Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Terry Duncan » 07 Sep 2021 17:50

Just a polite request, but can people stick to the topic and avoid wandering off onto topics where we may see unfortunate instances of name calling or other prohibited behaviour. Claims that 'Nation X is racist, sexist' etc supported by modern newspapers simply making the claim to push an agenda and offering little to support their claims really add little to a discussion.

Terry

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 07 Sep 2021 18:16

Which persons did Italy murder ?
Besides : foreign policy is not about morality .Racism is irrelevant in foreign policy .
What the Italians saw in 1935 was that France had the right to invade and occupy Morocco,but that Italy had not the right to invade and occupy Ethiopia ,and, that this was decided by a country that had a big empire by invading and occupying other countries .
They saw also that Britain still was negotiating with Germany in August 1939 ( The Wohlstadt talkings ) but that it refused any negotiations with Italy : for Britain Italy did not exist,til after the fall of France Britain was forced to send 500000 men to the ME .
What was more important for Britain : to accept the Italian conquest of Ethiopia or to push Italy in the arms of Germany ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 07 Sep 2021 18:25

In 1912 Italy attacked and invaded the Ottoman Empire;no objections from Britain,result :in 1915 Italy became an ally of Britain .
In 1935 Italy attacked and invaded Ethiopia;hysterical reactions in Britain,result,in 1940 Italy became an ally of Germany .
What was the better attitude from Britain :1912 or 1935 ?

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 07 Sep 2021 20:37

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 16:46
And in 2021 a lot of people in Britain do not understand why Italy was taking the side of Germany when Germany was winning in 1940 .
It seems to me peoples on Britain what have interest on topic can to understand very good .
ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 16:46
These people continue to refuse to admit that the role of Italy was essential for Germany and for Britain : without Italy, Germany would be forced to commit 50 divisions in southern Europe and this would make Barbarossa impossible ,but still, the British government,full of 18th century bias and contempt,refused any negotiation to prevent Italy from joining Germany .
What peoples on Britain was not understand was be ljadw invents and imaginations storys .

On real history Germany army was only go on southern europe after Italy was fail on Greece and was fail on north Afrika and was fail on east Afrika .

:roll:

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 07 Sep 2021 20:39

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:25
In 1912 Italy attacked and invaded the Ottoman Empire;no objections from Britain,result :in 1915 Italy became an ally of Britain .
In 1935 Italy attacked and invaded Ethiopia;hysterical reactions in Britain,result,in 1940 Italy became an ally of Germany .
What was the better attitude from Britain :1912 or 1935 ?
Before now you was write Italy was go on war on reason coal from Germany .

Before now you was write Italy was go on war on reason only way for to survive .

Now you was write on reason Britain hysterics on 1935.year .

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Takao » 07 Sep 2021 21:56

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:16
Which persons did Italy murder ?
Figure of speech. Saving Austria, does not give Italy the right to eliminate Ethiopia.

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:16
Besides : foreign policy is not about morality .Racism is irrelevant in foreign policy .
Being critical of other nations has always been a part of everyones' foreign policy. Has nothing to do with race.

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:16
What the Italians saw in 1935 was that France had the right to invade and occupy Morocco,but that Italy had not the right to invade and occupy Ethiopia ,and, that this was decided by a country that had a big empire by invading and occupying other countries .
Proof the Italians saw it that way...Or is this just your biased opinion.

Also, another false statement...
France did not invade Morocco in 1934...They did invade in 1907, and Morocco became a French Protectorate in 1911. Thus in 1934, they were suppressing a rebellion...Same as Italy did in Austria.

Was Ethiopia an Italian Protectorate in 1935? Nope.


ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:16
They saw also that Britain still was negotiating with Germany in August 1939 ( The Wohlstadt talkings ) but that it refused any negotiations with Italy : for Britain Italy did not exist,til after the fall of France Britain was forced to send 500000 men to the ME .
What was more important for Britain : to accept the Italian conquest of Ethiopia or to push Italy in the arms of Germany ?
Why would Britain negotiate with Italy about Poland?

Wholstadt??? You mean Wahlstedt, Germany? OK, I'll bite.
What happened in Wahlstedt, Germany in 1939? Who talked to who?

