What could Germany offer Italy in July 1940?

[Gooner1]

According to the British Official History, the Italians did ask for German aid in the form of German weapons and materials. The Germans were not interested in supplying the weapons but offered German troops, which Mussolini wasn't interested in.

[bf109 emil]

According to the British Official History, the Italians did ask for German aid in the form of German weapons and materials. The Germans were not interested in supplying the weapons but offered German troops, which Mussolini wasn't interested in.

this sounds rightly so, as would the implications of Italian victories in an Italian theatre using German weapons not fall along the same accords as those whom thought or link to the USA backing of the British with arms to be non-neutral.

[Tim Smith]

Tim, the Germans actually had a surprising number of merchant ships in the Mediterranean. For example, the DAK was transferred to Libya on board German ships. I compiled a list of sunk German merchantmen here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 10#p924710 ...later on, chartered Spanish and captured Vichy ships were added.

OK, those must have been German merchant ships in the Mediterranean on 1 September 1939, that interned themselves in Italian ports to escape Allied destruction. Once Italy joined the war in June 1940, those ships would become available.

Still, the Germans had no destroyers or cruisers in the Mediterranean to escort them, so would be dependent on the Italian Navy to do that.

[bf109 emil]

OK, those must have been German merchant ships in the Mediterranean on 1 September 1939, that interned themselves in Italian ports to escape Allied destruction. Once Italy joined the war in June 1940, those ships would become available.

Still, the Germans had no destroyers or cruisers in the Mediterranean to escort them, so would be dependent on the Italian Navy to do that.

Tim, likewise a good point as would the Italian navy in july 1940 be apt to escort German vessels within their own theatre if and had these ships not have been used for an Italian supply or under a Battle not directed or commanded by Italians

[Tim Smith]

According to the British Official History, the Italians did ask for German aid in the form of German weapons and materials. The Germans were not interested in supplying the weapons but offered German troops, which Mussolini wasn't interested in.

Indeed - Mussolini joined the war to gain glory and prestige as much (or even more!) than actual territorial gains. Italian glory and prestige doesn't look so great if they have to ask for German help before going into battle against a vastly outnumbered enemy....

In war, politics often plays a bigger role than strategy! Mussolini wanted Italy to be thought of as Germany's equal - that was practically his most important war aim!

[Tim Smith]

Tim, likewise a good point as would the Italian navy in july 1940 be apt to escort German vessels within their own theatre if and had these ships not have been used for an Italian supply or under a Battle not directed or commanded by Italians

My guess is, yes, but the Germans would have to pay the Italian Navy to do the job. The payment being in the form of oil supplies from Rumania, paid for by Germany. And naturally, more oil than just that required for the mission, the Italians would require a 'profit' from the deal.

[LWD]

I was reading somewhere recently that the Italians had been promised a fair amount of oil by the Germans but deliveries were "behind schedule" my impression was this was early war. Indeed it implied one of the reasons the Italians chose the naval strategy they did was that they didn't think they had the oil to be more aggressive.

[Jon G.]

OK, those must have been German merchant ships in the Mediterranean on 1 September 1939, that interned themselves in Italian ports to escape Allied destruction. Once Italy joined the war in June 1940, those ships would become available...

They weren't interned or otherwise bottled up as far as I know. Well, they were bottled up inside the Mediterranean, but remember, at this point in time there would still be a number of neutral countries open for shipping traffic - Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia, for example. German merchantmen don't have to sail on German destinations just because they're operated by German shipping firms.

So the German-owned merchantmen in the Med represent an asset which doesn't have to be activated upon Italian entry into the war - although I am still in agreement with you that the Germans couldn't use their ships for military operations in the Mediterranean without Italian consent. Unless we're looking at a 'Vichy and/or Spain enters the war on the Axis side' scenario, and that has been done to death already.

I was reading somewhere recently that the Italians had been promised a fair amount of oil by the Germans but deliveries were "behind schedule" my impression was this was early war. Indeed it implied one of the reasons the Italians chose the naval strategy they did was that they didn't think they had the oil to be more aggressive.

You're right that German oil deliveries to Italy generally fell behind schedule, but at this particular point in time Italy and her voraciously oil-consuming navy will be less dependent on German good will for oil supplies. In July 1940, Romania was still an Allied-leaning neutral; Romania only fell inside the German orbit in the autumn of 1940. So the Italians could still buy (or, more likely, barter) for Romanian and also Hungarian oil in the summer of 1940.

