Would France stay in the war and fight on from Algeria? Was that an option seriously considered in 1940?
What would Britain and America do with a neutral Italy?
- Thread starter Lee-Sensei
- Start date
If Italy doesn't backstab, threatening the Algerian new capital in exile, it definitely makes sense to. Dunno how much it was considered, to be honest.
thaddeus
Donor
from my reading it was an idea that never gained much traction, seems a delicate balancing act to try and continue some defense of the country while withdrawing to Algeria.
there is also the consideration that Italy (and for that matter Spain) are for the moment neutral, but what happens if the government retreats en masse across the Med? would there be enough chaos to tempt them into the war.
That just replaces the Italian forces used in the Invasion of the Soviet Union. While of generally better quality these forces would not greatly change things as the Germans don't have the logistics to defeat the SU.
I find the idea that a neutral Italy will free up British resources (manpower, airpower and naval power) doubtful. Arguably, Italy being neutral will force Britain to keep a constant presence on her borders as a result of their fear of an Italian invasion like it happened OTL. After all, having 400 thousand troops at your border defended by 40 to 80 thousand is concerning.
Ironically, Hitler's opinion of Mussolini might be more positive if he doesn't join the war. OTL he called Italy's DoW the worst DoW in history and hadn't thought the Duce to be so stupid.
Would there even be a Sea Lion plan in this instance? I would assume Hitler would not even pursue this option as consequence of a stronger British presence and if France fights on then it is even more likely he would stop all true preparations for said invasion. (So no air superiority needed -> no Battle of Britain)
- Hitler OTL already hated the idea of invading Britain and believed that any such operation could very well turn the war against Germany.
Now, the Soviet Union... while logistics don't really change, some of the opportunities lost or unused might. Germany in the case of no BoB or Crete invasion has a more sizeable air force and air transport force.
How could the forces used for the invasion of Crete be used against the Soviets? Perhaps they could finish some of the failed encirclements during the early stages of the war, perhaps secure Leningrad with the help of Bismarck (As with Raeder's more cautious policy in case of a more dangerous Royal Navy - he might keep the the Battleship in the Baltics until Tirpitz is fully operational hence could help during the push for Leningrad)
There's also the possible capture of Stalingrad if Rommel pulls another one like in France. OTL they could have captured the city with minimal fighting as for a few days it was badly defended, it was only thanks to a halt order (and traffic jam) that saved the city.
And lastly, the Japanese... would they even attack? In this TL they would go against a stronger Britain, possible French forces and US froces. They might have seen themselves in an overly optimistic manner but even then they realize the odds of winning against the US and forcing a peace.
I feel they might be too anxious of a war against 3 Great Powers, as, even if they win their decisive battle against the US navy, they will have to win 2 more against Britain and France, very unlikely to be possible. Japan might go 2 ways, go to war against Germany and grab the support of Britain against China or go to war against the Soviet Union and hope they could get their needed resources post Soviet defeat through the Siberian railway.
Ironically, Hitler's opinion of Mussolini might be more positive if he doesn't join the war. OTL he called Italy's DoW the worst DoW in history and hadn't thought the Duce to be so stupid.
Would there even be a Sea Lion plan in this instance? I would assume Hitler would not even pursue this option as consequence of a stronger British presence and if France fights on then it is even more likely he would stop all true preparations for said invasion. (So no air superiority needed -> no Battle of Britain)
- Hitler OTL already hated the idea of invading Britain and believed that any such operation could very well turn the war against Germany.
Now, the Soviet Union... while logistics don't really change, some of the opportunities lost or unused might. Germany in the case of no BoB or Crete invasion has a more sizeable air force and air transport force.
How could the forces used for the invasion of Crete be used against the Soviets? Perhaps they could finish some of the failed encirclements during the early stages of the war, perhaps secure Leningrad with the help of Bismarck (As with Raeder's more cautious policy in case of a more dangerous Royal Navy - he might keep the the Battleship in the Baltics until Tirpitz is fully operational hence could help during the push for Leningrad)
There's also the possible capture of Stalingrad if Rommel pulls another one like in France. OTL they could have captured the city with minimal fighting as for a few days it was badly defended, it was only thanks to a halt order (and traffic jam) that saved the city.
And lastly, the Japanese... would they even attack? In this TL they would go against a stronger Britain, possible French forces and US froces. They might have seen themselves in an overly optimistic manner but even then they realize the odds of winning against the US and forcing a peace.
I feel they might be too anxious of a war against 3 Great Powers, as, even if they win their decisive battle against the US navy, they will have to win 2 more against Britain and France, very unlikely to be possible. Japan might go 2 ways, go to war against Germany and grab the support of Britain against China or go to war against the Soviet Union and hope they could get their needed resources post Soviet defeat through the Siberian railway.
