That'd probably do it - Italy came in when the Battle of France was almost over and they could go "yeah yeah we helped", if it's taking longer and/or more Germans are being killed they might decide "maybe see if we can say we helped with Britain".
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WI: Italy remains neutral during World War 2 - impact of a "Fascist bloc" during the Cold War?
- Thread starter lerk
- Start date
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
I'll repeat what I said earlier. I think people here are overestimating how interested Fascist Italy would be in an alliance with the US. The Italian fascists wanted Italy to be militarily independent. They were also not very hostile towards the Soviet Union. Despite their ideological differences, they had good relations with it. Anti-communism was seen as an internal matter. I'm pretty sure Fascist Italy wouldn't join NATO, both because they wouldn't be interested and because several European members wouldn't want them in. With that said, I don't think Mussolini is likely to last very long. How long after his death do you think it would take for Italy to become a democracy?
Last edited:
Creekmench
A shade of indigo
- Pronouns
- He/him
That'd probably do it - Italy came in when the Battle of France was almost over and they could go "yeah yeah we helped", if it's taking longer and/or more Germans are being killed they might decide "maybe see if we can say we helped with Britain".
Maybe it takes a year to fully crush france, which would throw off Barbarossa of its time-table? but yeah that's other topic to be discussed.
History Learner
Well-known member
Personally I am convinced a neutral Italy means a victorious Axis.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
A neutral fascist state is plausible - it happened with Spain - but he's correct that the Italian fascists had a big list of stuff they wanted and from their POV this is the best time to try it because Hitler's winning. So a neutral Italy would most likely be one that isn't as sure where this war's going, something's happened to make them think it's not a sure bet.
Sorry for the late reply, but the big difference between Italy and Spain is that the former was a great power, albeit the weakest one. In addition, Italy had already alienated France and the UK with the conquest of Ethiopia and had already passed anti-Semitic laws. I do wonder if, by that point, Italy was just too close to Germany and too alienated from the Allies to stay neutral.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Also, note Italy had already signed the Pact of Steel with Germany, which was aimed at France and the UK. I wonder how close Italy could be to Germany for the Allies to consider it neutral.
Artaxerxes
Senshi sautés seashells by the seashore
- Location
- #VALUE!
Personally I am convinced a neutral Italy means a victorious Axis.
Like... how?
The mythos that Germany delaying Barbarossa to help out Italy lost them the war?
The mythos that Italy did nothing but bumble for no cost (because oh boy lets dig out how fucked Imperial trade was without free access to the Med)
The mythos that propping up Mussolini in 43/44 diverted war winning amount of resources just when Germany needed it?
Artaxerxes
Senshi sautés seashells by the seashore
- Location
- #VALUE!
Sorry for the late reply, but the big difference between Italy and Spain is that the former was a great power, albeit the weakest one. In addition, Italy had already alienated France and the UK with the conquest of Ethiopia and had already passed anti-Semitic laws. I do wonder if, by that point, Italy was just too close to Germany and too alienated from the Allies to stay neutral.
Nobody particularly pulled any hairs about the anti-Semitic laws I'm afraid, certainly not enough to declare war or make Italy have a hard time.
Which is just as well because Italy didn't put all that much effort into enforcing them. It was 43 when the Jewish deaths really ramped up in Italy and Italian occupied territory. Though other minorities did go through the wringer.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Nobody particularly pulled any hairs about the anti-Semitic laws I'm afraid, certainly not enough to declare war or make Italy have a hard time.
Which is just as well because Italy didn't put all that much effort into enforcing them. It was 43 when the Jewish deaths really ramped up in Italy and Italian occupied territory. Though other minorities did go through the wringer.
My point regarding the Anti-Semitic laws was to show how close Italy was to Germany by that point.
History Learner
Well-known member
Like... how?
The mythos that Germany delaying Barbarossa to help out Italy lost them the war?
The mythos that Italy did nothing but bumble for no cost (because oh boy lets dig out how fucked Imperial trade was without free access to the Med)
The mythos that propping up Mussolini in 43/44 diverted war winning amount of resources just when Germany needed it?
The delay was real because of the Balkan Campaign (The weather argument has largely been debunked as Halder mythos), but my main viewpoint on this comes from the Balkan campaign directly causing the cancellation of the planned double envelopment in March of 1941 by AGS of Soviet forces in the Ukraine because 12th Army was diverted. This laid the framework for the issues around Smolensk as well as set the stage for the Kiev or Moscow debate of August, 1941. Martin van Creveld and others have argued basically exactly what I am saying too.
Has the scholarship on Barbarossa remained in line with van Creveld et al since he published in 1973?The delay was real because of the Balkan Campaign (The weather argument has largely been debunked as Halder mythos), but my main viewpoint on this comes from the Balkan campaign directly causing the cancellation of the planned double envelopment in March of 1941 by AGS of Soviet forces in the Ukraine because 12th Army was diverted. This laid the framework for the issues around Smolensk as well as set the stage for the Kiev or Moscow debate of August, 1941. Martin van Creveld and others have argued basically exactly what I am saying too.
History Learner
Well-known member
Has the scholarship on Barbarossa remained in line with van Creveld et al since he published in 1973?
As a whole? No, definitely not but yes, his points on this have remained; Osprey has made much the same argument in recent years.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Remember Mussolini never had the same degree of power as Franco. Who's to say the King wouldn't get rid of him? He may see the defeat of Nazi Germany as an excellent opportunity to do so. In addition, Mussolini's health by the end of World War II was not good.
Last edited:
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Assuming Italy still signed the Pact of Steel, would the Allies really consider it neutral?
- Pronouns
- he/him
No more than they considered the USSR pre-Barbarossa neutral, I'd imagine.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Italy signed the Pact of Steel on 22 May 1939. Thus, do you think that by the Battle of France, it's too late for a neutral Italy?No more than they considered the USSR pre-Barbarossa neutral, I'd imagine.
He's already declared he's not really neutral. Non-belligerence was taken by pretty much everybody to mean, "we're not fighting yet", as opposed to neutrality, which is "we're not fighting".Italy signed the Pact of Steel on 22 May 1939. Thus, do you think that by the Battle of France, it's too late for a neutral Italy?
General Wavell likened it to Mussolini climbing up the high diving board. "I think he must do something. If he cannot make a graceful dive, he will at least have to jump in somehow; he can hardly put on his dressing-gown and walk down the stairs again."
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
No more than they considered the USSR pre-Barbarossa neutral, I'd imagine.
He's already declared he's not really neutral. Non-belligerence was taken by pretty much everybody to mean, "we're not fighting yet", as opposed to neutrality, which is "we're not fighting".
General Wavell likened it to Mussolini climbing up the high diving board. "I think he must do something. If he cannot make a graceful dive, he will at least have to jump in somehow; he can hardly put on his dressing-gown and walk down the stairs again."
Would the Allies have invaded Italy if it did not engage in fighting?
They'd be mad to do so. They've got too much on their plate already. But Benny has made it clear: he's joining. Its just a matter of when. There'd need to be some indication of a much longer war to persuade him to blink.Would the Allies have invaded Italy if it did not engage in fighting?
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Would the Allies have invaded Italy if it did not engage in fighting?
I should again note, BTW, that even with a slower Battle of France, as that Italian user at the other place noted, if there is something like a French Civil War, Italy would be extremely tempted to do something, which would be extremely risky and incompatible with neutrality.