Italy as a neutral and non-belligerent in WW2

WE are having this discussion on the Warships1 board and its gone beyond its original RN deployments.

What are peoples opinions here?

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discu ... 6816.topic

"despite Mussolini's description of the German-Italian alliance as an "Axis of Blood and Steel", his response to the German invasion was to declare that Italy was neutral and a "non-belligerent". However, on June 10, 1940, as Rommel reached the English Channel, Mussolini felt the war was coming to an end and declared war on Britain and France. As he said to the Army's Chief of Staff, Marshal Badoglio, "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought."

Mussolini's staff were advising him that Italy was not equipped to go to war. What if Mussolini maintained his initial response and remained neutral and a "non-belligerent" throughout WW2?

What would the German response be? The allies would not be able to use Italy as a soft underbelly into Hitler's Europe. How is Britain's situation in the Far East affected?

 

The German response would probably be no longer to trust Mussolini as an ally and not to have to engage in actions in North Africa, Greece and Italy. However, Southern France would be a flankless underbelly of Europe and the Med would unquestionably be in British hands. I think this may have seriously altered the situation in the West by providing the Allies with a whole area they could uncontestedly dominate and use as a base of operations against all kinds of targets.

 

If germany faced off against Italy in WW2 , how long do you think it would have taken for italy to be defeated ?

 

i would assume that italy would still be symphetic to to nazi germany much like fascist spain.

the british could use their bases at gibraltar and malta unhindered, but they would worry about invading italain territoral waters and italian airspace.

i dont see how the south of france would be the soft underbelly because the british do not have any jumping of points to affect that area? from north africa it is only a short hop to sicily and then italy but how do u get to france from north africa?

from this view it means that the only way back into europe is through northern france.

also with italy stayin neutral does hitler need to secure the balkans before attacking the ussr?

 

Gibralter?
It is still softer than the NW coastline.

 

correct me if im wrong but Gibraltar is still a long way from the south of France.. where are u going to build up a larege strike force that is necessary.. Gibraltar is a small base at the southerntip of Spain!

 

Well, bearing in mind the state of the defences in on the Medditeranian (I never could spell that) coast of France, I reckon that any landing there would be highly successful, especially if there are huge diversionary ruses (and even raids) on the Atlantic coastline.

A task force can be assembled on the African coast, and once launched is self-sufficient. The only problem being that all air-cover will need to be carrier-based until a decent amount of territory is taken.

 

how can u build up a force in north africa?... dont forget the nearest British bases are in Egypt!...the rest are colonies of France Italy and Spain.

 

Well, we'd probably still take the route of invading Morocco etc as being a potential threat (ie: Vichy French, therefore potentially pro-German)

Especially if we have a free hand in the Med except for Vichy territory. I doubt it would take long for the Germans to start basing Luftwaffe units in them, which would give a perfect excuse (see Syria).

 

what about Sardinia ? it's a bit of a distance , but could it work ?

 

sardinia is part of italy!!