italian ambitions over Austria

[Pippo Franchino]

A Strategical long war would be bloody, but Italy can always bring factories to the South , get more air defence , fortify Carso and get a lot of Help from British colonies.
We have also to consider that German army won't be capable to attack France, Italy and Yugoslavian army without get attacked on his positions so attacking Yugoslavia, or Greece would make their forces splitted. During world war 2 Greece was easly occupied because they got encircled by the Italian main forces and the German motorized that got them form the back. We have to consider also that a Italy that stick with Allies is a Italy fully supplied and with all the country well fed and working.
Menawhile Luftwaffen can bring out Italian airforces we have always to think that All the Italian airforces would be defending the same area meanwhile RAF can do well his job , and i don't know much about French airforces.

Another fact have to be pointed out...Wich year we are talking about? Because if we talk about Germany getting over Austria during 1938 and a lot of stuff would change into intriguing ways.

I can already see the colonial troops get recalled! xD

 

[Kovax]

If Italy were to contest the occupation of Austria, resulting in some of the traditional Allies getting involved, Germany might not be able to easily push through the Alps into Italy, but neither would Italy and its allies be able to advance into Germany. I see it as either a messy "trench war" in the mountains, or more likely another "phony war" front, like along the Maginot Line. Meanwhile, Austria itself ends up beneath German boots, and the major powers look for other less awkward ways of getting at each other.

 

[steve.bd]

Translate better with "bastard" / "bitch" not "idiot" that in Italian is the same ("idiota").

This...

 

[Oriflamme]

I think it should be remembered that in 1936, Britain was pretty sympathetic to Germany while also taking a hard stance towards Italy. Britain's concern at the time was that France's cordon sanitaire was getting too strong and could potentially result in French Continental hegemony. So I would argue that Britain would have serious reservations about joining a war against Germany if France and Italy were on the same side.

 

[shri]

I think it should be remembered that in 1936, Britain was pretty sympathetic to Germany while also taking a hard stance towards Italy. Britain's concern at the time was that France's cordon sanitaire was getting too strong and could potentially result in French Continental hegemony. So I would argue that Britain would have serious reservations about joining a war against Germany if France and Italy were on the same side.

+1. THIS!

I was going to type in the same.
The English policy for the past 500 years has been to contain the Hegemony on the continent. France was anyway the age-old enemy who turned friend between 1850 and 1919 but with the Germans crushed by Versailles & Great Depression, the English political realities take over and France is a bigger threat than Germany esp. if France and Italy are allied and those LE countries in the East are also allied to France and they all decide to gang-up against the Germans (mind you, in 1938-39 the Regime was not discredited like in 1945+), the English will throw their weight with the Germans rather than against them or remain neutral with activities under the table.
Again another WILD CARD is the USSR, with Poland and other small countries in the LE being against the USSR, there is an even greater possibility of a M-R pact type Pact wherein the USSR declared aggressive war against the LE countries in the East so as to gobble them up or split them with the Germans.

It is not a straight-line equation of A tends to B and B tends to C and thus A tends to C indirectly or something, it is much more complex.

 

[Centerbe]

I think it should be remembered that in 1936, Britain was pretty sympathetic to Germany while also taking a hard stance towards Italy. Britain's concern at the time was that France's cordon sanitaire was getting too strong and could potentially result in French Continental hegemony. So I would argue that Britain would have serious reservations about joining a war against Germany if France and Italy were on the same side.

+1. THIS!

I was going to type in the same.
The English policy for the past 500 years has been to contain the Hegemony on the continent. France was anyway the age-old enemy who turned friend between 1850 and 1919 but with the Germans crushed by Versailles & Great Depression, the English political realities take over and France is a bigger threat than Germany esp. if France and Italy are allied and those LE countries in the East are also allied to France and they all decide to gang-up against the Germans (mind you, in 1938-39 the Regime was not discredited like in 1945+), the English will throw their weight with the Germans rather than against them or remain neutral with activities under the table.
Again another WILD CARD is the USSR, with Poland and other small countries in the LE being against the USSR, there is an even greater possibility of a M-R pact type Pact wherein the USSR declared aggressive war against the LE countries in the East so as to gobble them up or split them with the Germans.

It is not a straight-line equation of A tends to B and B tends to C and thus A tends to C indirectly or something, it is much more complex.

