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

[Peg Leg Pom]

If you can't take the Home Isles that's the only option.

No it's not. The only way Germany can beat Britain is to strangle its trade with the rest of the world. That means Uboats in the Atlantic and raids on British ports not mucking about with a side show in the Med. If Germany wants to interfere with Britain in the Med, they just have to encourage Vichy France to make a nuisance of itself. It may be undeclared but Britain and Vichy are at war. Battles have been fought, ships sunk, men killed and air raids launched.

 

[Catspoke]

The Nazis might be particularly annoyed if Italy struck some deal with Britain/France in June 40 instead of declaring war (Italy getting the Azouzu strip in Chad, Suez canal financial deals, rights in Tunisia, Malta, that sort of thing in exchange for peace. (Moving Italy closer to the Allied block), vs. just sitting out passively.

Aouzou Strip - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The big questions are as suggested above, does France stay in the war (as suggested above). If so Germany is ringed in pretty well. They could offer massive/carrot stick to Spain (in this TL they occupy the entire Pyrenees border with their unstoppable armies rolling up to it early July, can offer a huge swath of French territories (including even a strip of metropolitan France), and even a chunk of the massive looting of France that would surely be going on in such a TL. (isn't this the Guderian favored scenario????)

If France goes Vichy just the same, is Britain less threatened, that they can be more patient and not do the Oran deal??? or would Britain just use their less commitments to more thoroughly pick off Vichy faster.

With Britain less committed can the build up a large force in Singapore so the Japanese can not think about attacking????

 

[Michele]

And? I was talking about WWII not WWI.



But wasn’t blockaded. Britain did most of its work via economic warfare in WWII. Spain still sold tungsten and the like to Germany, here I’m proposing Italy can do the same. Also, how does an allied blockade stop Italian indigenous goods being sold to Germany by land?

The WWI international trade system was only made more stringent in WWII. It was the navicert-based system. Exactly the economic warfare.

Yes, a neutral Italy might sell locally produced goods to Germany. That's chiefly, aluminium, which is undoubtedly useful for the Luftwaffe's fuselages. That's the same as the Spanish tungsten, the Swedish ore and ball bearings, or the Turkish cigarettes.

But talking about a "hole in the blockade", per previous posts, would seem to refer to Italy importing, say, more oil and rubber than it needs, then selling the surplus to Germany. That's not going to happen. The British will stop that at the source. They totally did so in OTL.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

If Italy, under Mussolini, or if replaced by another fascist or constitutional monarchical leadership tried to be neutral, would Hitler let it be neutral or attack?

Yes. Ther would be no reason to attack them and under their agreements, I’m pretty sure that Hitler had agreed not to start a war until the Italians had completed their rearmament in 1942 to 1943. This is a big part of why Ciano was upset with them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Sorry, missed this earlier.

How does no Italy make Spain’s position any better? They didn’t join the Axis OTL as they would be screwed, not because of some anti-Italian bias. All that still stands ATL where there’s no Italy. Hitler couldn’t persuade them to join OTL, having less allies ATL hardly makes him more attractive.

I have no idea what you're responding to, but its not the point I was making.
I'm saying that Germany would likely force the issue with Spain to close the Mediterranean to British shipping, because without Italian entry there is no way to do that short of bringing Spain into the war whether Franco likes it or not. Plus then it opens unrestricted shipping into the Mediterranean by Italy, which would make them then an open conduit to break the British blockade, as with Gibraltar controlling access to the Mediterranean they would be restricted. See below the details about how that worked IOTL.

And? I was talking about WWII not WWI.

Don't be obtuse. I was referring to it as a model of how it would be done in WW2. In fact that was in place somewhat prior to Italian entry.

Blockade of Germany (1939–1945) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One lesson that was learnt from World War I was that although the navy could stop ships on the open seas, little could be done about traders who acted as the middleman, importing materials the Nazis needed into their own neutral country then transporting it overland to Germany for a profit.[25] Leigh–Ross spent the months before the war compiling a massive dossier on the annual quantities of materials the countries bordering Germany normally imported so that if they exceeded these levels in wartime, pressure could be brought on the authorities in those countries to take action. Diplomats from the Scandinavian nations, as well as Italy and the Balkan countries, who were also major suppliers to Germany, were given quota lists of various commodities and told they could import these amounts and no more, or action would be taken against them.

But wasn’t blockaded. Britain did most of its work via economic warfare in WWII. Spain still sold tungsten and the like to Germany, here I’m proposing Italy can do the same. Also, how does an allied blockade stop Italian indigenous goods being sold to Germany by land?

See above.
The Italian economy could not function without imports and the Brits did their homework about how to throttle the Italian ability to export to Germany by controlling imports via Gibraltar.

If it is a bad option, that means it is no option?
There is still a whole Soviet Russia for him to take, every single loss he takes in the Med and a gallon of fuel expended there is a self-inflicted wound.

