What would Britain have done if Italy stayed neutral?
- Thread starter Lee-Sensei
- Start date
I don't think so. For one thing, forces still had to be kept on hand in Egypt and the Med in case the Italians DO attack. Given the perceived threat of Sealion, any additional forces are most likely to be kept at home to defend until late autumn 1940.
After that, I could probably see an increased effort to occupy Vichy-French colonies, including maybe southern French Indochina as well (only occupied by the Japanese on July 28th 1941). After Japan attacks in December 1941, ressources are going to be shifted in that direction.
It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would go without the losses (both direct and from wear and tear) suffered during the Balkan campaign (butterflied away by Italian neutrality).
If the British do attack Norway sometime in summer '41, I think it would probably be in order to once again cripple the port of Narvik, and maybe also draw the Kriegsmarine out to battle.
Also worth mentioning - a neutral Italy means Britain has already won the Battle of the Atlantic before it even started, since it allows them to continue to ship stuff directly through the Med if they sense the Italians have no interest in entering.
After that, I could probably see an increased effort to occupy Vichy-French colonies, including maybe southern French Indochina as well (only occupied by the Japanese on July 28th 1941). After Japan attacks in December 1941, ressources are going to be shifted in that direction.
It would be interesting to see how Barbarossa would go without the losses (both direct and from wear and tear) suffered during the Balkan campaign (butterflied away by Italian neutrality).
If the British do attack Norway sometime in summer '41, I think it would probably be in order to once again cripple the port of Narvik, and maybe also draw the Kriegsmarine out to battle.
Also worth mentioning - a neutral Italy means Britain has already won the Battle of the Atlantic before it even started, since it allows them to continue to ship stuff directly through the Med if they sense the Italians have no interest in entering.
For Britain to invade an unprepared neutral nation, it would sort of make them no different from the imperious force they were fighting. Sure Iceland was a go, but that's because Iceland is smaller and invading Iceland would not violate any other country's neutrality. Italy staying neutral changes the whole course of the war. The only POD that could keep Italy neutral is Victor Emmanuel or the Italian Government suppressing the rise of Mussolini and the Fascist government. Mussolini felt inclined to show support to his fellow Axis partner Hitler, and could not resist joining the war. France surrendered because it did not want to fight a two-front war against Germany and Italy. Without Italian entry into the war, France continues fighting Germany and things get tougher for Hitler. Without Italy or Vichy France, Germany has no foothold in North Africa, so there's probably no North African front and Libya remains an Italian colony longer than OTL. There's no stopping Germany from invading the Soviet Union, but there would be no Balkan Campaigns started by Italian ambitions (Albania, Greece) and completed by German/other Axis members. (Although, I think Hitler still invades Yugoslavia because of the coup of March 27th, 1941). Romania still allies itself to Germany because of Bessarabia. Bulgaria and Hungary still ally themselves to Germany because of the pressure Hitler mounts on them (as OTL).
Last edited:
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
?
If you're referring to WW2, Italy was sort-of-neutral (it was still a non-belligerent at that point) when Nazi Germany invaded Norway (in 1940) and the UK and France tried to kick the Germans out of Norway.
Last edited:
Pomphis
Banned
Sort of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
The Allied invasion plan had two parts: Operation Wilfred, and Plan R 4.
In operation Wilfred, set to take place on 5 April (but delayed to 8 April), the Norwegian territorial waters were to be mined, violating Norwegian neutrality. This would force the ships carrying ore to Germany to travel outside the protection of Norwegian territorial waters and thus becoming accessible to the British navy.
It was hoped that this would provoke a German military reaction. As soon as the Germans would react, either by landing troops in Norway or demonstrating the intention to do so, a British force would be landed in Norway. 18,000 Allied troops were to land in Narvik, closing the railroad to Sweden. Other cities to be captured were Trondheim and Bergen.