Interesting discussion, i agree in general about political situation...
This three countries (UK,FRA,ITA) was colonialist nations, and all had attitute to limit others for maintain a position of hegemony.
Aniway France, UK and Poland was already allied before the war, and their intervenction was forced by invasion of Poland.
British cant have reservations about joining a war against Germany if this declare war on their ally.
This would presuppose France had broke any alliance with UK and Poland, and UK aniway did not guarantee independence of Poland.
Than an hypothetical exclusive alliance between France and Italy before the war is improbable.

More realistically maybe the war would begin between Germany and Italy in 38. In case Germany would declare war on Poland, UK and France would join it.
Only after such events Italy would perhaps have been accepted in the allies.

 

[The Nothing]

+1. THIS!

I was going to type in the same.
The English policy for the past 500 years has been to contain the Hegemony on the continent. France was anyway the age-old enemy who turned friend between 1850 and 1919 but with the Germans crushed by Versailles & Great Depression, the English political realities take over and France is a bigger threat than Germany esp. if France and Italy are allied and those LE countries in the East are also allied to France and they all decide to gang-up against the Germans (mind you, in 1938-39 the Regime was not discredited like in 1945+), the English will throw their weight with the Germans rather than against them or remain neutral with activities under the table.
Again another WILD CARD is the USSR, with Poland and other small countries in the LE being against the USSR, there is an even greater possibility of a M-R pact type Pact wherein the USSR declared aggressive war against the LE countries in the East so as to gobble them up or split them with the Germans.

It is not a straight-line equation of A tends to B and B tends to C and thus A tends to C indirectly or something, it is much more complex.

Perhaps it would happen like that. But it won't end very well. First if UK would not support France and Italy I highly doubt it will declare war on these countries with Germany. Afterall UK refused to fight to protect Czechoslovakia, why would it fight for a damn bloody german dictator ? At the time they wanted peace, not war. Then, in 1938 Germany was not ready for a war. Same thing goes for the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure if Italy tried this, there'll be no war. Germany was weak, and if France, Italy and the Little Entente wanted to make sure there'll be no Anschluss, the Reich would be soon in a very bad situation. Afterall, even if the french army couldn't easily go through the Siegfried line, and the italian one through the alps, the czech one was in a perfect position to strike deep into the german industry.

On top of that, Germany would have to go through the maginot line to fight in France, or else, invade Belgium which was protected by UK, so would mean they'll have to deal with that power in the end.

The only power that could in my mind support Germany will be the Soviet Union as you said earlier.... but I don't think it could do a good offensiv war in 1938. Afterall in 1939 they failed against Finland, they would most likely fail to fight bigger countries, or at least they won't do much damages before they solved their problems of leadership. Which won't happen quickly.

 

[shri]

Interesting discussion, i agree in general about political situation...
This three countries (UK,FRA,ITA) was colonialist nations, and all had attitute to limit others for maintain a position of hegemony.
Aniway France, UK and Poland was already allied before the war, and their intervenction was forced by invasion of Poland.
British cant have reservations about joining a war against Germany if this declare war on their ally.
This would presuppose France had broke any alliance with UK and Poland, and UK aniway did not guarantee independence of Poland.
Than an hypothetical exclusive alliance between France and Italy before the war is improbable.

More realistically maybe the war would begin between Germany and Italy in 38. In case Germany would declare war on Poland, UK and France would join it.
Only after such events Italy would perhaps have been accepted in the allies.

Perhaps it would happen like that. But it won't end very well. First if UK would not support France and Italy I highly doubt it will declare war on these countries with Germany. Afterall UK refused to fight to protect Czechoslovakia, why would it fight for a damn bloody german dictator ? At the time they wanted peace, not war. Then, in 1938 Germany was not ready for a war. Same thing goes for the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure if Italy tried this, there'll be no war. Germany was weak, and if France, Italy and the Little Entente wanted to make sure there'll be no Anschluss, the Reich would be soon in a very bad situation. Afterall, even if the french army couldn't easily go through the Siegfried line, and the italian one through the alps, the czech one was in a perfect position to strike deep into the german industry.

On top of that, Germany would have to go through the maginot line to fight in France, or else, invade Belgium which was protected by UK, so would mean they'll have to deal with that power in the end.

The only power that could in my mind support Germany will be the Soviet Union as you said earlier.... but I don't think it could do a good offensiv war in 1938. Afterall in 1939 they failed against Finland, they would most likely fail to fight bigger countries, or at least they won't do much damages before they solved their problems of leadership. Which won't happen quickly.

Well, my quote did say-
UK will not support a Franco-Italian adventure backing a string of small states in Eastern Europe against Germany. I never said UK will actually align with the Germans, it is most probably going to declare neutrality and then sell arms to both, in that case weakening the Entente badly as the Germans will not be under Naval Blockade.

