What if Italy stays out of WWII?

Vichy and its status is a big deal in this TL. Vichy will most likely be still established due to the desire of French leadership to mitigate the German occupation (otherwise the German occupation could be of the most brutal sort and the Germans might be willing to offer Spain and Italy huge rewards to go in).

Conversely the Germans after Vichy is established would have more motivation to make a permanent peace with France (to give the Vichy government more validity and thus ability to defend its colonies). i.e Vichy has more leverage.
 
Vichy and its status is a big deal in this TL. Vichy will most likely be still established due to the desire of French leadership to mitigate the German occupation (otherwise the German occupation could be of the most brutal sort and the Germans might be willing to offer Spain and Italy huge rewards to go in).

Conversely the Germans after Vichy is established would have more motivation to make a permanent peace with France (to give the Vichy government more validity and thus ability to defend its colonies). i.e Vichy has more leverage.

Wholly agree with this - it is a very often underestimated problem in any 'Italy neutral' thread popping up.
OTL, Italy jumped on board to capitalize on France losing and then tried its best to keep Vichy down and weak in order to prepare a future clash over the still-contested areas of Corsica, Nice and Tunisia; and while the Germans could not risk alienating their main ally, they tried to circumvent Italy's efforts as much as they could.
TTL, I would expect an even bigger mistrust between the UK and France, leading to an odd showdown of sorts where Italy finds itself friendly with the UK and Vichy acknowledges the loss to Germany... for now, that is; after all, A-L has changed hands thrice in 70 years, it'll just be seen as yet another phase in the eternal Franco-German fight over the region.
That said, I too think Mussolini will try some kind of dumb stunt, somewhere, which will inevitably lead to him having to accept some kind of bad face-saving compromise.
 
I really doubt it.

Remember Italy wasn't just deadweight.

They had an army in Russia.
They tied down British Army, Royal Air Force and Naval assets.

With no Italy the airdefence the British Isles are better which means less losses in thr battle of Britain for Britain.

Probably a stronger strategic bombing offensive.

Without the Royal Navy being tied down in the med the Royal Navy has more assets available to escort convoys and a Mediterranean open to shipping leading to less losses.

The Italian 8th Army, in it's only major action, got destroyed by the Soviets while the British never really committed much in the way of strategic air assets against the Italians. I'll agree this will help the Royal Navy's position, but the lack of the Balkans operations would allow Barbarossa to jump off sooner (Probably June 10th at the earliest) as well as keeps units like the German paratroops fresh for use. Had a few divisions of them been used in October of 1941, it's likely Moscow would've been taken.
 
With a neutral Italy, Vichy France may become a more effective enemy of Britain - including becoming a full-fledged member of the Axis.
 
The TL posted on the first page brought up the possibility of French leaders favoring the option of fighting on from Southern France since the Italians aren't a threat. Though, the arguments in favor of a more active Vichy also have their merit.

However, the mentioned TL fails to take into account the butterflying of Japanese calculations on British strength. No Med theatre means the fleet can go back to Singapore. The debate over striking south versus accepting American mediation in China will be even more intense, now that it looks like European colonies aren't up for easy grabs anymore.
 
With a neutral Italy, Vichy France may become a more effective enemy of Britain - including becoming a full-fledged member of the Axis.

Neither Petain nor Darlan had the slightest interest in a alliance with Germany. Laval's collaborationist policies were aimed at recovering French strength & eventual independence. The French leaders understood the more Germany won the more difficult it would be to restore French power.

To get to a alliance with Germany the bulk of the remaining leaders need to be removed & a true collaborationist - Quisling type government installed. That's likely to lead to a revolt & a portion of the colonies refusing the new government.
 

Deleted member 1487

Neither Petain nor Darlan had the slightest interest in a alliance with Germany. Laval's collaborationist policies were aimed at recovering French strength & eventual independence. The French leaders understood the more Germany won the more difficult it would be to restore French power.

To get to a alliance with Germany the bulk of the remaining leaders need to be removed & a true collaborationist - Quisling type government installed. That's likely to lead to a revolt & a portion of the colonies refusing the new government.
You sure about that? Darlan was pretty accomodating until it looked like the Germans were going to lose.
 
You sure about that? Darlan was pretty accomodating until it looked like the Germans were going to lose.
I think the accommodation by the Vichy Leaders are more than likely "in their minds," necessary survival until they could accomplish independence and regaining of strength as was suggested in a reply above. I think French Patriotism from the masses eventually will win out and there would be little popular support of true all out alliance with the Axis.
 
Vichy and its status is a big deal in this TL. Vichy will most likely be still established due to the desire of French leadership to mitigate the German occupation (otherwise the German occupation could be of the most brutal sort and the Germans might be willing to offer Spain and Italy huge rewards to go in).