The first ship with Allied troops were to start the journey a few hours after the mine laying. On 8 April a Royal Navy detachment led by HMS Renown mined Norwegian waters in operation Wilfred, but German troops were already on their way, and the original "Plan R 4" was no longer feasible. The Allies had however provided Hitler with an invasion excuse.[1]
Pomphis
Banned
And probably more than historically, as there would be no Operation Compass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
Operation Compass was the first large Allied military operation of the Western Desert Campaign (1940–1943) during World War II. British and other Commonwealth forces attacked Italian forces in western Egypt and Cyrenaica, the eastern province of Libya, from December 1940 to February 1941, with great success. The Western Desert Force (Lieutenant-General Richard O'Connor) with about 30,000 men, advanced from Mersa Matruh in Egypt on a five-day raid against the Italian positions of the 10th Army (Marshal Rodolfo Graziani), which had about 150,000 men in fortified posts around Sidi Barrani and in Cyrenaica.
The 10th Army was swiftly defeated and the British prolonged the operation, to pursue the remnants of the 10th Army to Beda Fomm and El Agheila on the Gulf of Sirte. The British took 138,000 Italian and Libyan prisoners, hundreds of tanks and over 1,000 guns and aircraft for a loss of 1,900 men killed and wounded, about 10 percent of their infantry.
OTOH a neutral italy makes it much more difficult to blockade germany.
I wonder how this would play out. Italy would have free access to resources around the world and would be able to redirect them to Germany. UK would not like this a bit, but would have a difficult time putting much pressure on Italy since it would not want Italy to join the war and cut Mediterranian sea route. (And of course Italian Navy and Army would seem to be more powerful than they actually were)
Pomphis
Banned
And all those italian merchant ships confiscated by the allies would remain italian.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53366
According to JJ Sadkovich in his book "The Italian Navy in WW2", it was the French collapse in June that triggered Italy's entry before the Italian merchant marine could be brought home. Thus out of some 786ships over 500tons (=3.3million GRT), some 212 (or some 1.2million GRT) was outside the Mediterranean and thus lost. Including 46 tankers.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53366
According to JJ Sadkovich in his book "The Italian Navy in WW2", it was the French collapse in June that triggered Italy's entry before the Italian merchant marine could be brought home. Thus out of some 786ships over 500tons (=3.3million GRT), some 212 (or some 1.2million GRT) was outside the Mediterranean and thus lost. Including 46 tankers.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Remained neutral or remained unaligned?
The difference is that Italy could still choose to invade Greece even if it was not aligned/allied towards Germany.
This might or might not trigger a DoW from the UK but it would certainly result in a blockade
You could end up with a WW1 situation with a British garrison in Greece but not actually fighting - although I doubt that scenario is stable for too long.
If Italy stays completely out of Greece it still might end up in a conflict with Vichy France (for example) over Tunisia. It's difficult to see Germany or Britain intervening in support of Vichy France. It's also difficult to see the acquisition being sustained once the Free French are established as Allies.
Deleted member 1487
Probably not much different in 1940 than IOTL. France likely would have stayed the same as IOTL as well. Without a North African front they can keep their forces in the Middle East and keep Asia strong, as they also probably won't have a Greek situation to deal with.
If anything they'd probably try and invade France with more force in 1942 at Dieppe and there is no question that they'd have to invade with the US in 1943 assuming Japan still attacks in 1941 and drags the US into the war. Britain really can't do that much against Germany until 1943 with the US if Italy is neutral other than strategic bombing, as Norway is too far away and not covered by land based airpower, while being too close to Germany, too well defended, and too defensible due to terrain to really risk and invasion. For one thing, besides a lot more land based German air power, there is the Uboat issue; the Germans can spam the wars of the North Sea with Uboats if they really wanted. At that point invading France is less risky, as they'd have Allied land-based air power in support, they can seal off the Channel from German naval units, and the French terrain is easier to deal with and Cherbourg is easy to isolate and capture.
All of that really results in a 1943 invasion of France with OTL Torch/Italy forces, plus a lot of what was with the British 8th army IOTL and whatever else was sitting in Britain in 1943. Without an active North African theater the Allies can successfully invade France in 1943, it just may well be bloodier than IOTL.