The Germans will not attack France or Italy at-first, instead they will combine with the USSR to finish off all of Eastern Europe, split the bill with Stalin and then do a Western Offensive via the Low Countries after filling their coffers with loot and in that scenario, France without the UK will have a lot more problems, even if the UK does join-in at the last moment it has lost over a year's worth of build-up which means it is much weaker than RL esp. the RAF and this will make the UK play even more safe.
As for the USSR failing against the Finns, the Winter War was a different thing altogether, due to limited "frontage" factors the 20000+ tanks and planes (many of them tending to become obsolete by 1939, nevertheless the numbers were about 1.5 times the rest of the world combined) will have an immense impact against the small countries of Eastern Europe.

As for Italy, once the French fall, CAPORETTO part-2 it is. Stalin will be immensely happy selling his RM to Hitler and make him go kill the Western Powers.

The end-game may well be a Soviet Invasion of Germany and Europe in 1942 but how that will pan-out is difficult to say, though i will give the Soviets the advantage. 60:40.

 

[Nicolas I]

Worst case scenario: invasion by Italy or Germany, and then a declaration of war by France for trying to defend itself.

Isn't that a wurst case scenario as we speak of Austria...

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Interesting discussion, i agree in general about political situation...
This three countries (UK,FRA,ITA) was colonialist nations, and all had attitute to limit others for maintain a position of hegemony.
Aniway France, UK and Poland was already allied before the war, and their intervenction was forced by invasion of Poland.
British cant have reservations about joining a war against Germany if this declare war on their ally.

Why not? France was not only allied to Poland but to Czechoslovakia too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)#Interwar
and instead of going to war to defend their borders the country was divided and even Poland took some part of it.

And despite declaring war against Germany when Germany attacked Poland both UK and France first allowed Poland to be destroyed instead of acting within the timeframe they had promised Poland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
Had the UK and France told Poland honestly that they won´t be able to launch a major offensive against Germany within 2 weeks the polish government *might* have negotiated the return of Danzig to Germany a bit more favourably.

 

[Centerbe]

Why not? France was not only allied to Poland but to Czechoslovakia too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)#Interwar
and instead of going to war to defend their borders the country was divided and even Poland took some part of it.

And despite declaring war against Germany when Germany attacked Poland both UK and France first allowed Poland to be destroyed instead of acting within the timeframe they had promised Poland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
Had the UK and France told Poland honestly that they won´t be able to launch a major offensive against Germany within 2 weeks the polish government *might* have negotiated the return of Danzig to Germany a bit more favourably.

I dont mean that multiple alliances was impossible, but improbable.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

Well, my quote did say-
UK will not support a Franco-Italian adventure backing a string of small states in Eastern Europe against Germany. I never said UK will actually align with the Germans, it is most probably going to declare neutrality and then sell arms to both, in that case weakening the Entente badly as the Germans will not be under Naval Blockade.

The Germans will not attack France or Italy at-first, instead they will combine with the USSR to finish off all of Eastern Europe, split the bill with Stalin and then do a Western Offensive via the Low Countries after filling their coffers with loot and in that scenario, France without the UK will have a lot more problems, even if the UK does join-in at the last moment it has lost over a year's worth of build-up which means it is much weaker than RL esp. the RAF and this will make the UK play even more safe.
As for the USSR failing against the Finns, the Winter War was a different thing altogether, due to limited "frontage" factors the 20000+ tanks and planes (many of them tending to become obsolete by 1939, nevertheless the numbers were about 1.5 times the rest of the world combined) will have an immense impact against the small countries of Eastern Europe.

As for Italy, once the French fall, CAPORETTO part-2 it is. Stalin will be immensely happy selling his RM to Hitler and make him go kill the Western Powers.

The end-game may well be a Soviet Invasion of Germany and Europe in 1942 but how that will pan-out is difficult to say, though i will give the Soviets the advantage. 60:40.

