Italy doesn't invade Ethiopia, instead focuses on Spain

[sillygoose]

What if Mussolini doesn't decide to invade Ethiopia in 1935-37? It was a ruinously expensive war involving over 300,000 men (dwarfing the highly expensive SCW commitments) that cost them ~150k casualties (including sick) and internationally isolated them and ran at the same time as the intervention in Spain, which only increased the expenses of state and prevented preparations for WW2. If avoided what does that mean for the state of Italian military modernization and the Spanish Civil War and WW2? Or does it change diplomacy enough (Stresa Front) in the interwar period to change these other events?

 

[WolfBear]

What reason would the Stresa Front actually have for collapsing in this TL?

 

[sillygoose]

What reason would the Stresa Front actually have for collapsing in this TL?

It may not, that's why I was curious what others here thought might happen ITTL. Though given Mussolini's desire for territorial expansion I have a feeling he would find a way out so he could get some territorial acquisitions which would only come due to Hitler trying to overturn the exist European order.

 

[Skallagrim]

The Stresa Front was already in trouble when Britain concluded the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June 1935 (just two months later!), without informing either France or Italy. In fact, that's generally understood to have been the very thing that led Mussolini to stop holding back on his Ethiopian ambitions.

You can make "no Anglo-German Naval Agreement" the POD, of course. That presumably stops Mussolini from invading Ethiopia, and keeps the Stresa Front united.

 

[sillygoose]

The Stresa Front was already in trouble when Britain concluded the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June 1935 (just two months later!), without informing either France or Italy. In fact, that's generally understood to have been the very thing that led Mussolini to stop holding back on his Ethiopian ambitions.

You can make "no Anglo-German Naval Agreement" the POD, of course. That presumably stops Mussolini from invading Ethiopia, and keeps the Stresa Front united.

From what I can find online it seems the Ethiopian move had little to do with the AGNA.

 

[Skallagrim]

From what I can find online it seems the Ethiopian move had little to do with the AGNA.

Mussolini held back until the OTL moment in 1935 because he didn't want to clash with the British and the French. The Stresa Front allowed him to paint himself as the central figure to a domestic audience, key in keeping Austria preserved as a buffer state to the North.

Once Britain made a separate agreement with Germany, it was instantly clear that the Stresa Front meant little. Mussolini no longer had any reason to believe that the other nations would actually stand side-by-side, and he had to find another way to get a big "foreign policy win".

That's when he decided that opposing Germany was a hopeless cause. It led him to green-light the Ethiopian war, and to dial back his opposition to German expansion.

 

[sillygoose]

Mussolini held back until the OTL moment in 1935 because he didn't want to clash with the British and the French. The Stresa Front allowed him to paint himself as the central figure to a domestic audience, key in keeping Austria preserved as a buffer state to the North.

Once Britain made a separate agreement with Germany, it was instantly clear that the Stresa Front meant little. Mussolini no longer had any reason to believe that the other nations would actually stand side-by-side, and he had to find another way to get a big "foreign policy win".

That's when he decided that opposing Germany was a hopeless cause. It led him to green-light the Ethiopian war, and to dial back his opposition to German expansion.

Your info is not exactly accurate given the other causes:

Abyssinia Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're version is verbatim what it says on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it is accurate. The source is literally an Italian blog.

In the previous section it presents a different view of events:

Stresa Front - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mussolini got his way, and his plans to invade Abyssinia were not brought up. He took that silence as acquiescence to his colonial war and launched his invasion of Abyssinia in October 1935. That was the turning point for Mussolini, as he drifted away from Britain and France and toward Germany.

The Stresa Front was the reason he launched the colonial war, as he thought he had been given the green light. He had already discussed it with Britain and France separately and was effectively was given the green light.

This is supported in more detail here:

Second Italo-Ethiopian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Britain and France, preferring Italy as an ally against Germany, did not take strong steps to discourage an Italian military buildup on the borders of Italian Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. Because of the German Question, Mussolini needed to deter Hitler from annexing Austria while much of the Italian Army was being deployed to the Horn of Africa, which led him to draw closer to France to provide the necessary deterrent.[27] King Victor Emmanuel III shared the traditional Italian respect for British sea power and insisted to Mussolini that Italy must not antagonise Britain before he assented to the war.[27] In that regard, British diplomacy in the first half of 1935 greatly assisted Mussolini's efforts to win Victor Emmanuel's support for the invasion.[27]

