Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if B - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Varilion
#13360400
England and France DID try and persue a PRO-Italian policy but there were not willingly to go as far as Mussolini wanted.

That's the point.
Mussolini when invaded Ethiopia was sure that he would have the support of UK and France (USA and Japan), the two biggest colonial empires, let's say as "reward" to have stopped german ambitions in Austria one year before (1934).

When UK and France took anti-Italian (or anti-mussolinian) position (or not so far as Mussolini wanted, as you prefer) the alliance Italy-Germany become the natural outcome.
If UK and France would have supported Mussolini ambitions he would have remained on an anti-german stance.

I don't know how quick and easy would have been a war (oh for sure in the colony), but it's quiet obvious that Mussolini & Hitler should be kicked off ASAP...
By pugsville
#13360668
Mussolini anti-german stance? Never existed, there was some tensions over spheres of Influence in south western europe. Austria was catholic nation and perceived as the gateway for further german Ambitions in what the Italians perceived as there sphere as infuence. BUt aside from this there where many factors pushing Mussolini into a pro-german camp.

It would have taken a pretty radical pro-Italian policy to have any chance of keeping the dictators apart and it's doubtful it would have been sucessful. There was no need to go to war, but effective sanctions backed by a naval blockade and closing the seuz would perhaps lead to war, but Mussolini would have to start it and Italy would have been whipped pretty quickly just but maintaince of a effective blockade.

Ethiopia was an inidependent country and a full member of the league of nations which other members were obliged to defend from agression. In light of French and English attempts to woo Italy they went as light and perfunctionary with their measures against Italy over Ethiopia. It my not have seemed a lot by luke-warm ineffective action was their trademark at the time.

There can be many criticism of English and french foriegn policies during the 30s but to saying failure to kiss Mussolini's ass is not IMHO one of them. Thats saying appesement just didnt go far enough. Ethiopia was indeed left to it's fate as Czechsolivka later, Spain wre the "non-intervention" blockade was a pro-facist joke. Building up Italian arms, giving Italy more terrority would have been much more unpopulr than standing up to Mussolini.

How far do you think they would had to go to get some traction with Italy aginst germany? Neutrality would have been the best they could hve gotten and that would have had very minimal effect on the war, the Italians were a dead wieght on the axis cause.
By Varilion
#13361032
I'm not saying that it was easy or really usefull to get Mussolini support, but just looking the alternatives...

Mussolini (mis)management of the war was quiet "fool":
- He declared war to allies with 30-40% of the Italian commercial fleet out of the mediterranean sea
- He attacked france without heavy artillery (redeploy it in offensive position on the Alps would have taken too much time)
- He ordered to invade Egypt with too flew men to take it, with the only effect to make longer the supply lines.
- He ordered to invade Greece with too flew men (knowing that) in order to be more quick, with the effects that we know...
- He deplyed too many men abroad, so in 1943 there was nobody to defend "home".

The main contribution that Italy gave to axis i think it was:
- "peace keeping" forces in southern France (50-100k men?)
- "peace keeping" forces in bankans 1200k men
- 100-200k men on the eastern front with Russia.
- supplies for "german satellite's" armies
-to keep busy for a while a piece of UK fleet and air force
- 100 hunter uboats around... (the 4 italian battleships were useless, as all the battleships)

So you're right, neutrality would had small effects. I don't know exactly how much it cost to UK the war in Africa and in Mediterranean sea. On the other side i think that to have an additional ally would have helped. Italy is really very easy to be defended (if you have there an army to do that:P), due to geography, not like France. But it's very hard to figure out realistic alternative history...

On the paper in 1939 the Italian armed force firepower was something like 20-25% less than French one (and both a lot overestimated!).

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]