So you say that Germany and Soviets take out all the eastern europe without anybody say nothing (Uk would For sure attack in this case) and trying to attack French mean attack belgium under uk protection or crash maginot lines that would result a bloodbath.
UK would For sure join the Entente during 1938\1939 cause Germany attacking another big democracy meanwhile breaking the old order established also by UK is enough to make them join war without count the public opinion. Without count that German army was not big enough to hold the entire French line, the italian line and attack eastern countries.
Result would be Berlin burning during 1940! Not bad

 

[shri]

So you say that Germany and Soviets take out all the eastern europe without anybody say nothing (Uk would For sure attack in this case) and trying to attack French mean attack belgium under uk protection or crash maginot lines that would result a bloodbath.
UK would For sure join the Entente during 1938\1939 cause Germany attacking another big democracy meanwhile breaking the old order established also by UK is enough to make them join war without count the public opinion. Without count that German army was not big enough to hold the entire French line, the italian line and attack eastern countries.
Result would be Berlin burning during 1940! Not bad

Was that a joke? The Franco Border and Italian Border are easily defensible due to Terrain modifiers and due to the "Incompetent" leadership of France and Italy.
Just research- Caporetto, 11 Battles of Isonzo and Battle of Frontiers for more clues.

The Soviets themselves on their own had enough power to eclipse the entire Europe and combined with the Germans in a "Unholy Alliance" would be unbeatable.

We are talking of a scenario where France + Italy and the Little Entente forms a league against the Germans just to be clear, the UK would never join a war to help a little Entente member who is provoking the Germans esp. considering their past track record of going against the reigning hegemon on the continent.
UK will remain neutral and play "Honest Broker" profiting from sales to both parties.

The way this scenario plays out will be something like this-
Sitzkrieg on the Franco-German Border and the Italo-German Borders in 1938 onwards,
Blitzkrieg in the East against Poland and Czechoslovakia and other states with the active help of the Soviets. (The Germans will never start the war without active Soviet Backing and UK was not ready to go war was the main reason why Munich happened). It is the French Little Entente (LE) combined with Italy that declares war in this case and UK will not be ready to wage a "War of Aggression to further French interests on the continent". UK never had public opinion in both wars for a war and that is why Chamberlain did Munich and was widely supported at that time at home and even across the Atlantic.

Followed by this, by late 1939, the UK will finally realise that they have to take sides and will start mobilising, a DOW against the LOW countries brings them in, but it is too little and too late. France falls and followed by this Italy falls in mid/late 1940 and early 1941 respectively.
The only jigsaw missing is what STALIN does in 1941 Winter or 1942 Winter, due to multiple fronts and several wars, the Germans are weaker than they are Historically but the Russians are at full strength and have actually gained combat experience in Eastern Europe (and in the Proxy War in Northern Europe, where the UK sends supplies to the Baltics and Finns and the Russians win with even more expenditure of Blood but gain the necessary experience).

a 1942 sweep into Central and Southern Europe may lead to a big Soviet Victory followed by a brutal series of See-Saw battles in Central Europe followed by a "Bitter Peace" in 1943. With 2 armed camps facing each other in the East, the USA (alongwith the UK and its commonwealth) can launch operation Husky and Overlord in 1944 and 1945 which will see a renewed Soviet Offensive and Soviet Occupation of Most of Europe barring Southern Italy and France.
Japan loses all the same, it never had a chance once the UK mobilised.

What happens in this scenario is most of Central and parts of Western Europe are fully ash as RL but Soviets are immensely stronger as they haven't had the huge defeats of 1941-42 inflicted on them (we are talking of approx. 8-10 million combat losses that didn't occur).

Having won his empire on the cheap, the interesting scenario will be - can the USA develop the Bomb even with the delays in quantity to deter the Soviets? or
can the Allies do Operation Unthinkable? or does Stalin launch Operation Mars - this time aimed at sweeping all of Europe into Puppet states.
How this plays out will be the real interesting question.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

Was that a joke? The Franco Border and Italian Border are easily defensible due to Terrain modifiers and due to the "Incompetent" leadership of France and Italy.
Just research- Caporetto, 11 Battles of Isonzo and Battle of Frontiers for more clues.

You shall see that Caporetto was WW1 and you shall also know how it ended. Italian reformed his General and the Italian Army beaten the Austrian that have had better positions.

First ... As said Before Germans are not able to hold ALL the Maginot line meanwhile holding Italian Front and meanwhile attacking east. Second... Do you really think Stalin let Hitler get all eastern Europe? And how much that will take? For sure UK would be ready for mobilize and also German would not be fully mobilized during 38. And for sure French and Italians if German attacck east are able to attack and push forward if Germans attack east.
Italian army counted 3 millions of men during 1939 and French have had 5 millions men meanwhile German Army only 2,5 millions. German were able to defeat the French because Bliztrkrieg but they are not able to defend as well two long fronts and they need all their men to attack.

Second : UK would for sure join cause germany attacking poland= UK join and GErman attacking Belgium = UK joining. and Of course Brits would be ready. Don't understimate entire nations... French can maybe not surrender if Italy was there, French army could just retreat and keep fighting .