On 7 January 1935, a Franco-Italian Agreement was made that gave Italy essentially a free hand in Africa in return for Italian co-operation in Europe.[28] Pierre Laval told Mussolini that he wanted a Franco-Italian alliance against Nazi Germany and that Italy had a "free hand" in Ethiopia.[27] In April, Italy was further emboldened by participation in the Stresa Front, an agreement to curb further German violations of the Treaty of Versailles.[29] The first draft of the communique at Stresa Summit spoke of upholding stability all over the world, but British Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, insisted for the final draft to declare that Britain, France and Italy were committed to upholding stability "in Europe", which Mussolini took for British acceptance of an invasion of Ethiopia.[27]

In June, non-interference was further assured by a political rift, which had developed between the United Kingdom and France, because of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.[30] As 300,000 Italian soldiers were transferred to Eritrea and Italian Somaliland over the spring and the summer of 1935, the world's media was abuzz with speculation that Italy would soon be invading Ethiopia.[27] In June 1935, Anthony Eden arrived in Rome with the message that Britain opposed an invasion and had a compromise plan for Italy to be given a corridor in Ethiopia to link the two Italian colonies in the Horn of Africa, which Mussolini rejected outright.[27] As the Italians had broken the British naval codes, Mussolini knew of the problems in the British Mediterranean Fleet, which led him to believe that the British opposition to the invasion, which had come as an unwelcome surprise to him, was not serious and that Britain would never go to war over Ethiopia.[31]

As you can see Mussolini was planning on the war for a while and the AGNA was no cause of what happened, just another nail in Ethiopia's coffin. Even without it happening the lack of a deal wouldn't have prevented the war.

 

[Skallagrim]

You're version is verbatim what it says on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it is accurate.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. You say this and then proceed to quote wikipedia -- which I didn't even reference -- yourself, and at length. That's kind of a weird move, as if you're trying to call me out for supposedly using a source you don't seem to value, and then referencing that same source as the basis of your own argument.

What am I supposed to do with this?


Anyway, what I outlined is simply how I read it in the history books. It has always seemed like common knowledge to me. The fact that Mussolini wanted some kind of action in Ethiopia for quite some time is beyond dispute. That he held back on actually committing to a war of conquest is also evident, however. Note that you actually quote a segment of text that makes it explicit that Mussolini only really committed after the British agreement with Germany. That's when it became obvious that Britain wasn't worth much as a partner to him.

Sure, being Mussolini, he hoped that still paying lip service to the Stresa Front would keep Britain and France from openly acting against him. But by that point, he'd stopped actually caring about what they thought. The inciting reason he stopped caring was that in his view, Britain had reneged on the Stresa Front within two months anyway...


My AH suggestion here is that if Britain had actually committed fully to the Stresa Front, Mussolini would have had no such reason to see them as faithless partners, and would have had less doubts about the Stresa Front actually being worth something. Moreover, without it looking like a dud to the public, he would have continued to portray himself as the big genius behind it all. That, taken together, would be worth the effort of avoiding any needless antagonism within the Stresa Front. Which in turn means that in such a scenario, Mussolini would take far more limited action in Ethiopia, presumably accepting some kind of partitition with a corridor of some sort. (His reasoning no doubt being, by the way, that he'd always be able to take more later, if it became... expedient.)

 

[ATP]

What if Mussolini doesn't decide to invade Ethiopia in 1935-37? It was a ruinously expensive war involving over 300,000 men (dwarfing the highly expensive SCW commitments) that cost them ~150k casualties (including sick) and internationally isolated them and ran at the same time as the intervention in Spain, which only increased the expenses of state and prevented preparations for WW2. If avoided what does that mean for the state of Italian military modernization and the Spanish Civil War and WW2? Or does it change diplomacy enough (Stresa Front) in the interwar period to change these other events?

Italy planned form 5 armored dyvisions ,if they do not invade Abisynia,they could have them.2 would be enough to take Egypt in 1940.And,they would not need german help - 2 more german armored dyvisions with Rommel on East.

German would lost thanks to Hitler supidity,but taking more territories,and soviet would advance slover.
Allies would retake Africa,but probably not try Italy.Landing in France in 1944,just like OTL.
More countries free from soviets,but that would be all.

 

[sillygoose]

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. You say this and then proceed to quote wikipedia -- which I didn't even reference -- yourself, and at length. That's kind of a weird move, as if you're trying to call me out for supposedly using a source you don't seem to value, and then referencing that same source as the basis of your own argument.

