Italy vs. Vichy

Redbeard · Jun 13, 2005

It is June 1940, the French-Italian border. The air is thick with anxiety and tension as reports of the crumbling French front against the Germans are running in. Everybody expect the Italians to throw themselves upon the French to get a share of the loot - but nothing happens.

Well France falls as in OTL, Vichy is errected etc. but so far no Italian involvement.

Everything remains quiet at the Albanian-Greek border too, and as a consequence on the Balkans in general too - well as quiet as things can be on the Balkans.

22nd of May 1941: Germany attacks Russia - as usual, but a month ahead, as there is no Yugoslavian/Greek mess to clear up.

1st of June: Italy declares war on Vichy France. Strong Italian land forces enter Tunesia from Libya, but apparently no activity at the French-Italian border. Heavy airattacks on Vichy French ports and cities. Italian naval forces place themselves between French North Africa and mainland Vichy France. There are reports of convoys from Italy approaching Algeria. The Italian ambassador informs Berlin that Italy will only claim her just rights in the French overseas posessions, and has no intentions of invading mainland France.

What will Hitler do?

What will Churchill do?

Somebody else going to take action?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

DuQuense · Jun 13, 2005

Italy gets it's ass whipped. They lost when attacking during the fall of France. now France has had a year to recover,

Flocculencio · Jun 13, 2005

Can't resist...

Well the French would surrender but the Italians would retreat when they saw the surrender party coming...

I call it a draw. Or maybe a technical French victory when the French surrender party enters Rome, still driving the Italians before them

Sorry...

MerryPrankster · Jun 13, 2005

Two of Hitler's monkey-slaves fighting with each other?

I think Der Fuhrer is going to slap them down. However, which one will be slapped the hardest?

Italy, for breaking the peace and threatening the unity of the Axis, or France, just b/c Hitler didn't like France?

MerryPrankster · Jun 13, 2005

Flocculencio said:
Can't resist...

Well the French would surrender but the Italians would retreat when they saw the surrender party coming...

I call it a draw. Or maybe a technical French victory when the French surrender party enters Rome, still driving the Italians before them

Sorry...

Hilarious! LOL!

zoomar · Jun 13, 2005

Interesting.

So Italy's entrance into WW2 is less as a "German ally" than more as some type of squabble among axis partners and satellites. An attack on Vichy would not necessarily trigger a war between England and Italy and could even cause considerable irritation in Germany. Given the Italians' notable lack of success in OTL, one might also expect the Vichy colonial forces in Algeria and elsewhere to give a good accounting of themselves. The one month earlier German invasion of the USSR might help knock the USSR out, but unlikely. I suppose the Italian move might also trigger a German invasion of the rest of France, while Britain may take more aggressive action to grab up or destroy Vichy assets elswhere in the world. Most likely Vichy France (having just lost one war) would immediately admit defeat and negotiate away its colonies to Italy in some sort of face-saving agreement. Less likely - although more interesting - possibilities might be a complete break between Hitler and Mussolini and a possible informal partnership between Britain and Italy. Hitler might even consider Petain's France a potentially more valuable ally than Italy and assist the French mlitarily and diplomatically against the Italian attack.
Probably no long term change in overall WW2 direction, however, because the war will be decided on the German-Russian front and I'm not sure a one month head start would necesarily mean the Soviets are knocked out.

benedict XVII · Jun 13, 2005

Vichy split

I'd say more likely (and if Hitler does not put Mussolini in an asylum), Pétain does not know what to do, listen to Laval, and collaborates further with the German. Darlan splits with Pétain, goes to North Africa, bringing the fleet along, and re-joins the war on the side of the Brits to kick the butt off the Italians in Lybia. Darlan always saw the armistice as a trick to gain time and re-join the war when ready; that's what he did at the time of Torch. De Gaulle falls in oblivion, and Darlan becomes the French hero of WWII. Italy gets invaded 6 months to a year earlier. Question becomes, could Hitler defeat Russia before that - unlikely IMHO; if not he gets to fight a two-front war much earlier than OTL.

Holy yours,

Benedict

Nik · Jun 13, 2005

OTL, French Alpine defences *held*...

Unlike the Maginot Line's by-pass through Ardennes etc, there are only so many Alpine passes, and they were all well fortified.

The French there faced frontal assault by astonishing weight of siege guns, but held the passes until *ordered* to surrender.

Jason · Jun 14, 2005

The problem for Vichy is there were strict limits placed on its armed forces-size, equipment, etc-by the Germans so the Italians might stand a chance. I can't see Hitler putting up with it though.

Perhaps a more possible version would be Italy going for the North african colonies that were Vichy controlled?

Wozza · Jun 14, 2005

I did assume Italy vs Vichy would involve fighting in North Africa.

Hitler would back Vichy or risk losing its colonies to the Free French.
In OTL he backed Vichy diplomatically against Spain on this issue.

Jason · Jun 14, 2005

Wozza said:
I did assume Italy vs Vichy would involve fighting in North Africa.

Hitler would back Vichy or risk losing its colonies to the Free French.
In OTL he backed Vichy diplomatically against Spain on this issue.