Britain also did not negotiate with Japan over Poland...Or with any of 150+ countries.
Last edited by Takao on 08 Sep 2021 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Takao » 07 Sep 2021 22:02

ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:25
In 1912 Italy attacked and invaded the Ottoman Empire;no objections from Britain,result :in 1915 Italy became an ally of Britain .
In 1935 Italy attacked and invaded Ethiopia;hysterical reactions in Britain,result,in 1940 Italy became an ally of Germany .
What was the better attitude from Britain :1912 or 1935 ?
Hysterical reactions? Curious, I don't remember Britain declaring War on Italy in 1935.

Better attitude...1935.
1935 means no fascist Italy in 1943. Although, that proved a short term boon for the Germans - they found all those raw materials Italy had stashed away for after the war. The German also greatly increased Italy's output of war material.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 08 Sep 2021 06:57

Takao wrote:
07 Sep 2021 21:56
ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:16
Which persons did Italy murder ?
Figure of speech. Saving Austria, does not give Italy the right to eliminate Ethiopia.





Foreign policy is not a question of right, but of power .
As long as the occupation of Ethiopia did not endanger British interests, there was no reason for Britain to oppose the conquest of Ethiopia.
Britain did not move when Japan in 1904 and Germany in 1914 attacked Russia.The reason was that there was no reason for Britain to intervene .
In 1911 Italy attacked the Ottoman Empire and started the conquest of Libya .
Britain did not move .
If Italy could conquer Libya and France Morocco, why could Italy not conquer Ethiopia ?
About the Wohltat talkings : Britain promised Germany a loan of 1 billion pounds,if it stopped its rearmament .Wohltat was a German official who was in Britain in July/August 1939 .There were no such negotiations with Italy,although the interventions in Spain and Ethiopia costed Italy a lot of money .
The result of the British attitude in the Ethiopian crisis was that Ethiopia was not helped and that Italy ceased to be a potential ally .
Conclusion : if you have only hollow words to help a country that is attacked, remain silent and do nothing,especially if the whole thing is not a threat to your interests .
The task of HMG was to do good for Britain,not for Ethiopia. What HMG did, did not aid Britain,neither Ethiopia .

.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 08 Sep 2021 07:38

In 1867 Britain sent a punitive expedition to Ethiopia. In 1936 it opposed an Italian attack : double standards
In 1896 Britain did not oppose the Italian attack on Ethiopia, but it did it 40 years later,although there was no difference between 1935 and 1896: double standards .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 08 Sep 2021 09:43

Takao wrote:
07 Sep 2021 22:02
ljadw wrote:
07 Sep 2021 18:25
In 1912 Italy attacked and invaded the Ottoman Empire;no objections from Britain,result :in 1915 Italy became an ally of Britain .
In 1935 Italy attacked and invaded Ethiopia;hysterical reactions in Britain,result,in 1940 Italy became an ally of Germany .
What was the better attitude from Britain :1912 or 1935 ?
Hysterical reactions? Curious, I don't remember Britain declaring War on Italy in 1935.

Better attitude...1935.
1935 means no fascist Italy in 1943. Although, that proved a short term boon for the Germans - they found all those raw materials Italy had stashed away for after the war. The German also greatly increased Italy's output of war material.
War in 1935 with Italy does not mean war /or no war with Germany in 1939 .
And,yes, the reactions were hysterical : Hoare,who wanted to avoid a war for something that was not the business of Britain and which was no threat for Britain, was forced to resign because the tabloids went after him .
But when in 1932 Japan invaded China, something which was not the business of Britain and which did not threaten British interests, the Foreign secretary was not hunted, although he did nothing to help the Chinese .
The truth is that war in 1935 about Ethiopia would have as result a feebler Britain in 1939 with all consequences for Poland.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2792
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Gooner1 » 08 Sep 2021 11:50

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57

Foreign policy is not a question of right, but of power .
As long as the occupation of Ethiopia did not endanger British interests, there was no reason for Britain to oppose the conquest of Ethiopia.
<>
The task of HMG was to do good for Britain,not for Ethiopia. What HMG did, did not aid Britain,neither Ethiopia .
Britain (HMG) did not oppose the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. If they had, they could have shut down the invasion in hours simply by closing the Suez canal.

HMG was trying to do good for Britain. It was felt that slapping Mussolini down in 1935 would only drive him into the arms of Hitler. Since Musso willingly jumped into Hitlers arms anyway, with hindsight, Britain should have slapped him down. Ironically that might have made Italy going to war in 1940 against Britain less likely ...

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 08 Sep 2021 13:21

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 09:43
The truth is that war in 1935 about Ethiopia would have as result a feebler Britain in 1939 with all consequences for Poland.
You was not write truth you was write ljadw opinion and ljadw invent.