Conversely the Germans after Vichy is established would have more motivation to make a permanent peace with France (to give the Vichy government more validity and thus ability to defend its colonies). i.e Vichy has more leverage.
regardless of what Vichy does, I can see the Wallies using their territory as forward bases... Tunis, Algeria, and Corsica... all of it so that they can threaten southern France. They can justify it pretty easily by claiming the the Vichy regime is illegitimate and only the Free French forces are legit. Or they can just do it because 'needs of war'. If Italy is neutral, occupying French colonies, flooding the Med with allied navies, and reinforcing Malta becomes pretty easy...
 
regardless of what Vichy does, I can see the Wallies using their territory as forward bases... Tunis, Algeria, and Corsica... all of it so that they can threaten southern France. They can justify it pretty easily by claiming the the Vichy regime is illegitimate and only the Free French forces are legit. Or they can just do it because 'needs of war'. .....

Or as OTL they can negotiate flipping the French as they were doing with Darlan before he was assassinated. Had Roosevelt's representatives been more aggressive & Darlan more decisive Ambassador Leahy might have gotten a commitment and a bloodless US securing of most French colonies months earlier.
 
Or as OTL they can negotiate flipping the French as they were doing with Darlan before he was assassinated. Had Roosevelt's representatives been more aggressive & Darlan more decisive Ambassador Leahy might have gotten a commitment and a bloodless US securing of most French colonies months earlier.
great, if it works. If it doesn't, they allies will be going in anyway... with Italy out of the war, there is next to nothing the Germans can do in the Med, especially once the US gets in the war...
 
The Germans could offer a compromise peace to Vichy, lets say early August 1940. Why wouldn't the French agree to something like this. They just got wrecked and the Germans are letting them in on their new order.

Return to 1939! boundaries (Speer's book talks of Hitler not really being interested in Alsace, the population not really being German and their funny dialect)
Immediate return of French POWs (something tangible and immediate)
But a continuing 3 year occupation of OTL areas with continuing occupation costs and a huge indemnity later. (enough time to attack the Soviet Union)
No change in colonial status (what is getting back Togo compared to the lands of the Soviet Union)
Major limitations on French military strength.
Later concessions made on Military strength and occupations costs if French contribute to Soviet invasion.

At this point no need to do OTL Battle of Britain, perhaps just continue July channel attacks and preserve air strength for Soviet Union (Germans think British will have enough un-distracted naval strength to defeat an invasion no matter what). Invade on June 10th the Soviet Union with hundreds of extra aircraft lost in BOB and Crete, the parachute and air landing divisions and the 2 panzer divsions who lost their heavy equipment, sea transporting out of the med out of Greece. I bet the Italians will send a "Blue" division or corps anyway to to help attack the Soviet union.
 
You sure about that? Darlan was pretty accomodating until it looked like the Germans were going to lose.

Darlan was also in ongoing discussions with the US ambassador about rentering the war. His attitude was pretty well summed up as 'If you come with three divisions we will fight you. If you come with twenty divisions we will join you'.

Darlan was removed as head of the government because his negotiations with the Germans were not getting the results anyone wanted. Laval replaced him in the hope a more collaborationist policy would get something usefull out of the Germans.

Jackson's 'The Dark Years' and Paxton's Vichy France's are two good English language histories of Petains government.
 
The Germans could offer a compromise peace to Vichy, lets say early August 1940. Why wouldn't the French agree to something like this...

That is exactly what every Frenchman expected when the cease fire was requested in June. Petain & co expected negotiations to start in the autum and a permanent peace treaty to be in place. When the negotiations failed to appear Petain was a bit nonplussed & the next few years were his search for a way to reach a peace treaty.

The realization the Germans were not going to sign a peace treaty soon was the start of cooling support for Petain. On 22 June 41 the left globally was abruptly moved to the anti Hitler camp, & leftist French ceased any support for any acomadation with Germany. In Dec 41 the French center was lost when the US came in. I remember a remark in a lecture how the two most important leaders of the French in 1942 were Stain & Roosevelt. Their decisions had a lot more relevancy to the future of France, and many French understood this.
 
The Germans could offer a compromise peace to Vichy, lets say early August 1940.

Return to 1939! boundaries (Speer's book talks of Hitler not really being interested in Alsace, the population not really being German and their funny dialect)

they could occupy the Maginot Line as border and that leaves Strasbourg on German side.

would Vichy regime sign treaty that left Low Countries occupied? not acceptable to GB but maybe France would sign?

(my understanding a lot of gold funneled back to Germans was Belgian reserves? so that might be an indication)
 
Last edited:
back from (Vichy) France ... no Italy in the Axis?

what of Hitler's statements on Mideast?

"In the nature of things, this territory was becoming an Italian preserve and it was as such that the Duce laid claim to it. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible. All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Iraqis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest! But the presence of the Italians at our side paralyzed us; it created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw in us accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors."

certainly would be low cost entry into Mideast
 
An interesting angle in this scenario would be how basically all of Mediterranean Europe remains Fascist after the war (if the Allies still win, which is likely, although the Eastern Block might look differently). Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece (okay, Greece is not fascist per se, but Metaxas still maintains a strict military dictatorship that would be closely allied with Italy and Spain). This is enough for them to form a third camp in the upcoming Cold War, or if they join NATO, then the ideology may even spread among the allies. Who knows.
 
Top