The big issue is what changes in 1941-42 in Russia compared to OTL without a Greek or North African theater. IOTL the Germans ended up sending over 1000 Panzers to North Africa and over 300k men from 1941-43, while at least 500k more men to Italy and probably another 300k men to replace Italian forces in the Mediterranean when they surrendered in 1943. All told the Mediterranean theater sucked in at least 1.2 million Germans, plus heaps of equipment and supplies. In 1941 without Greece or North Africa there are 2 mobile divisions for Russia and 1 parachute division, plus several hundred aircraft not lost in Greece or occupied in the Mediterranean. Without the Greek invasion weather permitted Barbarossa to start on June 10th and there would be a lot less wear and tear on forces that would go into Barbarossa, while Stuka and other aircraft losses would be far less for units like the VIII Fliegerkorps, a Luftwaffe unit, which wasn't even fully present for Barbarossa as it was still redeploying from Greece after Crete AND it was badly damaged in the fighting, having lost well over 100 aircraft in Greece and Crete, while suffering major wear and tear on combat units and pilots in the campaign.
Frankly the additional forces and early start time may well be enough to result in the fall of Leningrad, Moscow, or both. If Russia loses both in 1941 they are in for a rough 1942. If Germany can avoid a major Soviet resurgence in 1942 and disengage enough forces then in 1943 to contest a landing in France, then things are going to be pretty bloody for the Wallies.
If anything they'd probably try and invade France with more force in 1942 at Dieppe and there is no question that they'd have to invade with the US in 1943 assuming Japan still attacks in 1941 and drags the US into the war. Britain really can't do that much against Germany until 1943 with the US if Italy is neutral other than strategic bombing, as Norway is too far away and not covered by land based airpower, while being too close to Germany, too well defended, and too defensible due to terrain to really risk and invasion. For one thing, besides a lot more land based German air power, there is the Uboat issue; the Germans can spam the wars of the North Sea with Uboats if they really wanted. At that point invading France is less risky, as they'd have Allied land-based air power in support, they can seal off the Channel from German naval units, and the French terrain is easier to deal with and Cherbourg is easy to isolate and capture.
All of that really results in a 1943 invasion of France with OTL Torch/Italy forces, plus a lot of what was with the British 8th army IOTL and whatever else was sitting in Britain in 1943. Without an active North African theater the Allies can successfully invade France in 1943, it just may well be bloodier than IOTL.
The big issue is what changes in 1941-42 in Russia compared to OTL without a Greek or North African theater. IOTL the Germans ended up sending over 1000 Panzers to North Africa and over 300k men from 1941-43, while at least 500k more men to Italy and probably another 300k men to replace Italian forces in the Mediterranean when they surrendered in 1943. All told the Mediterranean theater sucked in at least 1.2 million Germans, plus heaps of equipment and supplies. In 1941 without Greece or North Africa there are 2 mobile divisions for Russia and 1 parachute division, plus several hundred aircraft not lost in Greece or occupied in the Mediterranean. Without the Greek invasion weather permitted Barbarossa to start on June 10th and there would be a lot less wear and tear on forces that would go into Barbarossa, while Stuka and other aircraft losses would be far less for units like the VIII Fliegerkorps, a Luftwaffe unit, which wasn't even fully present for Barbarossa as it was still redeploying from Greece after Crete AND it was badly damaged in the fighting, having lost well over 100 aircraft in Greece and Crete, while suffering major wear and tear on combat units and pilots in the campaign.
Frankly the additional forces and early start time may well be enough to result in the fall of Leningrad, Moscow, or both. If Russia loses both in 1941 they are in for a rough 1942. If Germany can avoid a major Soviet resurgence in 1942 and disengage enough forces then in 1943 to contest a landing in France, then things are going to be pretty bloody for the Wallies.
Obtaining italian neutrality is both simple and difficult with Benny; while he was convinced to the need to partecipate in the conflict he was undecided to really Dow to the Entente so what's needed is more doubt and him remaining undedided for some more days.
Regarding the effect, it's a mix that in the long run favor the Allies:
1) Sure the British need to garrison Egypt and middle east, but the number and quality of troops will greatly differ than OTL as only a slightly increase is necessary...and frankly not having an ongoing fight mean a lot less expediture in terms of material.
2) Big advantage in terms of shipping as now the mediterrean is open and the U-boat campaign will be much less effective...meaning a lot of saving in resources, money and time.
3) Greece will not be touched, OTL italian reasoning for launching the invasion was to regain political and military credit after the defeat in Africa.
Maybe some diplomatic pressure to gain some concession but i doubt that an invasion will happen, expecially due to the fact that everyone in Rome know that Greece is a British client.
4) The more probable target will be Jugoslavia...but is not a given, much depend on the diplomatic work with Germany (and UK)
5) Germany without the loss on the balkans (occupation included) and North Africa had lot more resources...but without any other front Stalin will be much more hardpressed to disbelief all the hints of an imminent attack.
IMVHO this fact basically nullify each others (ObssessedNuke will kill me
but at the moment the Red Army is in a state that made look the italian army as the ephitome of efficiency), so results will not differ that much.
6) Speaking of Stalin, well his ultimatum at Romania can go slighlty
differently as Bucharest can find an ally in Rome; probably not enough to not lose Bessarabia but a little show of force can make Moscow give up North Bukovina (and give more time for a retreat...enough to destroy/bring back more ecquipment both military and civilian).
7) No Regia Marina in the equation mean that there is much much less fear for the invasion of the British Island and this can butterfly away the attack at the French Fleet and in this manner there is the possibility that some more colonies will go towards the Free French.
8) In general London will be much less desperate and so not acccepting any terms from Washington in exchange of supply (and an alliance).
Sure i expect that in the end any treaty will favor the USA side, just a less than OTL.
9)Churchill without any other front (except naturally the Pacific as i doubt that anything will change here) will press for the launch of more command raid, i expect more Dieppe-like operation
Regarding the effect, it's a mix that in the long run favor the Allies:
1) Sure the British need to garrison Egypt and middle east, but the number and quality of troops will greatly differ than OTL as only a slightly increase is necessary...and frankly not having an ongoing fight mean a lot less expediture in terms of material.
2) Big advantage in terms of shipping as now the mediterrean is open and the U-boat campaign will be much less effective...meaning a lot of saving in resources, money and time.
3) Greece will not be touched, OTL italian reasoning for launching the invasion was to regain political and military credit after the defeat in Africa.
Maybe some diplomatic pressure to gain some concession but i doubt that an invasion will happen, expecially due to the fact that everyone in Rome know that Greece is a British client.
4) The more probable target will be Jugoslavia...but is not a given, much depend on the diplomatic work with Germany (and UK)
5) Germany without the loss on the balkans (occupation included) and North Africa had lot more resources...but without any other front Stalin will be much more hardpressed to disbelief all the hints of an imminent attack.
IMVHO this fact basically nullify each others (ObssessedNuke will kill me
but at the moment the Red Army is in a state that made look the italian army as the ephitome of efficiency), so results will not differ that much.6) Speaking of Stalin, well his ultimatum at Romania can go slighlty
differently as Bucharest can find an ally in Rome; probably not enough to not lose Bessarabia but a little show of force can make Moscow give up North Bukovina (and give more time for a retreat...enough to destroy/bring back more ecquipment both military and civilian).
7) No Regia Marina in the equation mean that there is much much less fear for the invasion of the British Island and this can butterfly away the attack at the French Fleet and in this manner there is the possibility that some more colonies will go towards the Free French.
8) In general London will be much less desperate and so not acccepting any terms from Washington in exchange of supply (and an alliance).
Sure i expect that in the end any treaty will favor the USA side, just a less than OTL.
9)Churchill without any other front (except naturally the Pacific as i doubt that anything will change here) will press for the launch of more command raid, i expect more Dieppe-like operation
Deleted member 1487
What?
There was no defeat in Africa at the time of the invasion of Greece:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_Egypt
Greece was invaded in late October, well over a month before the British attack in Egypt. At that point the Italians were taking an operational pause to build up supplies for a deeper push. The move on Greece was a fear of German enchroachment on Mussolini's perceived backyard in the Balkans.
As to Yugoslavia its very likely that the coup still happens, which means an invasion by Germany; perhaps Italy moves sooner here.
Given Churchills uneven stratigic sense its possible, whatever the realities. Sometimes the Brit or US generals were able to make Winnies ideas work, sometimes not.
No Italian entry -- Far East and logistics implications
Let's look at this in three ways as I think the changes are very big.
First British logistics get a whole lot easier as others have stated. They can use Suez and have a good choke point at Gibraltar to aggressive patrol and restrict U-boat penetration. Assuming no French North Africa campaign, the German u-boats cannot reliably use Toulon as a base, so they have to leave St. Nazaire, go through Gibraltar, do their monkey business in the Med and then come back through Gibraltar and back to the Bay of Biscay. They don't have the range to stay for long. Escorts might be needed in the Med, but they can be fairly short range, low performance ships.
The Brits will need to keep a corps or two supplied in Egypt, but again, logistics are easier as they can go straight through instead of around the cape in fast/high value merchant ships. That Egypt force will also not be using tremendous amounts of consumables nor sucking up the cream of the Imperial armies in terms of talent. Makes LL a bit of a delay as the Brits were spending the last of their hard currency on equipping their North African forces. Won't be much of a delay ( a few months) but a delay none the less.
Furthermore, the Royal Navy will not be engaged in the Verdun of the Meditarrean. They don't have to supply Malta, they don't have to interdict supplies from Italy to Libya, that don't have to defend Greece etc. IIRC, the RN lost a third of their pre-war cruiser force in the Med. Ships won't be sunk, ships won't be damaged. That means either more ships are available at any one time, or preventive maintenance can be performed on more ships with routine refits/dock periods.
Now what does this mean for the Far East?
The Royal Navy can actually support a modified Main Fleet East movement in the summer of 1941. They have a major commitment to Home Waters to contain the German surface fleet and run convoys to the USSR, but no other major capital ship committments. A few ships will be kept in the Med to watch the Italians, but the R's and non-modernized Queens could be sufficient as a deterrent. Sending a couple of carriers (say Invincible, Formidable and Ark Royal) plus a three or four battleships/battlecruisers and two or three submarine squadrons to the Far East as well as having the Australians and New Zealanders send a full corps to Malaya during the first half of 1941 changes the Pacific war immensely. And since the RN and RAF is not seeing massive losses in North Africa, there should be more modern aircraft with better pilots, better staffs and better equipment available for Far East committments.
There is a decent change of the British security guarantee will be worth its weight in ink.
Now let's look at the Germans. The biggest thing is not the formations committed to Africa and the Med. An extra Panzer Corps somewhere will help the initial stages of Barbarossa. The big thing is the logistics. IIRC the Afrika Korps divisions were logistically 10x as expensive to support as a division in Russia. The desert played hell on equipment, mechanized forces were a requirement to fight there, and quite a bit of the supplies intended for the AK were sunk on every run into Libya. Freeing up thousands of trucks and thousands of barrels of gasoline burned every day in Africa probably has a bigger effect in Russia than anything else.
Let's look at this in three ways as I think the changes are very big.
First British logistics get a whole lot easier as others have stated. They can use Suez and have a good choke point at Gibraltar to aggressive patrol and restrict U-boat penetration. Assuming no French North Africa campaign, the German u-boats cannot reliably use Toulon as a base, so they have to leave St. Nazaire, go through Gibraltar, do their monkey business in the Med and then come back through Gibraltar and back to the Bay of Biscay. They don't have the range to stay for long. Escorts might be needed in the Med, but they can be fairly short range, low performance ships.
The Brits will need to keep a corps or two supplied in Egypt, but again, logistics are easier as they can go straight through instead of around the cape in fast/high value merchant ships. That Egypt force will also not be using tremendous amounts of consumables nor sucking up the cream of the Imperial armies in terms of talent. Makes LL a bit of a delay as the Brits were spending the last of their hard currency on equipping their North African forces. Won't be much of a delay ( a few months) but a delay none the less.
Furthermore, the Royal Navy will not be engaged in the Verdun of the Meditarrean. They don't have to supply Malta, they don't have to interdict supplies from Italy to Libya, that don't have to defend Greece etc. IIRC, the RN lost a third of their pre-war cruiser force in the Med. Ships won't be sunk, ships won't be damaged. That means either more ships are available at any one time, or preventive maintenance can be performed on more ships with routine refits/dock periods.
Now what does this mean for the Far East?
The Royal Navy can actually support a modified Main Fleet East movement in the summer of 1941. They have a major commitment to Home Waters to contain the German surface fleet and run convoys to the USSR, but no other major capital ship committments. A few ships will be kept in the Med to watch the Italians, but the R's and non-modernized Queens could be sufficient as a deterrent. Sending a couple of carriers (say Invincible, Formidable and Ark Royal) plus a three or four battleships/battlecruisers and two or three submarine squadrons to the Far East as well as having the Australians and New Zealanders send a full corps to Malaya during the first half of 1941 changes the Pacific war immensely. And since the RN and RAF is not seeing massive losses in North Africa, there should be more modern aircraft with better pilots, better staffs and better equipment available for Far East committments.
There is a decent change of the British security guarantee will be worth its weight in ink.
Now let's look at the Germans. The biggest thing is not the formations committed to Africa and the Med. An extra Panzer Corps somewhere will help the initial stages of Barbarossa. The big thing is the logistics. IIRC the Afrika Korps divisions were logistically 10x as expensive to support as a division in Russia. The desert played hell on equipment, mechanized forces were a requirement to fight there, and quite a bit of the supplies intended for the AK were sunk on every run into Libya. Freeing up thousands of trucks and thousands of barrels of gasoline burned every day in Africa probably has a bigger effect in Russia than anything else.
Yes, but the italian attack was not the shining example of quick warfare that Benny imaginated, add that to the meager performance during the Fall of France and in the Horn of Africa and Benny needed a quick fix for his image...and yes at this one must add the situation in the Balkans.
Greece, was just a target thought to be easy (and there were really fear among Supermarina that the British used Greece as a springboard as the nation was seen a British ally.)
Sure Athens was considered a target for a possible expansion and relations between the two nation were complicated, expecially after the annexation of Albania by Italy) but Rome know that attacking it mean bring the British in; so without already fighting a war or the need to regain some military creed it's doubtfull that any invasion will happen.
As to Yugoslavia its very likely that the coup still happens, which means an invasion by Germany; perhaps Italy moves sooner here.
Deleted member 1487
In 1939 the Germans tried to send some long range Uboats into the Mediterranean and realized that was a massive waste of resources; without Italy in the war they have less than no reason to waste them in the Mediterranean, so won't even bother and will keep them all in the Atlantic. Toulon won't even be an issue, as there is no real point to using the Mediterranean when they can interdict everything going in and out in the Atlantic and its much easier to get to. The main hunting grounds are in the Atlantic and the OTL diversion to the Mediterranean from 1941 on was a waste. IOTL they only reason they got involved at all in the Med was due to Italian entry.
Agreed, but given the performance of the 8th army IOTL its really hard to say they were the creme of the British military perhaps until Monty showed up. Instead the Brits are going to miss out on valuable combat experience that helped them hone their doctrine and work out there MANY issues in leadership, training, doctrine, combat practices, etc. One the plus side the Brits do save heaps of resources. Of course that could get them in trouble too, as they have them burning a hole in the pocket and will want to get into combat ASAP, which means perhaps an ill considered 1942 invasion of Europe.
Agreed. The CW will be considerably stronger post-war and Japan might well be deterred from acting at all if Britain puts that much into the East.
Correct. That was a big issue. Having an extra Panzer corps for Barbarossa, plus the paratroopers, plus hundreds more Ju52s saved from the Mediterranean/Greece, plus thousands more trucks, plus hundreds more aircraft mean that Russia is going to have some problems in 1941. That will likely mean Leningrad falls in July as the paras can effectively decapitate the Soviet Northwestern Front on day 1 of the invasion if they drop on and capture Riga (the Front HQ was based there and the NKVD division holding the city was on a mission away from the city, so it was effectively undefended), which would also cut off a large part of the Soviet 8th army on the retreat, which would mean that Estonia is not really defended then when the Germans clear Latvia and Lithuania. The Soviet 8th army managed to retreat into Estonia and drag out fighting there into September 1941, meaning the ports couldn't be used to supply the effort against Leningrad until then. Here if Rommel's corps is put into the North he can rush out to Riga to relieve the paras, finish off the Soviet 8th army and then liberate Estonia by the beginning of July assuming that the invasion is able to then to start a week or two early due to no Balkan campaign (the weather allowed for a June 10th start date, not the OTL June 22nd start).
By July Rommel and pair with Rheinhardt's Panzer corps on the Luga river and race on to Leningrad with a lot more logistics support than was available IOTL (all that extra truck supply, which can move via Estonia, plus hundreds more Ju52s not needed in the Mediterranean or lost in Crete). Leningrad was highly vulnerable within the 1st month of the war, so could have been taken with a bold move that Rommel was known for (some might say reckless). If Leningrad falls, then the Soviets are in serious trouble, not just because of the industry that would be lost (none of it have been evacuated by the end of July IOTL), the millions of citizens/workers/potential soldiers lost, or the morale effect of losing the spiritual home of the Revolution, but rather the freeing up of Finns to take Murmansk, while AG-North then would be freed up to send the entire 4th Panzer Group against Moscow with its truck support logistics and all Ju52 transports could then be devoted to the central axis. Plus with Leningrad captured its port could be used to supply AG-North leaving the rail conversion forces to aid AG-Center and rail lines meant for AG-North able to also carry supplies for AG-Center instead.
That is a big game changer, especially when coupled with a week or two early start on Barbarossa, as the weather will be less of a factor during the final Moscow push. Its not unlikely that Moscow would then fall in October 1941. That means the German inherit Moscow's all weather air fields and rail network, which badly hobbles Soviet counter offensive organization efforts, as does the likely mass exodus of civilians from Moscow to escape the Germans. 1-2 million people fleeing East in winter will really make it difficult for the Soviets to organize. Plus with the loss of Leningrad 80% of KV tank factories are gone, as is an artillery factory. Losing Moscow then means something like 9% of all Soviet industry is gone, including a disproportionate share of defense production. Plus too the central telecommunications hub for landlines is gone, which the Soviets depended on in 1941-42 because radio production was abysmal.
What's even worse for the Soviets here is that without a Mediterranean theater is that the 2nd air fleet of the Luftwaffe won't be withdrawn in November, so can remain on Moscow's all weather airfields to help blunt any Soviet counter offensive over winter, while the Soviets then lack air fields capable of operating in winter. The Luftwaffe also can use the anti-shipping forces it had in the Mediterranean in 1941 against the Soviet Black Seas Fleet during Barbarossa, which likely means Odessa falls early and Sevastopol also falls to the first assault attempt in 1941, while the Black Seas Fleet is lost in the process. That is a huge burden lifted off of AG-South in 1941.
The Soviets can limp on after all of this in 1941, but they will be badly hobbled and will have a much harder time recovering. They might well implode then during a 1942 Case Blue, even if they have to pull units out to fight in the West due to the Brits doing a more serious Dieppe landing to try and save Russia.
Deleted member 1487
I'm just saying that the situation in Africa had nothing to do with the decision to invade Greece, so its likely that Italy, still fearful of German Balkan politics will invade Greece anyway, convinced that the Germans and Brits being distracted give them a free hand to carve out their own zone of influence. That may also mean a Yugoslav invasion too and courting Romania as a patron to counter German influence there, while also countering the USSR and its demands on Romania.
Why do you think an Italy move on Greece if they were neutral in WW2 would bring the British in? If anything they'd probably stay out of the Greek conflict and focus on Germany and keep Italy out to avoid all the problems that come with Italian Axis participation.
Maybe the British intervene and maybe not due to focus totally on Germany but as Greece is in their sphere of influence, their possible involvement is an event that must be taken in consideration in any decision by Italy.
So it's more probable that some very strong diplomatic pressure over Athens will happen but an invasion will be postponed.
Italy military performance was a factor, as even if still not a catastrophes, was bad compared to Germany...and this irked a lot Benny.
It's more a problem of perception, Mussolini thought that to keep things even with Adolf he needed a big win, as till now the italian performance was nothing to wrote about unlike the feat of the Germans...so Greece was chosen as the easy target (already at war with the UK, plan to invade already drawn, being already part of the target list).
Basically the decision about Greece, was driven by a mix of political, military factors and Benny inferiority-superiority complex
Deleted member 1487
Sure, which IMHO still leads Benny to invade Greece ITTL if they are neutral.
I imagine you haven't heard about the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Persia. In any, I think the idea of a British invasion of Norway refers to an invasion after the Fall of France, when Norway is already in German hands.
While the British were planning to... ahem "set up shop" in Norway before the German attack, that was while Italy was still neutral, so it wouldn't be affected by a continued Italian neutrality.