What happens if Italy doesn't declare war on France on June 10th 1940?
- Thread starter how
- Start date
I agree that there is little option other than strategic air warfare, most likely combined with nuisance commando raids and one or two larger Dieppe style raids, so initially much like OTL but with the added challenge that there's no German-held territory to can attack in the Med.
The absence of combat in North Africa frees up troops, guns and tanks that make Britain secure faster, and allows better support for the key far eastern locations.
I agree the Japanese would attack anyway but would make slower progress and less spectacular gains. Singapore was very close run OTL so it's quite likely to hold out, which may prevent or at least hinder attacks on Burma (so no or reduced Bengal famine).
Slightly better naval flexibility due to reduced fleet needs in the Med may aid the hunt for the Bismark and butterfly the Hood being sunk if a fully worked up battleship is available. It's also possible that Force Z could be saved.
Having said that, the British would not trust Italy enough to denude the Med of all ships, and they also need enough force to watch and control Vichy warships, but more freedom to reallocate shipping and the ability to transit past Gibraltar would help a lot.
While Vichy is still in being, there aren't any German-held territories in the Med unless or until they take Yugoslavia. A German attack would be hard for Britain to deal with as they would have to avoid neutral Italian waters around Albania as well as the Italian coast if lauching raids or trying to send weapons or troops. The problem is solved if Italy takes Yugoslavia, but this still leaves no direct axis outlets in the Med.
An interesting twist is that no Taranto could influence the Pearl Harbour attack. The Japanese are smart enough to work out how to attack ships at harbour on their own, and would quite likely still want to if possible but there will be no prior example to learn from. If it isn't called off, I'd expect a modest reduction in overall effectiveness rather than a major foul up.
The North African campaign was a training school for the British army, which brought it up to parity in tactics and technique with the Germans by the end of 1942. Without this experience the British, and the Americans for that matter would have been much harder-pressed in Normandy. Also, the Atlantic Wall would have been a much harder nut to crack with a much larger German garrison.
A neutral Italy makes for a larger breathing hole for trade. Not just reliant on the Spanish any more.
If the Germans went ahead and attacked Yugoslavia, or even if the Italians did, while trying to keep it a private war [the British might decide whether or not they want to 'allow' that], the Greek reaction would be interesting. Does Metaxas on watching Yugoslavia get crushed, just hold onto neutrality for dear life as long as he can? Does he reason that he'll be forced to choose sides, and with the German army supreme on the continent, he better just sign on to the Axis? Or does he assume while Yugoslavia is being crushed that Greece is the inevitable next target and he appeals for the landing of British ground and air forces en masse, mobilizing his own Greek forces and offering the Brits bases? He could even phrase such a plea/offer to the Brits in the manner of blackmail: "Greece is highly concerned that neutrality is no longer tenable, in honor of our long ties with Britain and your pledges we are ready to deepen cooperation, but we need immediate, physical guarantees of a full alliance and commitment, otherwise we will be compelled to join the alliance against you, and allow the stronger and bolder forces of Europe to pass through our land."
If the British try to force the Italians to make peace over greece early the Italians might nagotuate to keep small chunks of thier gains like keeping corfu and epirus to incorporate into italian greater albania and act as a aditional buffer to the italian adriatic, by limiting the scope of greek conquests in order to not put the Italians in a position that could threaten the suez the British might be less spooked. If other conterys like bulgaria or turky joined italy this might make the British less willing to make the italian alliance walk away with nothing for fear that italy, bulgaria and turky might join Germany. In a limited peace bulgaria might get to keep thier ww1 borders in Eastern Thrace and turky might get some of greeces islands.
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
Corfu incident - Wikipedia
Epirus (region) - Wikipedia
Greater Albania - Wikipedia
Last edited:
That also means Greece is under much less military pressure because Italian Yugoslavia lies between them and Germany. Italy attacking Greece puts it at war with Britain due to the existing pact with Greece so that's unlikely to happen ITTL. Germany attacking Greece puts it at war with Italy, which is such a bad idea that even the Third Reich might not do it [1].
[1] Message from Kwantung army liaison officer to Hitler. 'Have successfully launched attack on Yugoslavia. Please send reinforcements.'
Deleted member 107190
Stalin asked for British military aid during the Moscow Campaign in late 1941. According to Ken Clarke there was a preliminary plan to send an expeditionary force to fight in Ukraine. Perhaps with no North Africa quagmire Stalin gets it, and we see Indians and South Africans at Stalingrad. Or not, Stalin was always quite uncomfortable about having capitalist troops on his soil.
I wonder what this means for Italy in the long run if they’re neutral or join the allies.
Fascism would last longer but probably still would fall after Italy loses Ethiopia. Monarchy would too survive.
Not sure I agree about it definitely falling after etheopia is lost. It possible they’d pull out due to the war or be forced to leave at some point by the allies. I wonder if it would go like Spain or if facism could be more openly influential till the modern day.
South African troops were only allowed to serve in Africa. If the South Africans I have met are any guide, it wouldn't be fair on the Germans (or the Soviets) if they went to Russia.
Deleted member 107190
I like to think it would’ve resulted in something akin to this:
Deleted member 107190
My mistake but it was actually Alan Clarke not Ken Clarke and it was “Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945”
What about this random option?
Mussolini hesitates to join in for the kill on France on June 10th. But a couple weeks later, just days after the capitulation of France, the Soviets issue their ultimatum to the Romanians to hand over Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. The Romanian King and government, like OTL, immediate order mobilization and consult with the German and Italian Ambassadors. Unlike OTL, the Italian Ambassador, on Mussolini's instructions, recommends the Romanians hold out, and promises to send expeditionary support to help the Romanians in their anti-Soviet fight and to declare war on the Soviets. Assuming things go this far, and despite the Germans probably vehemently disagreeing and strongly recommending a Romanian stand-down, might the Romanians decide to fight rather than yield? If so, would Yugoslavia permit Regia Aeronautica overflights to Romania's aid, and Italian volunteer force ground convoys, and aid convoys? What are the consequences of this emergent Soviet-Romanian War with a side of Italian intervention?
marathag
Banned
Puts Germany in a bad spot of having to choose to back their Axis Ally, or sit it out while the Soviet raw materials flow in.
Yes it would.
Now admittedly, Italy wouldn't get much out of it materially, just the highly speculative prospect of trade and investment opportunity in Romania later. I see the rewards for Mussolini being primarily psychological - international prestige and ideological anti-communist preening and showmanship, done far from home against an enemy who can't realistically follow him home if things go sour.