Before now you was write
ljadw wrote:
02 Sep 2021 06:59
He only gives his opinion, and I don't care about his opinion, I expect facts .
ljadw wrote:
31 Aug 2021 20:19
I expect from a historian that he can write about the events from 80 years ago without presenting us his private.political opinions,and that he can give us facts, not judgments .
ljadw wrote:
05 Sep 2021 12:17
The task of an historian is NOT to criticize,using hindsight as the norm .
The task of an historian is to give facts .
If they want to impose their views, they should go in politics .
For sure ljadw must not be historian because ljadw was only write on ljadw opinion and on ljadw invents and on ljadw imaginations storys.

Maybe ljadw can to go on politics .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 08 Sep 2021 14:08

Gooner1 wrote:
08 Sep 2021 11:50
ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57

Foreign policy is not a question of right, but of power .
As long as the occupation of Ethiopia did not endanger British interests, there was no reason for Britain to oppose the conquest of Ethiopia.
<>
The task of HMG was to do good for Britain,not for Ethiopia. What HMG did, did not aid Britain,neither Ethiopia .
Britain (HMG) did not oppose the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. If they had, they could have shut down the invasion in hours simply by closing the Suez canal.

HMG was trying to do good for Britain. It was felt that slapping Mussolini down in 1935 would only drive him into the arms of Hitler. Since Musso willingly jumped into Hitlers arms anyway, with hindsight, Britain should have slapped him down. Ironically that might have made Italy going to war in 1940 against Britain less likely ...
If HMG thought ,wrongly, that to oppose (yes :oppose ) Italian's conquest of Ethiopia,was good for Britain, it should have blocked the Suez canal, but , the same persons who were full of indignation because Italy did what Kipling told that other white countries should do (take up the White Man's burden ),were unwilling to support a war for Ethiopia, because people would be killed in such a war .
Musso did not willingly jump in Hitler's arms : British intellectuals pushed him in Hitler's arms .
British opposition to Italian conquest of Ethiopia ( opposition without any reason as it was not their business ) was considered in Italy as arrogant and hypocritical ,with as meaning : we have build a great empire, of which we are proud, but you can't do what we have done .
A war in 1935 does not mean or exclude war in 1939 , thus you can't use the French/British defeat in May/June 1940 , which caused the Italian DOW as an argument to declare war in 1935 .
Besides : hindsight is a very weak argument, it proves only that one has no other argument .
What Britain should have done, but as usual,the intellectuals opposed this, was to encourage the Italians publicly and to sell them weapons and oil,to make money (as did the US ) :if Italy won easily , it would be grateful for British aid;if the war lasted,Italy was ruined and no danger in 1940 : thus : a win/win situation,but Britain did chose a lose/lose strategy .
There was nothing to gain by criticize Italy for its attack on Ethiopia, there was also nothing to gain by a DOW on Italy for its war in Ethiopia. ,besides : this was politically impossible .
Big words,without actions is not something to be used in foreign policy,and :all sanctions,short of war are only hollow big words .The result was that Italy was offended but did not recoil and that Britain was forced to recognize publicly the Italian king as Emperor of Ethiopia .
Leo Amery supported Italy, Churchill remained silent .They knew that Britain's policy was suicidal .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Takao » 09 Sep 2021 12:42

Still more contraryness...
ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57

Foreign policy is not a question of right, but of power .
As long as the occupation of Ethiopia did not endanger British interests, there was no reason for Britain to oppose the conquest of Ethiopia.
How did Britain oppose the Italian conquest?
The Suez Canal was not closed to Italian traffic.
The RN did not prevent or intervene the conquest.
The Royal Army did not intervene or assist Ethiopia.

Britain did nothing to prevent Italy's conquest...Even though it had several tools in its toolbox that would have stopped Italy cold.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
Britain did not move when Japan in 1904
Are you really that dense? How little you know about history.
Britain and Japan were allies per their 1902 Treaty of Alliance, and renewed in the closing months of the Russo-Japanese War.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
and Germany in 1914 attacked Russia.The reason was that there was no reason for Britain to intervene .
The reason was the British Government was mostly pacifist and lacked military credibility. Britain did not intervene, because they hoped the dispute would burn itself out. It was not until Germany moved into neutral Belgium that it all became real to the British, and it would not simply burn itself out.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
In 1911 Italy attacked the Ottoman Empire and started the conquest of Libya .
Britain did not move .
If Italy could conquer Libya and France Morocco, why could Italy not conquer Ethiopia ?
You really are very ignorant about history...