What am I supposed to do with this?

I was saying your claim was verbatim taking from a section of wikipedia linking to an Italian blog. Wikipedia isn't inherently bad, you just have to have a better sourced article, which is why I quoted at length from one, since people never actually read the links. So the entire quote was to show that Mussolini intended to go to war anyway and the AGNA was really not a factor in their decision. That means the AGNA POD is not helpful. You do with it what you want.

Anyway, what I outlined is simply how I read it in the history books. It has always seemed like common knowledge to me. The fact that Mussolini wanted some kind of action in Ethiopia for quite some time is beyond dispute. That he held back on actually committing to a war of conquest is also evident, however. Note that you actually quote a segment of text that makes it explicit that Mussolini only really committed after the British agreement with Germany. That's when it became obvious that Britain wasn't worth much as a partner to him.

Sure, being Mussolini, he hoped that still paying lip service to the Stresa Front would keep Britain and France from openly acting against him. But by that point, he'd stopped actually caring about what they thought. The inciting reason he stopped caring was that in his view, Britain had reneged on the Stresa Front within two months anyway...

Yeah the history books recycle dumb shit all the time, mostly from the British perspective, which is often incredibly flawed when it comes to understanding what was going on in different countries. Seems like a common Anglophone problem.

Britain's deal with Germany was coincidental to Italian actions even if, hypothetically, Mussolini told some British politician at the time that was why. The founding of the Stresa Front actually was what convinced Mussolini he could invade given the wording of the deal they agreed to.

Again you keep asserting something that other sources show was not the case. The wording of the Stresa Front deal convinced Mussolini he could invade and was preparing for it for months, before the AGNA deal, and it only happened months later because it took a long time to build up 300k men for the invasion in East Africa.

My AH suggestion here is that if Britain had actually committed fully to the Stresa Front, Mussolini would have had no such reason to see them as faithless partners, and would have had less doubts about the Stresa Front actually being worth something. Moreover, without it looking like a dud to the public, he would have continued to portray himself as the big genius behind it all. That, taken together, would be worth the effort of avoiding any needless antagonism within the Stresa Front. Which in turn means that in such a scenario, Mussolini would take far more limited action in Ethiopia, presumably accepting some kind of partitition with a corridor of some sort. (His reasoning no doubt being, by the way, that he'd always be able to take more later, if it became... expedient.)

Mussolini was never committed to the Stresa Front, it was a means to an end to him to invade Ethiopia. He had been flirting with Hitler since 1933 and only dealt with Britain and France when working with the Allies seemed to offer the potential of gaining territory and international prestige. After all he had secretly plotted to invade France in summer of 1933 before realizing the French had detected his move and he cancelled the invasion. Actually he repeatedly ordered preparations to go to war with Britain in 1935 before and after the AGNA and in September 1935 even had several divisions built up on the Egyptian border preparing to invade. That would make an interesting TL.

This is covered in detail in the Italian chapter (called The Ethiopian War and the origins of the Second World War) of "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered" edited by Gordon Martel. When the Allies acted against him after he invaded he realized the deal was pointless and officially ditched it. Mussolini actually was happy about the AGNA deal for a variety of reasons.

So the best option for preventing the Ethiopian war is actually to prevent the Stresa Front from even forming by Britain categorically denying Italy the option to invade Ethiopia. That would restrain Italy more than no AGNA.

Italy planned form 5 armored dyvisions ,if they do not invade Abisynia,they could have them.2 would be enough to take Egypt in 1940.And,they would not need german help - 2 more german armored dyvisions with Rommel on East.

Interesting. Do you have a source I could check out about the planned 5 divisions?

In the chapter mentioned above apparently most of what Italy spent on the military from 1935-40 was on the Ethiopian war and occupation/economic development, which combined with the much more modest Spanish Civil War spending amounted to 108 billion Lira (over 2/3rds spent on Ethiopia). The entire Italian economy in 1938 was 138 billion Lira. So Mussolini spent nearly the equivalent to an entire year's GDP before WW2 even started on foreign wars, mostly Ethiopia, which means that there was more than enough for 5 armored divisions and to motorize several more not to mention modernize the entire military.

Yes 2 extra armored divisions, maybe a couple of motorized ones, and supporting truck transport would be a total game changer in 1940.

