[Gian]

When the Germans fully occupied France in late 1942, the Vichy French Forces blended into the Free French Forces and carried on the fight on the Allied side.

Now: what if war in the PTO had dragged on further into 1945/46?
Do you think Italian forces (including ex-RSI soldiers) would have been similarly reunited to form an expeditionary force to be sent into the Far East?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Have recently ben reading a bit on the post 1943 Italian government military policy, and of the army. First I found nothing indicating use of the Italian army outside Italy for 1944-45. No mention of any expiditionary capability. Second the army of 1945 seems to have had a extremely small cadre of officers with a professional or career attitude. The remainder and the enlisted ranks seem to have been a demoralized lot, interested in internal Italian politics certainly, but lacking any interest in international affairs.

This suggests that only smallest of token forces, perhaps not even a brigade, might be sent to the Pacific theatre.

[larrusso]

Having visited Normandy several times Italian soldiers manned coastal artillery guns on or near the 'Pont Du Hoc'.
There are photographs at the Omaha Museum showing Italian soldiers being held as prisoners by U.S. Rangers.
Mind you the photographs are wrongly titled as German troops.
Its clear they are wearing m40 tunics and bustinas as well as puttees.
Thats the only unusual onomaly I can think off apart from the odd Italian POW (India) that worked for the allies
in the Pacific area of operations.

Happy New Year
Mike

[Gian]

Oh yes, they must have been pro-Savoy Italian soldiers employed by the "Todt" organization as laborers. Die hard fascists manned coastal batteries in the landing zones and on the island of Cezembre, perhaps the most bombed out in the world.
There were some on the Allied side too.

[R. Evans]

Even had the war dragged on in the Pacific, the US would've been very reluctant to take yet another allied contingent into the theater against Japan. Towards the end of the war, the US was even reluctant, Admiral King USN chief in particular, for a UK naval task force to take part in operations against Japan. And the promise extracted from the USSR to join the war against Japan in 1944 was obsolete by 1945. The US really didn't even want their involvement but got it anyway.

[madmike]

is not a what-if story....

http://www.foia.cia...._0000594230.pdf

[Oasis]

There was an english project in 1943 (?) offering to italians POW in India (Yol and Dehradun) to be employed against Japanese in Assam, but it did not start.

Toni

[sgtbrown]

R. Evans, on 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

Even had the war dragged on in the Pacific, the US would've been very reluctant to take yet another allied contingent into the theater against Japan. Towards the end of the war, the US was even reluctant, Admiral King USN chief in particular, for a UK naval task force to take part in operations against Japan. And the promise extracted from the USSR to join the war against Japan in 1944 was obsolete by 1945. The US really didn't even want their involvement but got it anyway.

Not sure to what extent this might be a factor but it is my understanding that King was VERY much the Anglophobe. Early in the war it is said he refused advice/intelligence on German submarines operating in US waters simply because the source was British. Needless to say, this was somewhat detrimental to US shipping.

Tom

[R. Evans]

sgtbrown, on 29 September 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

Not sure to what extent this might be a factor but it is my understanding that King was VERY much the Anglophobe. Early in the war it is said he refused advice/intelligence on German submarines operating in US waters simply because the source was British. Needless to say, this was somewhat detrimental to US shipping.

Tom

Anglophobe is putting it midly for King.