 

[shri]

Italian army counted 3 millions of men during 1939 and French have had 5 millions men meanwhile German Army only 2,5 millions. German were able to defeat the French because Bliztrkrieg but they are not able to defend as well two long fronts and they need all their men to attack.
.

That is another JOKE, Italy doing a good job on the Alpine French front. Italy launched an attack with over 300000 troops and managed to lose some 6000+ vs French troops who numbered less than 85000 (1/4 of Italy) and lost just over 200 casualties. All this in a period of 15 days, they gained less than 15 square miles.

French and Italian leadership was hopelessly outdated politically and militarily and thus their awful performances. They were stuck in 1918-1919 and never came out just like Ostriches in the Sand.

Leave France, those Italian troops were unable to defeat tiny Greece whose total population was about 8 million (compared to the 3 million Italians under arms) and actually ended up ceding territory. They lost awfully against an outnumbered English Army in North Africa and surrendered double quick on getting invaded. To think they would actually out-fight the German army at its peak is a big joke.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

your stereotype leave any chance to give actually a clear interpretation of the conflict it seems.. ITalians troops on French front were garrissons troops who were just ordered to attack French by Mussolini without any preparation and they have had to attack a fortified position..That make clear that you know nothing about the Italian front..
Greece have had 8 millions of people but what that mean? It nearly make me laugh... Do you think Italian sent 3 millions soldiers in Greece? They attacked with less divisions then they were requested by the High command because Mussolini ordered to attack immediatly and they attacked over mountains with airforce not available because rain during the season.

Italian troops who were not motorized and were attacking into the desert were cut off from logistic and without supplies they started to retread lacking of food and water walking back into the desert. They got surrended by the English motorized troops and without ammos is difficult to fight. During the final battle of El Alamein battle the Allies troops outnumbered badly the Axis troops.

It is a joke to think that you can blitzkrieg crossing mountains, you clearly don't know that a panzer can't into the mountains, and stukas don't perform well on the Alps.

As said before Germans was good cause of their speed, but when they need to make a trench war, then there is nothing they can do and the numbers start to count. Of course they won't be able to hold all the line, and of course they would fall/ get heavy losses if they tried to attack east meanwhile holding west front on French and Italy. Keep thinking Britain won't intervene is also just fantasy, just a dream of your probably.. Don't think Wermacht was perfect, it have had his own sprint, but it have not lasted a lot and politically they were only able to suppress making grow hate against germans troops leading to highly organized partisans formations with a lot of supporters all around the occupied lands... That make me think they were not that strategical genius.

 

[amalric de g.]

your stereotype leave any chance to give actually a clear interpretation of the conflict it seems.. ITalians troops on French front were garrissons troops who were just ordered to attack French by Mussolini without any preparation and they have had to attack a fortified position..That make clear that you know nothing about the Italian front..
Greece have had 8 millions of people but what that mean? It nearly make me laugh... Do you think Italian sent 3 millions soldiers in Greece? They attacked with less divisions then they were requested by the High command because Mussolini ordered to attack immediatly and they attacked over mountains with airforce not available because rain during the season.

Italian troops who were not motorized and were attacking into the desert were cut off from logistic and without supplies they started to retread lacking of food and water walking back into the desert. They got surrended by the English motorized troops and without ammos is difficult to fight. During the final battle of El Alamein battle the Allies troops outnumbered badly the Axis troops.

It is a joke to think that you can blitzkrieg crossing mountains, you clearly don't know that a panzer can't into the mountains, and stukas don't perform well on the Alps.

As said before Germans was good cause of their speed, but when they need to make a trench war, then there is nothing they can do and the numbers start to count. Of course they won't be able to hold all the line, and of course they would fall/ get heavy losses if they tried to attack east meanwhile holding west front on French and Italy. Keep thinking Britain won't intervene is also just fantasy, just a dream of your probably.. Don't think Wermacht was perfect, it have had his own sprint, but it have not lasted a lot and politically they were only able to suppress making grow hate against germans troops leading to highly organized partisans formations with a lot of supporters all around the occupied lands... That make me think they were not that strategical genius.

You accuse people of stereotype behavior and defend yourself the awfull performance of the italian army and the italian generals. Thats a classical doublestandard.

First the italian army was badly equiped and led by some of the worst generals in the whole war. With some exceptions naturally.