Not just 2 extra German divisions, but 10% more trucks and 20% more air force. Not to mention without Italy invading Greece (or potentially Britain not getting involved) due to Italy taking Egypt that would free up several more German divisions since Crete wouldn't need to happen, nor German divisions getting involved. That would in fact free up 2 more panzer divisions on top of Rommel's since they wouldn't be needed in Greece. 12th army could attack out of Romania on June 22nd (or even a few days earlier) rather than 11th army having to wait a week.

German would lost thanks to Hitler supidity,but taking more territories,and soviet would advance slover.
Allies would retake Africa,but probably not try Italy.Landing in France in 1944,just like OTL.
More countries free from soviets,but that would be all.

Extra material makes up for a lot of stupidity otherwise Stalin and the US would have lost WW2.
Plus with the above and some extra time Stalin could very well lose the war in 1941. I'm not saying the fighting would end in 1941, but the conditions would be set for the USSR to fall apart.

 

[Skallagrim]

I was saying your claim was verbatim taking from a section of wikipedia linking to an Italian blog. Wikipedia isn't inherently bad, you just have to have a better sourced article

Listen, you often post interesting insights. Unfortunately, you also have an extremely weird tendency to become stupendously obtinate and annoying when you disagree with someone else's view. When that happens, you dive into this behaviour where you resort to these word games and try to score a "win" at all costs.

I repeat: my source isn't wikipedia. I haven't even read the wiki on the Stresa Front. The only one referencing this is you. And now you have the audacity to start berating me for "you need a better source" -- when you are the only one talking about it!

Please. That's just insane toddler tactics. I'm not discussing anything else with you until you stop doing this.

Yeah the history books recycle dumb shit all the time, mostly from the British perspective,

And here you go even further off the rails. First you falsely accuse me of only using wiki as a source, then (when it's pointed that's not the case) you go on to say this. Of course, in the same post, you still accuse me of "needing a better source than wikipedia", so you're sort of covering all the bases here, huh? Wiki? Bad source! Oh, you read books covering it? Books are stupid. And pro-British! So invalid!

Is this like a knee-jerk reflex with you? Because my whole point here was that the Stresa Front failed early on because Britain screwed over its partners... which is decidely not the British view. So how can I be a victim of this evil propaganda of perfidious Albion that you seem to see lurking behind every tree in the forest?

So, again, this discussion must be at an end. You're not just being very obviously dishonest, you're also being completely incoherent (calling my sharply Anglo-critical view on this matter "the British perspective").

 

[sillygoose]

Listen, you often post interesting insights. Unfortunately, you also have an extremely weird tendency to become stupendously obtinate and annoying when you disagree with someone else's view. When that happens, you dive into this behaviour where you resort to these word games and try to score a "win" at all costs.

Back at you. You engage in the exact same behavior you accuse me of, but without supporting materials for your positions. Have you considered the reason I argue things out with you is that you haven't actually said or sourced anything that convinces me that your position is accurate?

I repeat: my source isn't wikipedia. I haven't even read the wiki on the Stresa Front. The only one referencing this is you. And now you have the audacity to start berating me for "you need a better source" -- when you are the only one talking about it!

Please. That's just insane toddler tactics. I'm not discussing anything else with you until you stop doing this.

And here you go even further off the rails. First you falsely accuse me of only using wiki as a source, then (when it's pointed that's not the case) you go on to say this. Of course, in the same post, you still accuse me of "needing a better source than wikipedia", so you're sort of covering all the bases here, huh? Wiki? Bad source! Oh, you read books covering it? Books are stupid. And pro-British! So invalid!

Is this like a knee-jerk reflex with you? Because my whole point here was that the Stresa Front failed early on because Britain screwed over its partners... which is decidely not the British view. So how can I be a victim of this evil propaganda of perfidious Albion that you seem to see lurking behind every tree in the forest?

So, again, this discussion must be at an end. You're not just being very obviously dishonest, you're also being completely incoherent (calling my sharply Anglo-critical view on this matter "the British perspective").

My point was that your claim is incorrect as it was based on British negotiators that misunderstood the situation. Italy didn't do what it did to Ethiopia because of the AGNA or Britain screwing over Italy with the naval agreement, in fact that agreement actually worked in Italy's favor and Mussolini was actually happy about it despite the outrage it generated in Fascist Italian circles. What actually triggered the invasion was the formation of the Stresa Front, since that is what convinced Italy it could get away with the invasion, so they started preparations before the AGNA even happened. Some misinformed or disingenuous British politicians claimed it was because of the AGNA but that was incorrect. The best book I've found (unfortunately after my last post) that covers the topic in detail is "Italian Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period" by Burgwyn which is available for free via Libgen and shows that the AGNA was entirely besides the point and it was the weakness of the Stresa Front due negotiations that was the trigger, as the Italians read it as weakness on the part of the Allies and the wording of the agreement only mentioned Europe, not Africa.