[Tim Smith]

OK, those must have been German merchant ships in the Mediterranean on 1 September 1939, that interned themselves in Italian ports to escape Allied destruction. Once Italy joined the war in June 1940, those ships would become available...

They weren't interned or otherwise bottled up as far as I know. Well, they were bottled up inside the Mediterranean, but remember, at this point in time there would still be a number of neutral countries open for shipping traffic - Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia, for example. German merchantmen don't have to sail on German destinations just because they're operated by German shipping firms.

Well, effectively 'interned' then, if not officially interned.

Even if German merchant ships in a neutral harbor in wartime can legally stay there as long as they like, and leave freely whenever they please, they wouldn't leave if they had no safe port to go to, or were at severe risk of being intercepted by an enemy warship. Any German merchant ship in the Mediterranean between 4 Sep 1939 and 10 June 1940 would be in that position.

[bf109 emil]

Even if German merchant ships in a neutral harbor in wartime can legally stay there as long as they like, and leave freely whenever they please, they wouldn't leave if they had no safe port to go to, or were at severe risk of being intercepted by an enemy warship. Any German merchant ship in the Mediterranean between 4 Sep 1939 and 10 June 1940 would be in that position.

albeit sourced from the Atlantic, it does seem the RN as of sept. 1939 had a course or plan of action towards Germany's Merchant ships...from...ROYAL, DOMINION & ALLIED NAVIES in WORLD WAR 2
by Gordon Smith, Naval-History.Net

2. ATLANTIC & EUROPE at the START, MAIN ROLE of the ROYAL NAVY

September 1939

OBJECTIVE 3 - Maritime blockade of Germany and contraband control.
- As German merchant ships tried to reach home or neutral ports, units of the Home Fleet sortied into the North Sea and waters between Scotland, Norway and Iceland. The Northern Patrol of old cruisers, followed later by armed merchant cruisers had the unenviable task of covering the area between the Shetlands and Iceland. In addition, British and French warships patrolled the North and South Atlantic.

- Closer to Germany the first mines were laid by Royal Navy destroyers in the approaches to Germany's North Sea bases

IMHO I would also assume German Merchant ships leaving the Med. or sailing within her where likewise targets by the RN
from http://www.naval-history.net/WW2RN02-StartEurope.htm

[phylo_roadking]

They weren't interned or otherwise bottled up as far as I know. Well, they were bottled up inside the Mediterranean, but remember, at this point in time there would still be a number of neutral countries open for shipping traffic - Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia, for example. German merchantmen don't have to sail on German destinations just because they're operated by German shipping firms.

So the German-owned merchantmen in the Med represent an asset which doesn't have to be activated upon Italian entry into the war - although I am still in agreement with you that the Germans couldn't use their ships for military operations in the Mediterranean without Italian consent. Unless we're looking at a 'Vichy and/or Spain enters the war on the Axis side' scenario, and that has been done to death already.

Jon - would the provisions of the London Declaration....which the UK seemed to rely on at least (see the Asama Maru WI) not allow the East Med Squadron to board and confiscate German vessels at sea in the Med - given that German Merchant Marine officers etc. would hold a reserve KM rank? ...again, as per the Asama Maru Incident?

As for this, Jim -

2. ATLANTIC & EUROPE at the START, MAIN ROLE of the ROYAL NAVY

September 1939

OBJECTIVE 3 - Maritime blockade of Germany and contraband control.
- As German merchant ships tried to reach home or neutral ports, units of the Home Fleet sortied into the North Sea and waters between Scotland, Norway and Iceland. The Northern Patrol of old cruisers, followed later by armed merchant cruisers had the unenviable task of covering the area between the Shetlands and Iceland. In addition, British and French warships patrolled the North and South Atlantic.

....AFAIK the British certainly expected a "dash" for home on the outbreak of war by German cargo tonnage that would otherwise be left languishing in foreign ports....to PREVENT what happened in WWI, when tens of thousands of tons of German merchant shipping rusted out on ports around the globe

As an aside - this still happened In the U.S. at least there were dozens of German cargo vessels left all at sea (sic) by events in September 1939, and were eventually confiscated by the Americans as various financial restrictions on Germany as a combatant meant upkeep money etc. ran out after a time. The UK consistenly asked for this tonnage to be turned over to them to repalce u-boat losses, but this didn't actually happen - despite the GREAT British need - until the last months of 1941 IIRC. (This was recently touched on in another WI...)