"Despite the grandiose claims of Mussolini, Italy did not have the conditions to carry out a successful war. The population was in an apathetic state, there were serious shortcomings in strategic commodities and the army was in a sorry state because necessary weapons and equipment was missing and insufficiently modern techniques of warfare were prepared."

http://weltkrieg2.de/italienische-armee-1940/

Your 3 million men army, was in 1940 before the italian attack on France only 2 million men. So please explain me, how will Italy mobilise 1 million men more in 1938?

If we assume, Hitler is a complete idiot and annex Austria in 1938, without the permission of the other complete idiot il Duce. Italy asks France, Poland and Czechoslovakia for help in the comming war, they need time to think about it, asking the parliaments and so on, after that time, the countries need a minimum of 3 months to mobilise their full armies.

Do you really think the germans didn´t had a plan for this scenario?

I would only defend the french and italian border with a minimum force, pick of Czechoslovakia first from all sides, next on the list is Poland, if the Wehrmacht is fast enough, assuming they need for both countries 2 months, what will Italy and France do about it? Not much.

The next target is Italy, attacking through the alpes is a no brainer. So the attack goes from Austria through veneto, lombardy and savoy straight to the french border, cutting of the italian industry from the rest of the country and most of their army. The terrain is flat like a pancake, until you reach the french border, so it´s ideal terrain for a Blitz.
Italy is done in maybe one month.

France can only send the french italien border divisions for helping the italians, if they left the Divisions on the border and didn´t send them north.

Thats it, France is alone.

 

[Pippo Franchino]

You accuse people of stereotype behavior and defend yourself the awfull performance of the italian army and the italian generals. Thats a classical doublestandard.

First the italian army was badly equiped and led by some of the worst generals in the whole war. With some exceptions naturally.

"Despite the grandiose claims of Mussolini, Italy did not have the conditions to carry out a successful war. The population was in an apathetic state, there were serious shortcomings in strategic commodities and the army was in a sorry state because necessary weapons and equipment was missing and insufficiently modern techniques of warfare were prepared."

http://weltkrieg2.de/italienische-armee-1940/

Your 3 million men army, was in 1940 before the italian attack on France only 2 million men. So please explain me, how will Italy mobilise 1 million men more in 1938?

If we assume, Hitler is a complete idiot and annex Austria in 1938, without the permission of the other complete idiot il Duce. Italy asks France, Poland and Czechoslovakia for help in the comming war, they need time to think about it, asking the parliaments and so on, after that time, the countries need a minimum of 3 months to mobilise their full armies.

Do you really think the germans didn´t had a plan for this scenario?

I would only defend the french and italian border with a minimum force, pick of Czechoslovakia first from all sides, next on the list is Poland, if the Wehrmacht is fast enough, assuming they need for both countries 2 months, what will Italy and France do about it? Not much.

The next target is Italy, attacking through the alpes is a no brainer. So the attack goes from Austria through veneto, lombardy and savoy straight to the french border, cutting of the italian industry from the rest of the country and most of their army. The terrain is flat like a pancake, until you reach the french border, so it´s ideal terrain for a Blitz.
Italy is done in maybe one month.

France can only send the french italien border divisions for helping the italians, if they left the Divisions on the border and didn´t send them north.

Thats it, France is alone.

Yes... And Pigs are able to fly!

So you assume every countries are stupid and only Germany is ready and mobilized during 1938?

-First... If crisis happen people start to mobilize and Germany is not mobilized during 1938, it is not prepared to invade nothing and it need to pick upd equipment , move troops and arm them in some time, so it is not ready..

-Second.. Italy was a dictatorship, no parliament needed to mobilize troops and a war was fought some year before so... French have troops ready and need the same time as Germany to mobilize. You know that Parliament need time , but military staff act on the order of the government so if it say to the army to start to be prepared unofficially or officially it can become to get ready before officially stuff needed. With state of emergency and decrees also those stuff can be faster into Parliament. The same for others countries.

-The 3 million men is explained due reserve that are in every army. If reserve were mobilized numbers grown. However looking the source, i don't know if trust it.

-The italian army was bad equipped for colonial/desert war out of their mainland but it was fully capable to defend mainland cause it don't have to be splitted and know the terrain. Without count Alpini were one of the best troops fighting on the mountains.

The problem is you assume Hitler is a genius and every others are dumb. The germans troops were able just to annex those lands, they were not ready to fight an entire army, but with a league opposing with arms they won't have just occupied everything so fast.Each move would have be done thinking about a possible reaction.

The next target is Italy, attacking through the alpes is a no brainer. So the attack goes from Austria through veneto, lombardy and savoy straight to the french border, cutting of the italian industry from the rest of the country and most of their army. The terrain is flat like a pancake, until you reach the french border, so it´s ideal terrain for a Blitz.
Italy is done in maybe one month.