Not if it opens Italy up for trans-shipping and measurably cripples Britain, as the diversion of shipping around Africa instead of via the Mediterranean did IOTL with Italy in to the tune of millions of tons of shipping per year, but with them out Spain is the only way to achieve that.

If Spain was selling food to Nazi Germany during what was called "Los años del hambre" (the hunger years) that would have been really a crime by the Franco government against his people. @wiking Would you be able to post some links to support this? (I am not doubting you just want as much information about this as possible)

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1304&context=auilr

[/URL]

Before exploring this issue further, it is necessary to point out that, after Spain readjusted its relations with Italy and Germany upon adhering to the Steel Pact, Spanish exports to Germany increased quite dramatically. From 1940 to 1941, the value of Spanish exports to Germany increased ten-fold. Moreover, food product exports increased fifteen times. While the food products flowed to Germany and Italy, the Spanish people starved and endured great suffering.

Spain During World War II

The story of Spain during World War II has largely been viewed as the story of dictator Francisco Franco's foreign diplomacy in the aftermath of civil war. Wayne H. Bowen now goes behind the scenes of fascism to reveal less-studied dimensions of Spanish history. By examining the conflicts within...

books.google.com

No it's not. The only way Germany can beat Britain is to strangle its trade with the rest of the world. That means Uboats in the Atlantic and raids on British ports not mucking about with a side show in the Med. If Germany wants to interfere with Britain in the Med, they just have to encourage Vichy France to make a nuisance of itself. It may be undeclared but Britain and Vichy are at war. Battles have been fought, ships sunk, men killed and air raids launched.

Remind me how that went IOTL?

 

[Michele]

No it's not. The only way Germany can beat Britain is to strangle its trade with the rest of the world. That means Uboats in the Atlantic and raids on British ports not mucking about with a side show in the Med. If Germany wants to interfere with Britain in the Med, they just have to encourage Vichy France to make a nuisance of itself. It may be undeclared but Britain and Vichy are at war. Battles have been fought, ships sunk, men killed and air raids launched.

Just think of the U-Boote sent to the Med. They can all be across the Western Approaches.
Yes, I know, there wouldn't be the Italian submarines, but those that could be used in the Atlantic were not a large number, and anyway most of them achieved few results.

 

[lukedalton]

Not really given that Britain controls access to the Mediterranean and can impose import restrictions like in WW1 to prevent Italy from breaking the blockade.

Technically, yes...but in practice very difficult due to political motivations; if mainland France fall and even if the goverment decide to continue to fight from the colonies the overall entente position will be much much worse than WWI and Italy is not Norway or Netherlands or even WW2 Spain, it's a Great Power that can make the British life problematic in case war due to her position. So it's much more probable that the British goverment will tollerate a certain level of import and trade between the two nations (they sold rubber to the soviet knowing that they will have reselled to the Germans to not give Stalin reason to support more the Nazi)...at least till the USA are not in the war and the situation in the continent is more favorable to them.

But talking about a "hole in the blockade", per previous posts, would seem to refer to Italy importing, say, more oil and rubber than it needs, then selling the surplus to Germany. That's not going to happen. The British will stop that at the source. They totally did so in OTL.

They did it before the Fall of France but if this happen the entire set of strategic option available to the United Kingdom change and not for the better, mean that while technically capable of stopping the various import...the price for do it will become to high and London will be forced to be less 'severe' in his deal with a great power like Italy, at least till the situation don't change.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Technically, yes...but in practice very difficult due to political motivations; if mainland France fall and even if the goverment decide to continue to fight from the colonies the overall entente position will be much much worse than WWI and Italy is not Norway or Netherlands or even WW2 Spain, it's a Great Power that can make the British life problematic in case war due to her position. So it's much more probable that the British goverment will tollerate a certain level of import and trade between the two nations (they sold rubber to the soviet knowing that they will have reselled to the Germans to not give Stalin reason to support more the Nazi)...at least till the USA are not in the war and the situation in the continent is more favorable to them.

They did it before the Fall of France but if this happen the entire set of strategic option available to the United Kingdom change and not for the better, mean that while technically capable of stopping the various import...the price for do it will become to high and London will be forced to be less 'severe' in his deal with a great power like Italy, at least till the situation don't change.

Conversely Churchill could well panic and try to strong arm Italy like they did with France at Mers el Kebir.

 

[naraic]

Just think of the U-Boote sent to the Med. They can all be across the Western Approaches.
Yes, I know, there wouldn't be the Italian submarines, but those that could be used in the Atlantic were not a large number, and anyway most of them achieved few results.

How much shipping did it cost the UK to have to go around Africa when the med was closed? How much does not having the Mediterranean as a combat theater save in terms of releasing escorts for the Atlantic.

 

[lukedalton]

Conversely Churchill could well panic and try to strong arm Italy like they did with France at Mers el Kebir.

