that was the only other competitor.

Ships sunk by Italy - Axis History Forum

But that's a LOT less than the Japanese:http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

I could be wrong about this, but what I’m reading about that submarine doesn’t indicate that they were only talking about Axis submarines. Anyways, my point remains. Britain is likely not going to violate Italian neutrality in this scenario or threaten them. France was Britain’s closest ally. They surrendered and the Germans were in their capital. Italy is neutral. If the Germans invaded Italy and occupied Rome with the Italian government surrendering, you’d have a better argument IMO.

 

[raharris1973]

With no Mediterranean front, and no D-Day practical for a long-time, does this mean that the British Empire and maybe later US need to say yes to Soviet entreaties to sending air forces divisions of ground troops through the Middle East to serve on the southern, Caucasus flank of the Soviet front? The Soviets proposed this in both the 1941 and 1942 campaigning seasons in OTL. Given our perceptions of Stalinist paranoia, most would be inclined to assume that direct help in Russia would be the kind of thing that the westerners would propose and the Soviets would reject out of hand, but when looking at the historical record of the war in Europe, the reverse is actually true, the Soviets asked for it and that time the British and Americans ignored it and among themselves noted they had no forces to spare.

Geographically, supplementing the northern, Arctic flank would be a shorter route, but the logistics and climate would be more nightmarish and dangerous.

 

[jerard]

Is a blockade not an act of war? It seems like blockading neutral Italia would be effectively declaring war and even if it is not an act of war I do not see any way that Italia would not declare war over it. I don't see how the British would see war as advantageous over even hostile neutrality. Also, if they try to blockade and expect Italia to remain neutral the RM could blockade the Med too.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

The British did nothing meaningful about Italy apart from a few slap-on-the-wrist sanctions in 1935 when the British weren't fighting Germany and Italy was off busy conquering Abyssinia/Ethiopia; why on Earth would the British attack a neutral Italy in 1940 - or even blockade them?

 

[thaddeus]

seems as though the Nazi regime would be pleased with friendly neutral bloc of Spain, Portugal, and Italy? (just IMO) France would still have a Vichy regime, aren't they going to want Italy to remain neutral as much or more than UK? and thus seek an armistice per historical?

for a Med Strategy, Germany could bypass N.Africa and move on Greece and Syria? or rather occupy Greece and operate from Syria?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The British did nothing meaningful about Italy apart from a few slap-on-the-wrist sanctions in 1935 when the British weren't fighting Germany and Italy was off busy conquering Abyssinia/Ethiopia; why on Earth would the British attack a neutral Italy in 1940 - or even blockade them?

Because every meaningful PoD for WWII has to be twisted into a German victory, silly. No matter what, a PoD as presented has to be given secondary PoDs (no matter how unlikely) to make German victory more likely. Germany only lost WWII through poor decisions of their own, which 99 times out of 100 they would never make again.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

How is it worse ITTL than IOTL? Italy was a large drain on resources, as was all the conflicts they got them into in the Balkans. There are quite a few extra resources to use in Spain if needed.

If Spain opted to resist. They might well just agree to join up because the alternative was worse. If they resisted and Spain became a warzone again after having ended their last war less than 2 years earlier they'd probably face mass starvation and national collapse. German responses to guerrilla warfare would hasten that end. This isn't the Napoleonic Wars, Spain would be a focus for Germany and the Nationalists and Republicans still hated one another, so wouldn't even be offering a unified resistance either and in fact Franco could probably expect his internal enemies to fight him again even if they opted to fight the Germans too.

So, if Spain resists Germany, they face mass starvation and probable civil war - yet if they go to war against Britain, who can blockade the Iberian Peninsular, they can have all these magical German resources and not be a net drain on the Axis? Coupled with this, you're even suggesting that Germany would not just invade and occupy Spain, but run a full blown counterinsurgency and suppression campaign?

Sounds entirely plausible and not at all handwavey.


For what it's worth, British Intelligence found more than enough Nationalists that would resist a German invasion.