Why on earth did he say that?
I could imagine Hitler for some days imagining the DoW as too late or irrelevant, if his thinking was that defeating the French army and taking Paris meant the war was basically over, but how was Italy joining the winning side 'stupid' for Italy at that moment? And when it became apparent in a couple weeks that Britain was not going to write off the whole war over the collapse of France, how was the entry of Italy, a power that could mischieviously harass Britain at multiple places, 'stupid' for Germany.
These Japanese reactions to the situation are extremely unlikely, especially the first, far less likely that stagnating in their status quo policy.
I think overall folks here are overplaying the assumption that Italy staying out = France fights on from Algeria, from which so much else flows. It is a possible turn of events, sure. But not necessarily likely and certainly not guaranteed.
British troops sitting there and doing nothing at the borders of Italian colonies still consume less material and supplies than if they were fighting.
But more importantly, the British use of Med and Red Sea remains unhindered.
Also, likely no Iraqi crisis if there's no front in Egypt, which frees up more troops and resources.
My bad, it seems I remembered wrong, it is not stupid but primitive, here's the paragraph from Mussolini and Hitler The Forging of the Fascist Alliance.
Hitler’s real views on Mussolini were altogether different. In front of his army adjutant, Major Gerhard Engel, and Wehrmacht generals, he gave a stinging verdict on Mussolini’s tactical and opportunistic manoeuvring: ‘This is the worst declaration of war in this world . . . I would not have thought the Duce so primitive . . . Have been wondering latterly about his naivety . . . have to be even more careful vis-à-vis the Italians in political matters in future.’ Engel reflected wider German disillusionment with the Italian allies. He commented: ‘Actually an embarrassing matter: first, they are too cowardly to participate, and now they are rushing in order to partake of the war booty.’
Such views were also picked up in official reports on popular opinion in Germany. The stunning successes of the German army in early 1940 had created a frenzy of national pride even amongst those who normally grumbled about certain policies of the regime. However, support for Hitler did not necessarily mean support for the wartime alliance with Italy. On the day of the Italian declaration of war, a report by the SD on popular opinion was circulated amongst the Nazi leadership. According to the report, some Germans believed that the Italian non belligerenza had yielded some benefits for the Germans as the Allies had had to keep some of their troops in reserve for a potential Italian intervention, instead of deploying them against Germany. Others, however, were sarcastic and stated that chairs had had to be sent to Italy, as the Italian soldiers had been standing at order arms for too long in anticipation of war during the period of non belligerenza.
Such views were also picked up in official reports on popular opinion in Germany. The stunning successes of the German army in early 1940 had created a frenzy of national pride even amongst those who normally grumbled about certain policies of the regime. However, support for Hitler did not necessarily mean support for the wartime alliance with Italy. On the day of the Italian declaration of war, a report by the SD on popular opinion was circulated amongst the Nazi leadership. According to the report, some Germans believed that the Italian non belligerenza had yielded some benefits for the Germans as the Allies had had to keep some of their troops in reserve for a potential Italian intervention, instead of deploying them against Germany. Others, however, were sarcastic and stated that chairs had had to be sent to Italy, as the Italian soldiers had been standing at order arms for too long in anticipation of war during the period of non belligerenza.
Maybe. However if France doesn't fight on and Japan occupies Indochina and gets sanctioned, or the US does it anyway without the Indochina occupation cause, they will have to get resources from somewhere if they want to keep their military in working order.
The option of them 'stagnating' and basically doubling down in their war against China I did not consider but seems likely. However, the Soviet option is at least a weighted, historical consideration of Go North instead of the OTL Go South, after all, the Soviets do have oil quite close even if the production is not very sizeable.
About France, fair, it could go either way, perhaps they will have more success at neutrality than OTL with no belligerent Italy? I can easily imagine a Hungary-Romania situation where Germany will try to play both sides, bringing France closer to Germany's side, easier to do if Churchill does the Mers-El-Kebir attack given that the man thought that the Richelieu could turn the tide of the war...
thaddeus
Donor
IDK how the Balkans would play out, the Nazi regime does not really have to consider Italian prerogatives there as they did (at least made a show of doing) historically?
a puppet regime in Greece would be interesting, a scenario akin to Romania historically, as would an Italy-Yugoslavia conflict.
