Italy doesn't declare war

CDurham

I know there have been a lot of threads arguing one way or another about what would happen if Germany hadn't declared war, but one thing I haven't seen since I joined is a question of what if Italy didn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

While I was thinking up an arguement to the first question that would be asked: "why would they do such a thing" I thought that maybe, Mooseolini is convinced that it would be good for their posistion in Africa (If the US isn't at War with Italy could they attack Libya?)

yeah, I know its a thin arguement, and that someone in the Italian government may come up with a better reason to not declare war, and the US may declare war by the end of the month anyway. But I thought it would be more interesting then yet another "Hitler doesn't declare war" thread.
 
AbeLincoln1865

AbeLincoln1865

Wait a minute... A WWII Thread that has a completely original idea that isn't
a repeat of an idea that's been done over and over again?!?
attachment.php
















In all honesty the US declares war on Italy while nobody's looking
 
LHB

LHB

Benny the Moose is already done the moment he picks a fight with the British. If he wants to reap the best benefits of the war staying out completely would have been better; declaring war on the UK and abstaining from declaring war on the US following Hitler's DoW would mostly succeed in making him look like a bigger doofus.

Which to be fair is something of an achievement in and of itself.
 

MerlinMcMerlee

I'm not an expert on these things, but perhaps Germany would have invaded Italy and then Italy would join the Allies? Then, there wouldn't be a major Mediterranean theater until Germany (if they did) successfully capture Italy. But then again, Vichy France is still involved (much later though) , however they'd have a hard time against both the Italians and the Allies. Of course, I'm new, and I may sound crazy to you :eek: but is this plausible?
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
US did not declare on Ottomans WW1. Germany did not declare on Italy for years in WW1. So very plausible scenario. What happens is likely less than one first hopes.

Much goes the same as OTL since USA was not fighting Italy much in 1942. If Italians stay away from Torch, USA probably stays away from Italy. UK keeps the Italians bottled up. At some point (as we near Tunisia), the USA gives ultimatium to Italy who refuses, USA declares war then.

I strongly suspect if you go through USA/Italy battles before say early 1943, there are not many. If intentional by USA, these battles don't happen.
 

MattII

I wonder, with a neutral Italy is it at all possible that we could see Operation Husky being shifted to Corsica? Or is that a bit Frisian Islands?
 

Blackfox5

US declaration of war against Italy is all but inevitable. Maybe it waits until after Torch, but not long afterwards. Probably much earlier.

Hitler's minor allies did not want to declare war on America, but were compelled to declare war or face Hitler's wrath. Romania's Ion Antonescur said, "I am an ally of the [German] Reich against [the Soviet Union], I am neutral in the conflict between Great Britain and Germany. I am for America against the Japanese." Nevertheless, he declared war on America five days later because of Hitler's pressure. Even Bulgaria which had somehow gotten away from declaring war on the Soviets had to declare war on the US!

It's hard to see why Mussolini wouldn't be forced to do the same.
 
Clandango

Clandango

It would make some sense for Mussolini to support try being neutral or supportive witth the Marricans if it happened at the beginning of the war before needing German help in Africa, France, and the Balkans, or at the end when so many Axis members were invaded by Germany. Midway, the Italians might be a bit German-reliant.
 
DrakonFin

DrakonFin

Blackfox5 said:
Hitler's minor allies did not want to declare war on America, but were compelled to declare war or face Hitler's wrath. Romania's Ion Antonescur said, "I am an ally of the [German] Reich against [the Soviet Union], I am neutral in the conflict between Great Britain and Germany. I am for America against the Japanese." Nevertheless, he declared war on America five days later because of Hitler's pressure. Even Bulgaria which had somehow gotten away from declaring war on the Soviets had to declare war on the US!

It's hard to see why Mussolini wouldn't be forced to do the same.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, Hitler did not lean on Finland in a significant way to declare war on the Western Allies, which lead to Britain (and the Commonwealth) having to declare war on Finland in December 1941 (over the Finns' advance in the USSR over the 1920 borders, incidentally a day before Pearl Harbor) and as we know there was never a state of war between Finland and the US.
 

Blackfox5

DrakonFin said:
On the other hand, Hitler did not lean on Finland in a significant way to declare war on the Western Allies, which lead to Britain (and the Commonwealth) having to declare war on Finland in December 1941 (over the Finns' advance in the USSR over the 1920 borders, incidentally a day before Pearl Harbor) and as we know there was never a state of war between Finland and the US.
Click to expand...

If you look at a map, you'll see why. Unlike the rest of Hitler's allies, Finland doesn't have a land connection to Germany. He can't threaten an invasion as easily as he could the others. Finland also had a much smaller pro-Nazi home fascist movement he could use to form a collaboration government.
 

Catspoke

Actually a better question might be what if Mussolini did not declare war on the USSR? Sending Italians to die in the USSR didn't make much sense and cost Mussolini politically after the winter 42-43 disaster there. Actually declaring war on anybody after December 40 when it was obvious Italy was in way over her head is a bad idea.
 
DrakonFin

DrakonFin

Blackfox5 said:
If you look at a map, you'll see why. Unlike the rest of Hitler's allies, Finland doesn't have a land connection to Germany. He can't threaten an invasion as easily as he could the others. Finland also had a much smaller pro-Nazi home fascist movement he could use to form a collaboration government.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that simple - the Germans controlled Finnish Lapland with over 200 000 troops there, almost half of the Finnish army and generally well-armed, and by autumn 1941 also were in control of Estonia and the southern side of the Gulf of Finland. Hitler could have easily punished Finland by the force of arms - or at the very least Germany could have stopped the export of food, weapons and other necessary things Finland depended on. Combine these two, and Finland is screwed. Also, Germany did have plans for toppling the Finnish government if Helsinki makes peace with the Soviets, and even trained Finnish soldiers for this - IOTL, though, when Finland did jump ship in September 1944, the Germans were already too weak to go through with such a plan.

From late 1941 to mid-1944, the Germans could have levelled some pretty destructive punitive measures against Finland. But Finland, just by the virtue of fighting against the USSR and tying its troops in the process, was too much of an asset for that, despite not going "all in" to support the German war effort. I think the same might be true for Italy - keeping Italy onside with the Axis would be more important than whether it declares war on the US or not. And of course, like some already have said, if Rome does not declare against Washington, Washington will most likely declare against Rome, with the roughly same end results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top