 

[marathag]

Their entire pre-war spy network was rolled up early:

But the pre-war spies failed long before then.
Grabbing the spies was three months after the War started. The British and French seem to accepted the vastly inflated numbers of the Luftwaffe at face value at the start, and that they had destroyed the Polish airforce in days, when they fought for two weeks.

The British would not drop any bombs until March 19th,1940, after the Germans had bombed Scapa Flow

Recall, they were terrified to do anything but drop leaflets over German cities at the beginning of the War, and that the Germans had enough men and ammunition to defeat any incursion into the Saar

 

[Deleted member 94680]

But the pre-war spies failed long before then.
Grabbing the spies was three months after the War started.

That and the spy network “rolled up” by Venlo was replaced by one far more effective once Churchill was in power.

So essentially Venlo was a win for the WAllies.

 

[BooNZ]

Hitler didn't want war with Britain, but he had it on hand and needed to do something about it. It fits in his personality that he could simply force the issue and there was little Franco could do about it, especially after having all the victory disease following the fall of France.

Really? I understood it was Churchill who took every opportunity to take the fight to the Axis - from commandos, to North Africa, to Greece etc. Conversely, Hitler had the whole lebensraum thing on his mind. In the scenario provided, the best thing Hitler could do following the fall of France is declare mission accomplished and give Britain the cold shoulder. The British economy was already on the verge of tanking and might struggle to get a US sponsor if it is not gainfully employed plugging the Italians.

 

[King Augeas]

Hitler isn't going to invade Spain because he correctly recognised the Med as a strategic dead end and a distraction from the decisive theatre in the East.

As shown by his defensive attitude to the Med - only intervening to prop up Italy, Rommel's orders to defend Tripolitania. And by the industrial need to seize the industry and resources of Russia for the war against UK and US.

 

[thaddeus]

seems as though the Nazi regime would be pleased with friendly neutral bloc of Spain, Portugal, and Italy? (just IMO) France would still have a Vichy regime, aren't they going to want Italy to remain neutral as much or more than UK? and thus seek an armistice per historical?

for a Med Strategy, Germany could bypass N.Africa and move on Greece and Syria? or rather occupy Greece and operate from Syria?

Hitler isn't going to invade Spain because he correctly recognised the Med as a strategic dead end and a distraction from the decisive theatre in the East.

As shown by his defensive attitude to the Med - only intervening to prop up Italy, Rommel's orders to defend Tripolitania. And by the industrial need to seize the industry and resources of Russia for the war against UK and US.

had the idea they were attracted to the Med Strategy thru Spain but could not juggle the competing interests of Italy, Spain, and (late entrant) Vichy France? and after Battle of Dakar felt they were clever to leave the French empire intact?
my above speculation that without Italy they could focus on the Med only to the extent of securing Greece, and their relations with Turkey. further out on a limb, they might have wanted the French bases in Syria prepared for Operation Pike? not saying they would bomb Baku initially, just that they seemingly would want to possess them? (there almost certainly would not be rebellion in Iraq absent Axis forces driving towards the Suez?)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So, if Spain resists Germany, they face mass starvation and probable civil war - yet if they go to war against Britain, who can blockade the Iberian Peninsular, they can have all these magical German resources and not be a net drain on the Axis? Coupled with this, you're even suggesting that Germany would not just invade and occupy Spain, but run a full blown counterinsurgency and suppression campaign?

Sounds entirely plausible and not at all handwavey.

Blockading is very different than invading. Not only that, but Germany does have access to food through the USSR and even the US Red Cross relief:

Blockade of Germany (1939–1945) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even if they were a drain on resources, the damage they do to the Brits is rather enormous and forces them to expend resources to deal with the expansion of territory they need to blockade, while cutting off supply routes they need.

For what it's worth, British Intelligence found more than enough Nationalists that would resist a German invasion.

Talk is cheap.

But the pre-war spies failed long before then.
Grabbing the spies was three months after the War started. The British and French seem to accepted the vastly inflated numbers of the Luftwaffe at face value at the start, and that they had destroyed the Polish airforce in days, when they fought for two weeks.

