Italy remains neutral in World War II. What happens to its territories and colonies?

As I mentioned, that might happen but it would take a few years.

The war would be shorter so probably no more than a year or two. If they wait longer than that the war will be over, or at least so close to the end of the war they couldn't expect much. If it would happen, I would assume it would happen after the war definitely turned but before their "help" would be nearly useless. If all they do is help "mop up" they couldn't expect much of anything. Even Mussolini would realize that.
 
The war would be shorter so probably no more than a year or two. If they wait longer than that the war will be over, or at least so close to the end of the war they couldn't expect much. If it would happen, I would assume it would happen after the war definitely turned but before their "help" would be nearly useless. If all they do is help "mop up" they couldn't expect much of anything. Even Mussolini would realize that.

1938 to 1940 already is a year or two. Also I wouldn't be sure that Italy's neutrality benefits the Allies so much.
 
1938 to 1940 already is a year or two. Also I wouldn't be sure that Italy's neutrality benefits the Allies so much.

If you are talking about from 1938, then yes. I was thinking more 1940 when Italy decided to join the Germans militarily, which would bring out to 1941-1942. The war only lasted to 1945 and it turned in 1942, while it was clear to have turned in 1943. In TTL I would expect it to turn in late 1941-early 1942 and it clearly turning mid to late 1942.
 

MatthewB

Banned
I may be wrong, but Im quite certain there was a point early in WWII that Hitler had strongly encouraged Italy to just sit out and be a neutral that could support Germany through trade because he knew the Italians were not going to be very effective in the war and that Germany would have to spare material and men to bail them out (as actually happened).
With no need to rescue the Italians in Greece and North Africa, Germany can launch Barbarossa in the Spring of 1941, and perhaps defeat the USSR. If that happens, Italy's colonies will be at risk.
 
especially those on the coast with education in Italian,
Wouldn't that just make them bilingual

and more opportunities for those who convert to Catholicism will help.
Expect no one in Italian Libya did convert and nor did the Italian government try to convert.

If the bulk of the coastal/settled Arab populations becomes sufficiently "Italianized" or heavily invested in the system, the position of the deep desert or nomadic tribes is much less important.
The notion of the oil money going to Rome instead of serving the locals could serve to drive separatism even among the Italian population. There also the question of how much Italy would tolerate a 10% Arab and/or Muslim population without accounting for the population of these groups in mainland Italy as opposing to deciding they don't want them voting in the elections and op to get rid of the territory.
 
Last edited:
With no need to rescue the Italians in Greece and North Africa, Germany can launch Barbarossa in the Spring of 1941, and perhaps defeat the USSR.

No. The Germans would have a couple more Panzerdivisionen, a couple more mountain divisions, a few more infantry divisions, and of course the paras. That's all good - provided that the two additional gas-guzzlers don't essentially even the advantage of being there with the disadvantage of the fuel needed.
The Germans also have, in the long run, many more trucks, which is again a big advantage, provided they can fuel them.

But they'd still have an army that is not ready in spring, and lots of bad weather until mid-June.

If that happens, Italy's colonies will be at risk.

Not if Italy is neutral.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Not if Italy is neutral.
The Dutch were neutral, and Germany rolled through regardless. The Portuguese were neutral, but still lost Timor to both the Wallies and Japanese (but not Macau). If Germany is victorious in Russia, not even neutral Switzerland will be safe, let alone Italy.
 
Last edited:
The Dutch were neutral, and Germany rolled through regardless. The Portuguese were neutral, but still lost Macau and Timor to the Japanese. If Germany is victorious in Russia, not even neutral Switzerland will be safe, let alone Italy.

There's neutral and neutral, evidently. The Soviets were neutral when attacked, the USA were neutral when attacked.

Frankly, when I mentioned that Italy would be neutral, I thought you were referring to some strange effect of the Soviets' demise that made the Allies attack the Italian colonies - which are the place you claimed might be at risk, as opposed to the homeland. The Germans, even if they occupy the European SU to the A-A line, still have no way to threaten Italian East Africa or Libya.

Might the Germans threaten Italy in the Alps? Yes, like they could do the same to Switzerland, as you say. Occupying densely-populated territory fighting through difficult terrain which would give him no strategic advantage and no Lebensraum would be useful to Hitler how exactly?

In any case, if we go for the worst case and Germany does attack Italy across the Alps after having occupied the European SU, Italy would assume the default position - siding with the Allies. This would give the Allies more manpower, a good defensive front, a further air lane for strategic bombing. Italy might well lose its northern half to a costly german advance (costly for the Germans), then stop them, with substantial US and British help, along the Apennines in a reverse position wrt OTL. Meanwhile, guerrilla in the Ukraine and counterattacks along the A-A line, bombing of Ploesti, naval blockade. And no Italian aluminium for the Luftwaffe's fuselages.

And all the time, no threat to the Italian colonies. It's not as if Germany, having won in the SU, could threaten the British or Free French African colonies, either.
 
in the case of a neutral Italy (and possibly even opportunistic Vichy regime) they could settle 10's of thousands, or 100's of thousands of Jews across N.Africa? that would certainly change the demographics, giving them if not a "loyal" minority, one that could be played against the Arab plurality?

a cynical (and profitable) plan, for which they could later claim pious, humanitarian reasons.
Tens of thousands, possible, more, perhaps, but sounds harder.
 
That's the established interpretation, but I had assumed the decision not to go to war was a last-minute choice, after 1938. If the PoD is earlier, then of course the laws can be not enacted at all.

Agreed. Also, AFAIK Germany made no pressure on Italy about that. it was entirely Mussolini's choice.
Very obviously, it was a signal of increasing pro-German alignment by Italy. But there are also deeper reasons, such as the increasingly racialist approach in the colonies that fed an increasingly racist Fascist outlook overall.
Mussolini is on record with extremely contradictory staments on this point, but a racist streak existed within Fascism from about the start.
 
...
Mussolini is on record with extremely contradictory staments on this point, but a racist streak existed within Fascism from about the start.

Anti semitism was nearly as strong In pre facist Italy as anywhere else in Europe. The fascists were not inventing it, they just picked up on a racist trope that had existed in Europe since the dark ages.
 
@ Michele: Absent the German push on antisemtic laws, the Italian government could encourage more "Italians" to go to Libya by making it exempt from those laws, so more opportunity for Jews there. Additionally increasing efforts to Italianize the locals, especially those on the coast with education in Italian, and more opportunities for those who convert to Catholicism will help. "Italianized" Arabs, especially by the early to mid-1950s when oil discoveries are made, will have a strong personal reasons for supporting Italy rather than some Arab independence movement. They, and equally importantly, their children, would be seen as as foreign as the Italian settlers. Especially for those who have become agnostic or converted the second generation of "Italian Arabs" will be seeing intermarriage, yet another bond.

If the bulk of the coastal/settled Arab populations becomes sufficiently "Italianized" or heavily invested in the system, the position of the deep desert or nomadic tribes is much less important.
I doubt that Italy could assimilate the Arabs, since blue collar colonists will snivel and whine about the competition, which will scuttle any attempts at educating the natives ( see Algeria and Rhodesia).
 
I doubt that Italy could assimilate the Arabs, since blue collar colonists will shovel and whine about the competition, which will scuttle any attempts at educating the natives ( see Algeria and Rhodesia).
There's few enough Arabs that the Italian could achieve a plurality by sheer immigration alone.
 
Top