The Italian conquest of Libya was "approved" way back in the 1878 Congress of Berlin, when it was decided that France would get Tunisia, Britain would get Cyprus, and Italy would get Libya. However, for whatever reasons, Italy did not act upon this until much later. France & Italy concluded a secret treaty in 1902, the Franco-Italian Convention of 1902, that gave France a free hand in Morocco, and Italy a free hand in Libya. Italy, though lacked a strong military presence, and as such, resorted to pacific ways of conquering Libya - the only steamships running to Tripoli regularly were Italian, the Banco di Roma exerted great influence in Tripoli through it's agency there, a qukite large, Italian financed, school system was put into operation, and Tripoli enjoyed the use of the Italian parcel post system. However, during and after the Turkish Revolution of 1908, all the Italian efforts began to fall apart, as the "Young Turks" began exerting their new found influence on Tripoli. This Turkish "pushback" forced Italy to resorted to military force to resolve the matter.
ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
About the Wohltat talkings : Britain promised Germany a loan of 1 billion pounds,if it stopped its rearmament .Wohltat was a German official who was in Britain in July/August 1939 .
Huh? First you say Wholstadt, now it is Wohltat. There was no German diplomat named "Wholtat". Do you mean Helmut Wholthat?
Many things were supposedly offered a non-aggression pact, delineation of respective British and German spheres of influence, colonial concessions in Africa, and an economic agreement. The discussion were broken off when the French leaked the talks to the press...Not that they really would have gone anywhere - as Hitler & Germany were not interested in them, and Churchill and his followers would have loudly complained of "No Second Munich."

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
There were no such negotiations with Italy,although the interventions in Spain and Ethiopia costed Italy a lot of money .
Why would there be negotiations with Italy? Italy was not a threat to a European War...Germany was.
By 1939, Italy would not jump in Europe without Germany's sayso, If Britain could bring Germany to heel, the problem is solved.
Offering Italy anything would be a waste of British capital.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
The result of the British attitude in the Ethiopian crisis was that Ethiopia was not helped and that Italy ceased to be a potential ally .
If this is true...Than obviously Britain did not object to the Italians taking over Ethiopia. Thus, negating your whole argument.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
Conclusion : if you have only hollow words to help a country that is attacked, remain silent and do nothing,especially if the whole thing is not a threat to your interests .
The task of HMG was to do good for Britain,not for Ethiopia. What HMG did, did not aid Britain,neither Ethiopia .
Wait, you have said that the British opposed the Italian take over of Ethiopia for racist reasons...Now you are saying that the British did not oppose the Italian takeover of Ethiopia, and are arguing the British should have opposed the Italian take over of Ethiopia for non-racist reasons.

Are you stupid or what?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 09 Sep 2021 13:54

Takao wrote:
09 Sep 2021 12:42
Still more contraryness...
ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57

Foreign policy is not a question of right, but of power .
As long as the occupation of Ethiopia did not endanger British interests, there was no reason for Britain to oppose the conquest of Ethiopia.
How did Britain oppose the Italian conquest?
The Suez Canal was not closed to Italian traffic.
The RN did not prevent or intervene the conquest.
The Royal Army did not intervene or assist Ethiopia.

Britain did nothing to prevent Italy's conquest...Even though it had several tools in its toolbox that would have stopped Italy cold.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
Britain did not move when Japan in 1904
Are you really that dense? How little you know about history.
Britain and Japan were allies per their 1902 Treaty of Alliance, and renewed in the closing months of the Russo-Japanese War.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
and Germany in 1914 attacked Russia.The reason was that there was no reason for Britain to intervene .
The reason was the British Government was mostly pacifist and lacked military credibility. Britain did not intervene, because they hoped the dispute would burn itself out. It was not until Germany moved into neutral Belgium that it all became real to the British, and it would not simply burn itself out.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
In 1911 Italy attacked the Ottoman Empire and started the conquest of Libya .
Britain did not move .
If Italy could conquer Libya and France Morocco, why could Italy not conquer Ethiopia ?
You really are very ignorant about history...