The British would not drop any bombs until March 19th,1940, after the Germans had bombed Scapa Flow

Recall, they were terrified to do anything but drop leaflets over German cities at the beginning of the War, and that the Germans had enough men and ammunition to defeat any incursion into the Saar

That's not a failure of the spies, that's a failure of the analysts.
The Brits did drop bombs in 1939 or at least tried to:

Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Really? I understood it was Churchill who took every opportunity to take the fight to the Axis - from commandos, to North Africa, to Greece etc. Conversely, Hitler had the whole lebensraum thing on his mind. In the scenario provided, the best thing Hitler could do following the fall of France is declare mission accomplished and give Britain the cold shoulder. The British economy was already on the verge of tanking and might struggle to get a US sponsor if it is not gainfully employed plugging the Italians.

Can't really ignore them given that Britain is bombing them, blockading them, and raiding them with commandos.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Blockading is very different than invading. Not only that, but Germany does have access to food through the USSR and even the US Red Cross relief:

So, the Nazis just ask for more food from the Red Cross and bingo, everything is copacetic? Anyway, if a nation is on the verge of starvation (so badly that they may plunge into a world war just to avoid the threat) a blockade is an empty threat?

Even if they were a drain on resources, the damage they do to the Brits is rather enormous and forces them to expend resources to deal with the expansion of territory they need to blockade, while cutting off supply routes they need.

And Spain is incredibly vulnerable to blockade and commando raids. So it’s a toss up.

Talk is cheap.

Well, obviously everything the British say is bullshit and the Germans were never guilty of over-exaggeration or bad intelligence. Yes, definitely that and not ever myopic handwaving, oh no.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So, the Nazis just ask for more food from the Red Cross and bingo, everything is copacetic? Anyway, if a nation is on the verge of starvation (so badly that they may plunge into a world war just to avoid the threat) a blockade is an empty threat?

Did you not read the history of the Red Cross doing just that to prevent starvation in occupied Europe in 1940?
The blockade isn't going to be nearly as bad as being occupied and having the entire food supply controlled by an occupying power; an ally can at least bring in food and work with the Red Cross.

And Spain is incredibly vulnerable to blockade and commando raids. So it’s a toss up.

How effective were commando raids in 1940-41? Germany can find ways to help supply Spain with food, while a Spain fighting off invasion with potential British support isn't going to find much help from Britain when they implode quickly and then face occupation.

Well, obviously everything the British say is bullshit and the Germans were never guilty of over-exaggeration or bad intelligence. Yes, definitely that and not ever myopic handwaving, oh no.

Yeah that's a totally fair interpretation of what I said. /s
What I actually said was whatever the British intelligence were told when push comes to shove those Nationalist generals that the SOE were bribing wouldn't necessarily live up to their promises. When someone is paying you to say something, you'll tell them what they want to hear:

MI6 spent $200m bribing Spaniards in second world war

Newly released documents reveal secret services paid out fortune in bid to stop Franco joining war on Hitler's side

www.theguardian.com

Those bribes could and maybe did prevent Franco from willingly joining the Axis (then again, maybe they didn't matter in the end) if faced with invasion or joining then those bribes won't really matter.

 

[thaddeus]

if there was a large"neutral" bloc of Iberia, Vichy, and Italy, that are all fairly sympathetic to Germany ( or fearful of them) a blockade becomes increasingly hard to maintain?

especially if Germany withdrew from large parts of France (of course that would require building their uboat bunkers elsewhere, or limiting them to much smaller area?)

 

[marathag]

Germany can find ways to help supply Spain with food

That's more difficult after Barbarossa, when the Soviets won't be sending over that cheap grain.
After that, the only way the Germans could send enough food to Spain would be to have the Deathcamps produce Soylent Green.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That's more difficult after Barbarossa, when the Soviets won't be sending over that cheap grain.

Sure, but if you'll note I did say that Barbarossa wouldn't really be possible if the Mediterranean option is chosen.

Though with the Mediterranean open to Italy to trade freely, they can also import extra food and transship it.

 

[marathag]

Sure, but if you'll note I did say that Barbarossa wouldn't really be possible if the Mediterranean option is chosen.

I don't think Hitler could ever forgo the Drang nach Osten plans.