[Jon G.]

Jon - would the provisions of the London Declaration....which the UK seemed to rely on at least (see the Asama Maru WI) not allow the East Med Squadron to board and confiscate German vessels at sea in the Med - given that German Merchant Marine officers etc. would hold a reserve KM rank? ...again, as per the Asama Maru Incident?
...

Well, I am not questioning the legality of RN ships boarding and seizing German ships in the Mediterranean in 1940, but rather the opportunity to do so. After France bowed out, there were few friendly shores in the Med which the RN could operate near by.

Before Italy entered the fray on the Axis side, British policies towards the Italians were decidedly soft. See f.e. the release of Italian coal ships seized en route from Germany, on the promise that the Italians would cease and desist carrying coal from Germany by ship...

[phylo_roadking]

They weren't interned or otherwise bottled up as far as I know. Well, they were bottled up inside the Mediterranean, but remember, at this point in time there would still be a number of neutral countries open for shipping traffic - Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia, for example. German merchantmen don't have to sail on German destinations just because they're operated by German shipping firms.

Well, I am not questioning the legality of RN ships boarding and seizing German ships in the Mediterranean in 1940, but rather the opportunity to do so. After France bowed out, there were few friendly shores in the Med which the RN could operate near by.

Well, once they were welcome in GREEK waters, starting in November 1940, they would certainly be able to interfere with a lot of German traffic in the Aegean right up to Turkish national limits

I wonder how active the GREEKS were in regulating combatants' shipping through their Neutral waters prior to that? They certainly had quite a large navy compared to, say, the earlier Norwegian "Neutrality Watch"

Before Italy entered the fray on the Axis side, British policies towards the Italians were decidedly soft. See f.e. the release of Italian coal ships seized en route from Germany, on the promise that the Italians would cease and desist carrying coal from Germany by ship...

Soft....or strictly correct legally? After all, coal coming TO Italy, on Italian ships, would be "Italian property"...not German...

[Jon G.]

Well, once they were welcome in GREEK waters, starting in November 1940, they would certainly be able to interfere with a lot of German traffic in the Aegean right up to Turkish national limits

Yes, but that is rather far down the timeline. In the summer of 1940, things were gloomier for the British.

I wonder how active the GREEKS were in regulating combatants' shipping through their Neutral waters prior to that? They certainly had quite a large navy compared to, say, the earlier Norwegian "Neutrality Watch"

My guess would be that the Greeks were trying to keep a low profile - they knew that Mussolini had his eyes set on Greek lands, but they also knew that they would probably be safe for as long as Italy remained neutral. Also, remember that for purposes of defining Greek and Italian territorial waters, the Dodocanese were Italian at the time.

Conversely, Greek neutrality does not seem to have been that much of an issue with French and British planners, who were atively contemplating opening a new front in Europe via Salonika, as in WW1.

Before Italy entered the fray on the Axis side, British policies towards the Italians were decidedly soft. See f.e. the release of Italian coal ships seized en route from Germany, on the promise that the Italians would cease and desist carrying coal from Germany by ship...

Soft....or strictly correct legally? After all, coal coming TO Italy, on Italian ships, would be "Italian property"...not German...

Soft, because along with the release of the Italian colliers came a promise to double British coal exports to Italy.

[phylo_roadking]

Conversely, Greek neutrality does not seem to have been that much of an issue with French and British planners, who were atively contemplating opening a new front in Europe via Salonika, as in WW1.

Yes - but with Turkey,Greece and IIRC Bulgaria (!) in a tripartitie Neutral Defence Pact that the Allies would militarily guarantee, was Churchill's dream So giving them a "tripwire" unlike Norway. In the end, the Greeks had to invite the British in...

My guess would be that the Greeks were trying to keep a low profile - they knew that Mussolini had his eyes set on Greek lands, but they also knew that they would probably be safe for as long as Italy remained neutral.

Not sure about this, I'll have to find out more.

Also, remember that for purposes of defining Greek and Italian territorial waters, the Dodocanese were Italian at the time

Yes, but that might have made them MORE willing to actively police their waters, especially after the first week of May. They MAY also have policed the "other" side of the Aegean, facing the Turkish coast, actively after 1922...