The Italian conquest of Libya was "approved" way back in the 1878 Congress of Berlin, when it was decided that France would get Tunisia, Britain would get Cyprus, and Italy would get Libya. However, for whatever reasons, Italy did not act upon this until much later. France & Italy concluded a secret treaty in 1902, the Franco-Italian Convention of 1902, that gave France a free hand in Morocco, and Italy a free hand in Libya. Italy, though lacked a strong military presence, and as such, resorted to pacific ways of conquering Libya - the only steamships running to Tripoli regularly were Italian, the Banco di Roma exerted great influence in Tripoli through it's agency there, a qukite large, Italian financed, school system was put into operation, and Tripoli enjoyed the use of the Italian parcel post system. However, during and after the Turkish Revolution of 1908, all the Italian efforts began to fall apart, as the "Young Turks" began exerting their new found influence on Tripoli. This Turkish "pushback" forced Italy to resorted to military force to resolve the matter.
ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
About the Wohltat talkings : Britain promised Germany a loan of 1 billion pounds,if it stopped its rearmament .Wohltat was a German official who was in Britain in July/August 1939 .
Huh? First you say Wholstadt, now it is Wohltat. There was no German diplomat named "Wholtat". Do you mean Helmut Wholthat?
Many things were supposedly offered a non-aggression pact, delineation of respective British and German spheres of influence, colonial concessions in Africa, and an economic agreement. The discussion were broken off when the French leaked the talks to the press...Not that they really would have gone anywhere - as Hitler & Germany were not interested in them, and Churchill and his followers would have loudly complained of "No Second Munich."

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
There were no such negotiations with Italy,although the interventions in Spain and Ethiopia costed Italy a lot of money .
Why would there be negotiations with Italy? Italy was not a threat to a European War...Germany was.
By 1939, Italy would not jump in Europe without Germany's sayso, If Britain could bring Germany to heel, the problem is solved.
Offering Italy anything would be a waste of British capital.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
The result of the British attitude in the Ethiopian crisis was that Ethiopia was not helped and that Italy ceased to be a potential ally .
If this is true...Than obviously Britain did not object to the Italians taking over Ethiopia. Thus, negating your whole argument.

ljadw wrote:
08 Sep 2021 06:57
Conclusion : if you have only hollow words to help a country that is attacked, remain silent and do nothing,especially if the whole thing is not a threat to your interests .
The task of HMG was to do good for Britain,not for Ethiopia. What HMG did, did not aid Britain,neither Ethiopia .
Wait, you have said that the British opposed the Italian take over of Ethiopia for racist reasons...Now you are saying that the British did not oppose the Italian takeover of Ethiopia, and are arguing the British should have opposed the Italian take over of Ethiopia for non-racist reasons.

Are you stupid or what?
Britain was the leader of the sanctions movement against Italy and refused to recognize Italy's conquest . That means that Britain opposed the Italian attack .
That Britain and Japan were allies is irrelevant : Japan did in 1904 what Italy did in 1935 .And Britain approved what Japan did but condemned what Italy did .
It was the same for what Germany did against Russia .
For Libya in 1911 : what Italy did in 1935 was the same of what it did in 1911 .The British reaction in 1911 was good,the reaction in 1935 was very bad,even suicidal : it pushed Italy into the arms of Germany and it had a big influence on the operations in WW2 .
A collective foolishness was ruling in Britain in 1935 : suddenly a war of ''aggression '' was not allowed, suddenly Italy could not get its part of Africa.While after WW1 Britain and France divided the Ottoman Empire between each other and excluded Italy (the Italian deaths did not count ),Italy could not have the only remaining part of Africa that the others did not have taken ,although the conquest of Ethiopia was no danger for Britain .
The responsibility of the intellectuals and the media is enormous : their own ideological bias (hatred toward fascism ) was more important than the interest of their country .Not that this surprised me . And ,as usual ,the boneless politicians capitulated : Eden,who defended appeasement with Germany, visited Haile Selassie instead of going to Rome to congratulate Mussolini and was of course surprised by the hostile Italian reactions .
About the Wohlthat negotiations : the point is that Britain was willing to buy of Hitler with a loan of 1 billion, but refused to do this for Italy,although they needed Italy and although a rapprochement of Italy and Germany was very bad for Britain : Italy could send a lot of divisions to the Brenner Pas ,but Eden preferred the Negus whose military importance was nonexistent .He refused the idea of negotiations with Italy .
After all the things France,and especially Britain,had done , it is no wonder that the Italians decided ( unwillingly ) for rapprochement with Germany .
But people in Britain did not care : they had enough satellites who would fight for them .
Well, that was what they imagined .

Return to “What if”