Didn't realise about Spain and Vichy-interesting, thanks.

I think the big prob for me is Hitler not coming down hard and telling them to stop it and behave. If he backs the Vichy, he would endanger his relationship with Italy and I'm not sure he would see many benefits in that. Italy is fighting Britain, Vichy was not (ignoring French 'volunteer' units in the German forces), surely keeping Italy happy is of more benefit?

Wozza · Jun 14, 2005

France is definitely "worth" more than Spain to Hitler.
Potentially it is worth more than Italy - but how long would it take to realise that potential.
The situation could swiftly swing to extremes as French naval units and colonies desert to the Allies, encouraging the Axis to simply gobble the rest.

Redbeard · Jun 14, 2005

Seen from an Italian point of view this ATL would seem to hold much more potential than OTL, even if only counting the early war years, but it probably requires some 20/20 hindsight to stay on the fence until the Germans are heavily engaged in Russia.

AFAIK Hitler spent considerable effort warning Mussolini about bothering the Vichy French, and in OTL the Italians, heavily entangled in the war and dependent on German help, could nothing but oblige. With a year more the Italians will be much better prepared for war than in OTL, but the Vichy French will still be curtailed by the armistice conditions (Versailles like). The overseas forces were allowed a relative greater strength, not at least because it was in German interest that the Vichy could to some degree defend the overseas possessions. But I believe 1941 Italian armed forces with no war until then will be able to overcome Vichy resistance in Africa. And yes I have read all the jokes about Italian and French fighting abilities, but now we're at it, I think they will do at least as good as the green US troops in North Africa.

I'm in doubt over what Hitler would do. He will probably go mad and bite the carpet or someone's ear, but if he tries to invade Italy he might end up like the Italians in the Alps in 1940, and only having diverted troops from the Russian front. I assume the Italians have heavily manned the defenses in the Alps, and in this TL there are no German troops south of the Alps. If Germany attacks the British and Italians will have a splendid opportunity to consider themselves new allies, forged together by enemy action. If Churchill could do that with Stalin I guess he could with Mussolini too, might even be seen as a suitable balance by some conservatives. For the British it would be an improvement if an ally, even if it is Italy, controlls the French overseas possessions, no matter who the Vichy French forces turn to. Of greatest concern would be the French Navy, but with the Italian on British side, that is a good bargain. As an interesting sidenote, we might now see Italian aircraft powered by license produced Merlins instead of Junckers Jumos. With access to allied supplies and technology Italy might actually become a real asset and anyway a good base for Bomber Command and general concern in Germany.

The smartest German reaction would be accepting the events for now, and hope the situation in the Med. and on the Balkans will remain stable. If/when Russia is dealt with, focus might be turned.

If Italy stays on the fence in 1940 the British situation will indeed be much relieved. As usual the biggest consequences could be in the Far East, but I'll leave that subject in this thread. But I wonder what the British will do from June 1940 to June 1941. They could try to sweettalk the Vichy French in the overseas areas and remind them of the Italian threat, but if Mers-el-Kebir still has happened I guess that will be difficult. On the other hand the Italians staying neutral will make it less necessary to neutralise the French navy. But if Italy entering the British camp, or at least staying neutral, is seen as a real option, that will have to be seen as the optimal situation by the British. I could even imagine the British proposing the Italians to share the French overseas possessions. But seen from Italian viewpoint that would be risky with Germany still appearing invincible. If waiting until after December 1941 it might be different. The optimal Italian scenario would be staying neutral in the allies vs. Germany war.

Stalin would have to hope for a German-Italian war to divert German resources, but I don't see he can have much influence with the German army at his throat.

I don't think the Vichy will throw themeselves into the arms of UK, or even be allowed there. But I could imagine a closer cooperation between mainland Vichy and Germany after the Italian attack.

As both UK and Germany could find it acceptable with a neutral Italy I actually think Italy could get away with such a scenario. If/when Germany gets into deep s... in Russia and USA has entered the war, they of course have an option to join the allies and hope the Vichy have by that time entangled themselves deeply in the German camp. That would be advantageous when it is to be decided who keeps what after the war.

If Germany appear to win in Russia, Italy could try to do a OTL 1940 but with Russia in the role of OTL France.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

benedict XVII · Jun 14, 2005

Britain + Italy vs. Vichy ????

I see too many unlikely points in this scenario:

1. I don't see Churchill going along with such a game, from a moral standpoint. He was sincerely Francophile and a great admirer of the French Empire. He was a staunch early supporter of de Gaulle, who would have immediately publicly denounce such a scheme. Britain would have lost quite a bit of the moral high ground in the war if it helped another dictator benefit from the temporary weakness of France to grab her colonies. Probably quite difficult to explain to your public opinion. Chuchill could support Stalin as an expedient, but he knew better. Mers-el-Kébir was a panick reaction after the armistice; Churchill saw it as a necessary evil and was not exactly proud of it, all the more so since the scuttle of the Fleet in Toulon in 1942 proved his concerns wrong.