Yes, the only problem would be that Austria border to Italy is all mountain. Germans have to invade Yugoslavia to attack throught Carso and they would need nearly all their army concentrated there leaving all the French line uncovered..
You don't seems to know that there are mountain over all over the north of italy, there is no way to pass without cross them and there are a lot of fortified positions that don't make stuffs you say so easy.Ah there are also mines camps that can be done between those narrow passes, and how would perform a panzer division over Carso? Do you think that Italians that have already beaten austrians and germans after they lost at Caporetto would leave their country to Germans so easly? Do you have a clue how many opposed to germans occupations? And the population was split between fascist and socialist... Think about all togheter against germans

Without count Britain help and, French help if the germans break the line throught the Alps.

I like to see you take German page as source cause that make me clear why you say this.

 

[amalric de g.]

Yes... And Pigs are able to fly!

So you assume every countries are stupid and only Germany is ready and mobilized during 1938?

-First... If crisis happen people start to mobilize and Germany is not mobilized during 1938, it is not prepared to invade nothing and it need to pick upd equipment , move troops and arm them in some time, so it is not ready..

-Second.. Italy was a dictatorship, no parliament needed to mobilize troops and a war was fought some year before so... French have troops ready and need the same time as Germany to mobilize. You know that Parliament need time , but military staff act on the order of the government so if it say to the army to start to be prepared unofficially or officially it can become to get ready before officially stuff needed. With state of emergency and decrees also those stuff can be faster into Parliament. The same for others countries.

-The 3 million men is explained due reserve that are in every army. If reserve were mobilized numbers grown. However looking the source, i don't know if trust it.

-The italian army was bad equipped for colonial/desert war out of their mainland but it was fully capable to defend mainland cause it don't have to be splitted and know the terrain. Without count Alpini were one of the best troops fighting on the mountains.

The problem is you assume Hitler is a genius and every others are dumb. The germans troops were able just to annex those lands, they were not ready to fight an entire army, but with a league opposing with arms they won't have just occupied everything so fast.Each move would have be done thinking about a possible reaction.



Yes, the only problem would be that Austria border to Italy is all mountain. Germans have to invade Yugoslavia to attack throught Carso and they would need nearly all their army concentrated there leaving all the French line uncovered..
You don't seems to know that there are mountain over all over the north of italy, there is no way to pass without cross them and there are a lot of fortified positions that don't make stuffs you say so easy.Ah there are also mines camps that can be done between those narrow passes, and how would perform a panzer division over Carso? Do you think that Italians that have already beaten austrians and germans after they lost at Caporetto would leave their country to Germans so easly? Do you have a clue how many opposed to germans occupations? And the population was split between fascist and socialist... Think about all togheter against germans

Without count Britain help and, French help if the germans break the line throught the Alps.

I like to see you take German page as source cause that make me clear why you say this.

I can come up with other sources about the state of the italian army. You deny the simple truth, thats all.

I never wrote what you try to insinuate.
And your sentence, why a german chooses a german site as a source, shows exactly your intention and the direction where you come from.
Whence will you know what we germans think of the italians? Did you live in germany?

I lived three years in Italy, my wife is a italian. So please accuse someone else.


Hitler was no genius, he was a moron as your famed Il duce was a moron. No guy with enough brain, had started the second world war, or as the Duce, had jumped on the train of doom.

And please show me the mountains in the Po valley, from Venetia straight through to Turin there is no mountain. There are some hills thats it.
The mountains are south of the line of Piacenza to Bologna. Or north from the line Milano to Verona.

Sure not all Divisions where poorly lead the Alpini and some armored Divisions fought bravely, but thats it. You can´t win a war with WW I equipment and doctrine in 1938 or 1940.

Here is another source:
"Italian Cowardice in World War II: Myth Versus Reality

The performance of the Italian armed forces during the Second World War has been the butt of jokes for over 70 years. However, the notion that the Italian military fought poorly and surrendered readily is not exactly true as there are examples of Italian forces fighting quite successfully and bravely.

But the widespread belief seemed to be that the Italians were cowards, with disasters such as the failed takeover of a much weaker Greece and ineffective fighting in North Africa used as evidence. While these and other military mistakes by Italy do stand out, these debacles were not due to soldiers' cowardice: what the Italian military lacked during their offensive campaigns was not bravery, but modern weaponry and good leadership, along with a clear lack of desire to achieve Mussolini's goals.