You're obviously misunderstanding what I'm saying about the British perspective issue; the main reason I mentioned the wikipedia article is because one of the British negotiators involved claimed the collapse of the Stresa Front and Italian invasion of Ethiopia was due to the 'betrayal' of the AGNA. That is entirely incorrect, but has been the dominant Anglo historiographical narrative on the issue, which is why I said 'British position'; the reason I was citing the wikipedia article critically was due to the source being an Italian blog which apparently used english language sources rather than a relevant specialist Italian diplomatic history. Check out the books I mentioned on the issue which should clarify things for you as they are told from the Italian perspective rather than the British perspective on why things played out as they did.

If you feel that further interactions are not something you want to engage in, that is entirely up to you.

 

[Skallagrim]

ack at you. You engage in the exact same behavior you accuse me of, but without supporting materials for your positions.

No, I don't. Which is clear for anyone to see: I haven't tried to claim that you rely on sources you have never even mentioned, nor have I accused you of secretly serving some pro- or anti-British agenda that only exists in my own head. That's stuff you do. Stuff you keep doing.

If you feel that further interactions are not something you want to engage in, that is entirely up to you.

Evidently, which is why you're going on ignore now. It's sad, because -- as I said -- you are capable of interesting posts when you're not being a hypocrite who relies on insane troll logic to score points... but it seems you can't help yourself.

 

[sillygoose]

No, I don't. Which is clear for anyone to see: I haven't tried to claim that you rely on sources you have never even mentioned, nor have I accused you of secretly serving some pro- or anti-British agenda that only exists in my own head. That's stuff you do. Stuff you keep doing.

I'm not talking about just this thread. I'm not claiming you are serving some agenda, just parroting British historiography about the inter-war period. I'm sorry you keep misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Evidently, which is why you're going on ignore now. It's sad, because -- as I said -- you are capable of interesting posts when you're not being a hypocrite who relies on insane troll logic to score points... but it seems you can't help yourself.

Suit yourself.

 

[sillygoose]

What reason would the Stresa Front actually have for collapsing in this TL?

On further thought probably the Spanish Civil War.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

I wonder how Franco will handle that?

 

[sillygoose]

I wonder how Franco will handle that?

Handle what exactly?

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Handle what exactly?

Italy invading Spain.

 

[sillygoose]

Italy invading Spain.

Italy wouldn't be invading Spain though? Just their OTL intervention in favor of Franco:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_military_intervention_in_Spain

Franco was happy about it and powerful enough (with Hitler's support) to tell Mussolini to pound sand when he asked for economic concessions for helping.

Why I thought it mightbreak up the Stresa Front was that Britain and France declared neutrality and expected everyone else to do the same, but were willing to be non-confrontational about it IOTL when Italy and Germany and the USSR all intervened.

However now I'm wondering if perhaps the POD here is the Stresa Front falls apart from France and Britain outright telling Italy it couldn't invade Ethiopia and would have consequences if they did. Italy gets pissed and starts looking more to Germany for help with their longer term expansionary plans especially once the AGNA happens. So when the SCW starts they jump in like IOTL while rapidly modernizing their forces.

 

[ATP]

Italy wouldn't be invading Spain though? Just their OTL intervention in favor of Franco:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_military_intervention_in_Spain

Franco was happy about it and powerful enough (with Hitler's support) to tell Mussolini to pound sand when he asked for economic concessions for helping.

Why I thought it mightbreak up the Stresa Front was that Britain and France declared neutrality and expected everyone else to do the same, but were willing to be non-confrontational about it IOTL when Italy and Germany and the USSR all intervened.

However now I'm wondering if perhaps the POD here is the Stresa Front falls apart from France and Britain outright telling Italy it couldn't invade Ethiopia and would have consequences if they did. Italy gets pissed and starts looking more to Germany for help with their longer term expansionary plans especially once the AGNA happens. So when the SCW starts they jump in like IOTL while rapidly modernizing their forces.

Yep,i read/forget where/ then they planned for 20 modern dyvisions till 1939,including 5 armored.Now,it could be done.
Tanks - czech proposed V.8H medium tanks,but Italy in OTL refused.If they take that offer,they could mass produce them from 1939.