Sure it's a possibility, in that case Italy will no more neutral, the war a lot less problematic in the homefront and even if Italy go as OTL, Benny and in general the fascist party will be a lot (and i mean a lot) less hated and in the political wilderness for many decades due to the fact that they will perceive themselfs as the victim that honestly minded their own business before being attacked

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Not if it opens Italy up for trans-shipping and measurably cripples Britain, as the diversion of shipping around Africa instead of via the Mediterranean did IOTL with Italy in to the tune of millions of tons of shipping per year, but with them out Spain is the only way to achieve that.
...

Historically, it was the mere presence of Italy being on Axis side all but closed Med. Without Italy, Germans or no Germans does not make a difference.

 

[thaddeus]

Historically, it was the mere presence of Italy being on Axis side all but closed Med. Without Italy, Germans or no Germans does not make a difference.

are you meaning the Med would be used even if the Germans (somehow) made an effort there?

 

[Michele]

How much shipping did it cost the UK to have to go around Africa when the med was closed? How much does not having the Mediterranean as a combat theater save in terms of releasing escorts for the Atlantic.

Well, good points.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Historically, it was the mere presence of Italy being on Axis side all but closed Med. Without Italy, Germans or no Germans does not make a difference.

Not sure what you're trying to say here especially with the second sentence. If the Germans invaded Spain and close the Strait of Gibraltar then the Med. is closed to shipping.

 

[tomo pauk]

are you meaning the Med would be used even if the Germans (somehow) made an effort there?

Yes.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

That geography much more mattered than Germans.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Conversely Churchill could well panic and try to strong arm Italy like they did with France at Mers el Kebir.

The situations aren’t really comparable. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to set quotas on shipments to Italy. It could go either way. Italy doesn’t have the same clout as the Soviet Union or Spain. It’s somewhere in the middle and British interwar planning, was to try and weed out the Italians from the Axis in order to preserve shipping through the Mediterranean and prevent their forces being overstretched in 3 theatres. Italian neutrality might even butterfly away Mers-el Kebir. Germany has a tiny surface fleet and Italy is neutral. They might not want to provoke France, since they’d have the second most powerful fleet in the war in 1940.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I have no idea what you're responding to, but its not the point I was making.

I was responding to this ridiculous idea that seems to have sprung up lately on here that (absent any kind of PoD) Germany can get Spain into the War through force of will and they simply decided not to OTL. The PoD here is Italy isn’t in the War. This makes Germany’s position weaker. So how does that make the proposition that Spain join the War more attractive than OTL?

I'm saying that Germany would likely force the issue with Spain to close the Mediterranean to British shipping, because without Italian entry there is no way to do that short of bringing Spain into the war whether Franco likes it or not. Plus then it opens unrestricted shipping into the Mediterranean by Italy, which would make them then an open conduit to break the British blockade, as with Gibraltar controlling access to the Mediterranean they would be restricted. See below the details about how that worked IOTL.

And how, pray tell, does Germany “force” Spain into the war when they couldn’t OTL? What do they have to offer (and can make happen) that overcomes the weaknesses of Spain’s position that caused Franco to remain neutral OTL?

As for the point that you have no idea that I’m responding to? It’s the very point you’re handwaving here in the “explanation” you’re offering.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes, a neutral Italy might sell locally produced goods to Germany. That's chiefly, aluminium, which is undoubtedly useful for the Luftwaffe's fuselages. That's the same as the Spanish tungsten, the Swedish ore and ball bearings, or the Turkish cigarettes.

But talking about a "hole in the blockade", per previous posts, would seem to refer to Italy importing, say, more oil and rubber than it needs, then selling the surplus to Germany. That's not going to happen. The British will stop that at the source. They totally did so in OTL.

A neutral Italy, not building their own wartime airforce, would be able to export more aluminium than OTL, surely? But I wasn’t suggesting Italy would “break the blockade” all on their own anyway. I merely suggested Italy would be able to sell goods to Germany to make a profit and be in a better position than OTL. I never intended to suggest that Italy would be an “economic member of the Axis”, rather it would be an option open to them as a neutral nation.

 

[naraic]

I believe the suggestion is that German would invade Spain to close the Mediterranean.

 

[Michele]

A neutral Italy, not building their own wartime airforce, would be able to export more aluminium than OTL, surely? But I wasn’t suggesting Italy would “break the blockade” all on their own anyway. I merely suggested Italy would be able to sell goods to Germany to make a profit and be in a better position than OTL. I never intended to suggest that Italy would be an “economic member of the Axis”, rather it would be an option open to them as a neutral nation.

For that matter, in theory, a neutral nation might have been able to import however much oil, rubber or manganese it pleased to them, and to sell it to whomever they wanted. That was the theory in 1914, and the Germans fully expected Holland to be able to do that. That would not have meant that Holland would become an economic member of the Central Powers' alliance. In theory, that course of action could have been possible while remaining a neutral.

But even in an ATL you have to be realist, in the Royal Navy sense of the term.