Poor Weaponry

When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Italy was in no way ready for an offensive war. However, Mussolini desperately wanted to participate in the redrawing of the map of Europe and overlooked the state of Italy's military-industrial complex in order to feed his ego. Italian industrial power was a mere fraction of that of Britain, France or Germany and was not ready to produce the guns, ammunition, artillery, tanks, and trucks on the scale that was needed. When Italy entered the War in 1940, its forces were equipped more in line with the First World War, rather than the Second."

Of all the major military forces involved at the start of World War II, Italy had the by far the least competent high command. Mussolini filled the officer positions with men whose only "qualification" was loyalty to Il Duce. Before the start of hostilities, Italy did have some capable generals - especially those who experienced the mistakes made during the First World War. However, things would change once Mussolini attempted to militarize Italy as he would purge the country of anyone whose allegiance was questioned. Many men from titled families, whose ancestors had been fighting for centuries were considered more loyal to the King, and so stripped of their status and given menial positions."

In retrospect, it almost seems that the Italian military was doomed to failure from the start and was thrown into a war that they were not equipped for, nor willing to fight for Mussolini's cronies. The very fact that Italy became an aggressor during the war was solely to appease the arrogance of Mussolini, without a thought to the preparation of the country. The military lacked leadership and modern weapons, yet it was still thrust into battle. When ill-equipped forces of disheartened men were defeated, Il Duce could not see his own mistakes and simply labeled his men as cowards. However, it has been shown that while under command of competent German leadership, Italian troops fought very well - contributing to the final defeat of Greece and acts of great bravery on the Russian front.

In conclusion, it was these factors and not cowardice that lead to Italy's poor performance during World War II."

Richard Overy: Why the Allies Won. Norton & Company, New York, London, 1995
RJB Bosworth: Mussolini. Arnold Press, London, 2002
Simon & Schuster: Encyclopedia of World War II. Cord Communications/Simon & Schuster, New York, 1978

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/history/world-war-2.asp

Thats from a italian internet site. I can easily pull other sites out of my had.


For your crisis, germany walks into austria, the other states have to respond to this move, so germany is on the initiative, not Italy or France. Or do you think germany would sound a big trumpet and says hello world in three months we invade Austria? Please mobilize first?

Why should germany need her whole army? Poland Campaign 63 Divisions, Yugoslavia was done with 26 Divisions, Greece 12 Divisions. The Metaxas Line was broken, in the Mountains, guess how many Divisions Germany needed? One Mountain Division and a Battallion of Stug III two days later the Line was broken.

If we assume Italy had all their 1940 Divisions ready in 1938 (73 Army Divs and 9 Border Guards), so we have to assume that germany and france had all their 1940 Divisions ready, thats only fair. So we have 134 german Divisions against 84 French Divisions, 14 Fortress Divisions, 73 Italian Divs plus the 9 Border Guard Divisions.

France didn´t wanted to go on the offensiv, their whole plan evolved around the maginot line, germany had around 20 Divs on the French border in 1939. Lets say germany put another 20 Divisions on the Italian border, what will Italy do? Go on the offensive? I think, they would sit on their butt like their french buddies.

So germany has the initiative and around 90 Divisions ready to strike where and when they want. Thats game over for the Czechs and Poland. By the way, why would the Czechs and Poland risk a war over Austria?

And why should the UK enter the war, because France or Italy wanted another war? Hardly, i think the UK will tell France or Italy, sorry no interest boys.

The whole assumption germany would invade and annex Austria against the oposition of Italy, France, UK, Poland and Czechia is a no brainer, even Hitler was not dumb enough to try it.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'll just point out that the Metaxas line got her highest fort at 322m. The Alps are ten times that. It must also be added that a defense of the line was a doctrine the Italian army had trained for quite in depth, had added to it a well-made system of fortifications, and it counters the lack of willpower - while adventurism might be shared or not, defending the nation from the enemy is another thing (and this difference can well be seen in WWI - you quote Caporetto a lot, but Caporetto was followed by the Battle of the Piave). As I said, I don't doubt Italy _would_ fall: I'm just saying that it would probably bleed Germany dry. If France didn't fall already, the German army will probably be too weak to break through and hold the line long enough for the historical result to repeat.

Of course, France will probably be prioritized, because Italy wouldn't give enough loot to keep Germany going. The Reich is going to fall soon if it can't get supplies for its factories, so France is going down. But can Germany repeat the deed in France without the troops stationed on the Italian border? Probably so, if the war explodes in 1939; if the war explodes over Austria, Germany is just too weak to face France while keeping an eye on Italy and kill her fast enough to not collapse.