2. Britain supporting Italy would have thrown Vichy and the French fleet in the arms of Germany. Britain would have lost French Equatorial Africa which had already rallied de Gaulle at the time. Besides, they could have been attacked from all the other French colonies: Indochina, Levant, etc. This could have the possibility of seriously disrupting Britain's supply lines. Do you want to do that for the hypothetical control of French North Africa, which is actually pretty harmless at that stage? And North Africa to do what, since the Italians would be your ally anyway. If forced to choose, the Brits would be much better off welcoming the French forces, fleet and colonies back into the fray, destroy the Italian fleet and pinch the Italians out of North Africa.

3. I don't buy the argument that Hitler would not have provided support to Vichy if Vichy was also actively fighting against Britain. They would have been very happy to set a foot in North Africa or the Levant. Besides, the French had pretty good military capabilities in North Africa, and they could mobilize troops from a fairly large population. I don't think this would have been a piece of cake for the Italians. The Ethopian campaign was not exactly brilliant. And you could have French forces attacking Italians also from Chad and the Fezzan in the South. In Europe, even with the small Armistice army (still 100,000 men), the French would have been perfectly capable of repelling Italian assaults in the Alps - it took only 2 divisions in June 1940 to do so. Besides, the Italians soldiers were very reluctant OTL to fight against the French, whom they saw as traditional friends - Brits were another matter.

fhaessig · Jun 15, 2005

I've got another question for this thread.

If Mussolini doesn't declare war in 1940, does France surrender or does it keep fighting from Northe Africa ( and Corsica ).

OTL, Mussolini didn't add anything of military worth to the fighting in France ( those defences were mainly mountain troops, without much in the way of armor or mobile guns ), but it was one more drop on the morale of the french people and government ( interestingly enough, it was characterised as a stab in the back ). Witout this, the mood may well swing the other way.

Redbeard · Jun 15, 2005

Ad. Benedict

1. The point in the Italy allied with UK option is that it is not something they have deliberately sought, but they have been bought together by enemy action. Excatly like UK and SU were brought together. I believe it was on that occasion Churchill said something about he would if necessary ally with the Devil to fight Hitler. I agree that Churchill would have severe difficulties in legitemizing an offer of alliance to Italy without German action, but more importantly the Italians would not ally with the British until forced by a German attack – they were physically too close to Germany. I don’t think de Gaulle vill be of any importance, by 1941 the Free French were only a small force of insignificant symbolic importance. The big question of course is if the German will deliver the action bringing Italy and UK together?

2. It is very possible that the Vichy fleet will seek German service in case of “Germany attacks Italy who allies with UK”. But with the Italian fleet on their side that should really not worry the British. There is no way the French elsewhere can stop the British from taking over the colonies etc. not already taken by Italy (or Japan). In OTL the British effectively rounded up the Vichy French and in this TL the British even have more resources available by not being engaged in a major North African Campaign. IIRC Japan had in OTL by mid 41 already been given base rights in French Indochina. In this scenario I wonder if that will still happen, as the British without being heavily engaged in the Med. and NA will be far stronger in the Far East – and take no s...! But that is worth its own thread.

3. Hitler will by supporting Vichy not gain any acces to overseas territories. It is no good to stand on the quayside in Toulon with a “permission to enter North Africa with an army” if the British and Italian navies are controlling the Med. He can of course be worried about what Mussolini will do next, but in a way Hitler is tasting his own medicine as a nearby dictator makes a gamble to see how far he can go. If I was Hitler (putting black comb under my nose to see if it suits me...it doesn’t). I would postpone the Italian problem until having dealt with Russia. But then again he should have thought so in December 1941 when comfronted with a much bigger enemy option. The French forces in NA were quite numerous, but also awfully bad equipped and undersupplied. The Italians would have no trouble in gaining 5:1 superiority in numbers, with better equipped forces and at least as well trained.

But anyway, if you think Hitler will inevitably attack Italy if they bother the Vichy, do you really think Churchill would refuse to see the Italians as allies?

Ad. Fhaessig

I don’t think the Italians staying put in 1940 will change the French decision to quit. That decision was first of all based on the front vs. Germany having collapsed, on the German terms being much milder than was anitcipated and on an expectation of the British quitting soon too. But any PoD that could have had the French staying in the fight indeed is interesting. There is currently a very interesting thread on Bob Henneman’s Warship Discussion Forum (page 2: Alternate 1941...).

But I wonder if a neutral Italy will cancell Mers-el-Kebir? As long as the Italians stay neutral the British will really have no trouble handling the French Navy and I’m sure they in such conditions could bring themselves to perform Mers-el-Kebir. If no Mers-el-Kebir more French overseas territories will earlier become Free French and Hitlers patience with Vichy corespondingly smaller. I could even imagine the Vichy government fleeing mainland France with navy and joning the allies, but probably not before june 1941. If the Italians attack Free French they will also soon be at war with UK, but if say French NA is still Vichy loyal, we’re back in the original options in this thread, but the important point still being if Hitler will attack Italy – IMO with less probability than in a Mers-el-Kebir TL.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard