If Italy was neutral during WWII, what concessions would the allies be willing to give up to bribe them to join their side?

This is kind of a strange question, but suppose Italy was neutral during WWII and never sided with the Germans. I can only imagine that the allies would be doing everything possible to bring them over to their side. How far would they be willing to go with this though? Could there be some sort of agreement along the lines of "we'll give you Corsica, Malta, and/or Tunisia after the war is over if you join us"?
 
Could there be some sort of agreement along the lines of "we'll give you Corsica, Malta, and/or Tunisia after the war is over if you join us"?
Why on Earth would they even think about that? Best they might offer is: "we'll probably not dispose your dictator after the war and take your current colonies away, but you will have to behave"
 
Why on Earth would they even think about that? Best they might offer is: "we'll probably not dispose your dictator after the war and take your current colonies away, but you will have to behave"
In the middle of the war against perhaps the most fearsome enemy in world history? I could see maybe that being the line of thinking in a situation like OTL late 1944, but in a TL where the Germans aren't having to use resources in North Africa and Greece and are probably doing slightly better in Russia (and France having already fallen), why wouldn't the allies be doing everything in their power to get an upper hand? I also don't know why they'd even seriously entertain the idea of overthrowing Mussolini after WWII is over if he didn't side with the Germans. Its not like the Americans were eager to overthrow anti-communist dictators during the Cold War.

edit: I mean imagine 1941 ITTL from the allied perspective. France has fallen (I don't see any reason why Italy being neutral would butterfly that), Allied troops have been totally driven off the continent, German bombers are flying over Britain, Germany is advancing rapidly through the USSR, up until this point they've looked relatively invincible, and you have somewhat of a major power sitting right to the south of Germany that is neutral and could potentially be swayed into joining your side.
 
Last edited:
In the middle of the war against perhaps the most fearsome enemy in world history? I could see maybe that being the line of thinking in a situation like OTL late 1944, but in a TL where the Germans aren't having to use resources in North Africa and Greece and are probably doing slightly better in Russia (and France having already fallen), why wouldn't the allies be doing everything in their power to get an upper hand?
What does Italy offer to the Allies?

Italy is desperately weak economically/industrially, which is a very bad thing in the context of this kind of war to the last farthing and the last ball bearing.
 
What does Italy offer to the Allies?

Italy is desperately weak economically/industrially, which is a very bad thing in the context of this kind of war to the last farthing and the last ball bearing.
At a very minimum it offers them a place on the continent from which to actually fight the Germans. It also offers them an army of its own of course, which while being rather incompetent OTL, Italian soldiers performed well in the USSR, and I would imagine when fighting under the framework of a broader allied command structure would perform okay. After all, "beggars can't be choosers"
 
At a very minimum it offers them a place on the continent from which to actually fight the Germans. It also offers them an army of its own of course, which while being rather incompetent OTL, Italian soldiers performed well in the USSR, and I would imagine when fighting under the framework of a broader allied command structure would perform okay. After all, "beggars can't be choosers"

A very awkward place (for the attackers) to fight the Germans and an underwhelming military (from the perspective of equipment and supplies) aren't worth all that much even in a conflict like this, though.

I think an answer to this involves that the "beggars" have to pay for what they're given in this scenario, and given the state of Italy's industry and economy - what supports and supplies that army - probably pay on top of whatever concessions Mussolini wants in exchange for joining the Allies and not pursuing his OTL ambitions.

So to me, the gains are pretty small and the costs - given Mussolini - probably unreasonably high compared to him staying neutral.
 
Last edited:
The allies will not give any allies territory to Italy, so no Corsica, Tunesia or Malta. But they might offer parts of Austria, like Tirol.
 
If Italy isn’t fighting anyone, it won’t expose its weaknesses. I don’t think anyone thought Italy was that frail in say May 1940. Especially given how big and powerful it’s navy looked.
you can’t look at the situation from a 1943 perspective, that’s cheating
What does Italy offer to the Allies?

Italy is desperately weak economically/industrially, which is a very bad thing in the context of this kind of war to the last farthing and the last ball bearing.
 
don’t think anyone thought Italy was that frail in say May 1940. Especially given how big and powerful it’s navy looked.
you can’t look at the situation from a 1943 perspective, that’s cheating
Surely true. So allow me to quote something.

"In 1939 and 1940, the western Allies frequently considered the pros and cons of Italy fighting on Germany's side versus remaining neutral. On the whole, the British chiefs of staff preferred Italy to be kept out of the war, so as to preserve peace in the Mediterranean, but there were powerful counter arguments, which seem in retrospect to have been correct." - Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

I am looking at Italy's economic and industrial situation and trying to avoid looking at the issue of "The Italian army got the stuffing kicked out of it in Greece and (initially) North Africa.", personally. And I agree that the Italian navy in 1940 is probably the most promising part of the Italian military, but it is also the least relevant to the needs of the Allies - unless it has a better anti-submarine capacity than I'm aware of. I'm not aware of anything indicating it was noteworthy there, though it seems to have had at least decent battleships.
 
Last edited:
I’m more curious how Germany would do without Italy in the war. There being no ally to bail out in Greece and North Africa, this means more resources for Germany’s own aims.
 
I’m more curious how Germany would do without Italy in the war. There being no ally to bail out in Greece and North Africa, this means more resources for Germany’s own aims.
And the same for our British friends. Without the campaign in Africa tying down Montgomery and 1/4 million troops, where do they go instead in 1941? a) reinforce the British islands? (possibly d-day already in 1943?) b) attack Vichy France (Torch in 1941?) c) reinforce the Malay peninsula (possibly pushing Japan into neutral or Northern Strategy) or d) open up a new front in peripheral Europe? (Scandinavia, Balkans etc)

Any ww2 with Italy going neutral, will be unlikely to follow OTL by 1942.
 
What does Italy offer to the Allies?

Italy is desperately weak economically/industrially, which is a very bad thing in the context of this kind of war to the last farthing and the last ball bearing.

Surely true. So allow me to quote something.

"In 1939 and 1940, the western Allies frequently considered the pros and cons of Italy fighting on Germany's side versus remaining neutral. On the whole, the British chiefs of staff preferred Italy to be kept out of the war, so as to preserve peace in the Mediterranean, but there were powerful counter arguments, which seem in retrospect to have been correct." - Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

I am looking at Italy's economic and industrial situation and trying to avoid looking at the issue of "The Italian army got the stuffing kicked out of it in Greece and (initially) North Africa.", personally. And I agree that the Italian navy in 1940 is probably the most promising part of the Italian military, but it is also the least relevant to the needs of the Allies - unless it has a better anti-submarine capacity than I'm aware of. I'm not aware of anything indicating it was noteworthy there, though it seems to have had at least decent battleships.

Well in honestly not very much, just little things like keep the Mediterrean open and not star fight in other theatres in moment when the United Kingdom is in a situation between the desperate and the FUBAR...and as the phrase said the counter arguments were correct but only in retrospect and for all the memetic incompetence better remember that the UK (with the entire commonwealth and later the USA) used a lot of resources to fight the italians.
Both Churchill and Roosevelt were ready to give concession to Italy to keep her neutral, from diplomatic (a place at the winner table) to territorial (probably Malta and Somaliland) we can also add some economic incentive.

Why on Earth would they even think about that? Best they might offer is: "we'll probably not dispose your dictator after the war and take your current colonies away, but you will have to behave"

If any British, French or American ambassador say that or something similar he will immediately reassigned to a tour of duty in the People Republic of the External Far Far Awaystan; Italy in 1940 was one of the big boys, have a vital strategic position...and the Allies were drowing in a biological material of brown color
 
Italy changing sides is worth 100 plus Divisions to the Allies (from Italian Army forces and Allied units not fighting them) quite early in the war and millions of tons of shipping each year as the med is likely still open

And with Italy on side - the Balkans, Greece and possibly the Ottoman Empire could have joined earlier

And then there is less likely to be any nonsense in Iraq etc

Mussolini likely dies in bed

Its a big change

Almost as big as France not being defeated
 
Why on Earth would they even think about that? Best they might offer is: "we'll probably not dispose your dictator after the war and take your current colonies away, but you will have to behave"

Be serious. By 1948 Italy would be Best Friends status with the west due to the fact that they hate communists.
 
I thought the French and British seriously considered a panel of concessions to Italy during the Phony War, including transferring Tunisia, making Italian one of the official languages in Malta (or something like that), and giving them shares in the Suez Canal company.
 
We might look at what type of neutrality.

By keeping Italy neutral, Germany could have created a state producing loads of weapons without the threat of bombing of factories. Like Switzerland that produced and sold military equipment to Germany right up until the last days/hour.

If Italy had stayed out of Greece, leaving it to the Germans, Italy could have declared a safety zone around Scicily, claiming that no warships must pass by.

and yes. Italy was feared in the early 30s as one of the big powers.
 
What does Italy offer to the Allies?

Italy is desperately weak economically/industrially, which is a very bad thing in the context of this kind of war to the last farthing and the last ball bearing.
They offer the security of the Meditarean Sea and direct sea lanes of communication between India and the UK. That is extraordinarily valuable.
 
Well in honestly not very much, just little things like keep the Mediterrean open and not star fight in other theatres in moment when the United Kingdom is in a situation between the desperate and the FUBAR...and as the phrase said the counter arguments were correct but only in retrospect and for all the memetic incompetence better remember that the UK (with the entire commonwealth and later the USA) used a lot of resources to fight the italians..

Sure a neutral Italy is better there (the Mediterranean) than a hostile Italy, but an active ally may not offer much more than a neutral Italy to Mediterranean security. If it does, well, yes, that would be worth something IMO.

To the best of my knowledge, Italy's armed forces in the land and air are not particularly well equipped or supplied in 1940. And a war like this, based on the precedents of history, is going to depend a great deal on the industrial and economic might of the powers fighting it - "the last farthing and the last ball bearing" rather than the last shell or the last bullet.

So given an Italy that is not a threat to the sea route through Suez in either case (neutral or Allied), something like "here's territory of the enemy's we don't mind you having" might be something I would consider a reasonable offer, but a desperate scramble to win Italy over whatever it takes? That seems neither necessary or worth it compared to maintaining Italy neutrality.
 
Last edited:
Why on Earth would they even think about that? Best they might offer is: "we'll probably not dispose your dictator after the war and take your current colonies away, but you will have to behave"
That's the way to get the Moose to go over to the Axis, with a deal like that in 1940 as France was collapsing.
 
Top