I think it also depends on what kind of ‚neutrality‘ we‘re talking about. There are three options here:
-actual, true neutrality
-a pro-allied ‚neutrality‘
-german-friendly ‚neutrality‘
I think an argument could be made that the latter might actually be worse for the allies overall than open Italian belligerence. It‘s not like Britain can just ignore the Italian forces in Libya or at the Horn of Africa. As long as Italy is friendly with Germany, Britain will have to fear that one day Italy becomes openly belligerent and attacks them in Egypt or East-Africa. And a neutral Italy means no front in the Balkans, north Africa or Italy itself, which frees up considerable German forces to be used elsewhere (most likely the eastern front). Of course, the same is true for Britain, but I don’t really see where they could use those freed up forces to make an impact in Europe, at least not in the first half of the war. As others have pointed out, those additional forces will surely come in handy in the war against Japan, but that doesn’t really hurt the Germans in Europe. Not to mention that Germany will be able to more easily import crucial raw materials through a neutral (but friendly) Italy. Hell, Italy might even still send troops to the eastern front to support the Germans, except this time as ‚volunteers‘, without an official DoW against the Soviets, similar to what Spain under Franco did.
-actual, true neutrality
-a pro-allied ‚neutrality‘
-german-friendly ‚neutrality‘
I think an argument could be made that the latter might actually be worse for the allies overall than open Italian belligerence. It‘s not like Britain can just ignore the Italian forces in Libya or at the Horn of Africa. As long as Italy is friendly with Germany, Britain will have to fear that one day Italy becomes openly belligerent and attacks them in Egypt or East-Africa. And a neutral Italy means no front in the Balkans, north Africa or Italy itself, which frees up considerable German forces to be used elsewhere (most likely the eastern front). Of course, the same is true for Britain, but I don’t really see where they could use those freed up forces to make an impact in Europe, at least not in the first half of the war. As others have pointed out, those additional forces will surely come in handy in the war against Japan, but that doesn’t really hurt the Germans in Europe. Not to mention that Germany will be able to more easily import crucial raw materials through a neutral (but friendly) Italy. Hell, Italy might even still send troops to the eastern front to support the Germans, except this time as ‚volunteers‘, without an official DoW against the Soviets, similar to what Spain under Franco did.
Derek Pullem
Donor
If Italy = neutral means no DoW on France or Greece it definitely changes the war but that would seem to be verging on ASB if Mussolini is in power.
Would Italy be at peace for the whole of the war? It has claims on Yugoslavia that might end up in a border conflict that may not trigger a UK DoW. Greece has a special place in UK (Churchill's) heart and is probably out of bounds.
If Italy doesn't drag the Germans into the Balkans then certainly Bulgaria and possibly Hungary won't be part of the Axis (as opposed to pro-Axis neutrals)
As others have pointed out, UK can't ignore Italy but they can try to buy them off (possibly by turning a blind eye to a border war in Yugoslavia).
With no real "underbelly" of the Europe exposed, UK's strategic commitments are simplified and the Suez route is open for business (will still need escorts as Germany will have U-boats in the Med).
A neutral Italy will help Germany in terms of access to world markets for key materials but it probably helps Britain more. It makes Britain's relationship with the US simpler too as it's just a question of when Overlord goes ahead rather than juggling Italy and Dragoon and Overlord. And the large amount of mediocre tanks wasted in the Western Desert will do just fine against the Japanese. Hopefully they will still have Shermans for Overlord (or alternatively earlier Comets sans tank panic)
Would Italy be at peace for the whole of the war? It has claims on Yugoslavia that might end up in a border conflict that may not trigger a UK DoW. Greece has a special place in UK (Churchill's) heart and is probably out of bounds.
If Italy doesn't drag the Germans into the Balkans then certainly Bulgaria and possibly Hungary won't be part of the Axis (as opposed to pro-Axis neutrals)
As others have pointed out, UK can't ignore Italy but they can try to buy them off (possibly by turning a blind eye to a border war in Yugoslavia).
With no real "underbelly" of the Europe exposed, UK's strategic commitments are simplified and the Suez route is open for business (will still need escorts as Germany will have U-boats in the Med).
A neutral Italy will help Germany in terms of access to world markets for key materials but it probably helps Britain more. It makes Britain's relationship with the US simpler too as it's just a question of when Overlord goes ahead rather than juggling Italy and Dragoon and Overlord. And the large amount of mediocre tanks wasted in the Western Desert will do just fine against the Japanese. Hopefully they will still have Shermans for Overlord (or alternatively earlier Comets sans tank panic)
Driftless
Donor
I got thinking some more on the No North Africa/different Balkans PoD. I'm not sure how the manpower and airpower math totals out if you factor in German losses in North Africa to casualties and prisoners(roughly 200,000. Plus, the other component was the very hard to replace lost equipment, and fuel in North Africa. Another a third wild card goes to similar calculations if there's limited Balkans ops, no Greece, or at least no Crete invasions. The Italians committed just shy of 300,000 troops to Barbarossa(I beleive). Maybe its still a functional trade off, though I think the loss of equipment and fuel use in North Africa counts for more than we first think.
I agree that a German only Barbarossa, doesn't change the final outcome of the larger campaign, maybe just the relative final front line locations?