Did Italy cost Germany the War?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
kenmac
Banned
Posts: 851
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 17:03

Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#1

Post by kenmac » 14 May 2011, 14:38

Hitler believed that Mussolini's invasion of Greece and the subsequent delay in the launch of Operation Barbarossa cost Germany the war.
Do you agree? and what consequences would of an earlier Barbarossa brought?

Dave Bender
Member
Posts: 3533
Joined: 24 Apr 2006, 22:21
Location: Michigan U.S.A.

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#2

Post by Dave Bender » 14 May 2011, 16:48

Nothing requires Hitler to diplomatically align with Italy. Nor did anything require Hitler to cut 50+ year German ties to China and align with Japan. These 1938 diplomatic decisions are the real problem.


User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#3

Post by Tim Smith » 14 May 2011, 17:13

kenmac wrote:Hitler believed that Mussolini's invasion of Greece and the subsequent delay in the launch of Operation Barbarossa cost Germany the war.
Do you agree? and what consequences would of an earlier Barbarossa brought?
Barbarossa could only have been launched two weeks earlier anyway. Weather conditions were too poor before that - there had been a lot of rain, and muddy dirt tracks would slow down the German wheeled lorries so much that attacking in the wet would benefit the Soviets more than the Germans.

Two weeks extra time would not be enough to ensure the fall of Moscow. Even if surrounded, the city could have held out until the Soviet winter counter-offensive.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#4

Post by Marcus » 14 May 2011, 18:36

Please take a look at the What if guidelines at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=77436 and expand your initial post, thanks.

/Marcus

kenmac
Banned
Posts: 851
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 17:03

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#5

Post by kenmac » 16 May 2011, 20:26

Tim Smith wrote:
kenmac wrote:Hitler believed that Mussolini's invasion of Greece and the subsequent delay in the launch of Operation Barbarossa cost Germany the war.
Do you agree? and what consequences would of an earlier Barbarossa brought?
Barbarossa could only have been launched two weeks earlier anyway. Weather conditions were too poor before that - there had been a lot of rain, and muddy dirt tracks would slow down the German wheeled lorries so much that attacking in the wet would benefit the Soviets more than the Germans.

Two weeks extra time would not be enough to ensure the fall of Moscow. Even if surrounded, the city could have held out until the Soviet winter counter-offensive.
A two week delay was the most likely.
We are looking at May 29th as the invasion date without the Balkan Aversion.
Thats 24 days extra campaign time and Army group Souths tanks in much better order, plus a lot more aircraft.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#6

Post by maltesefalcon » 16 May 2011, 21:19

That may be a gross oversimplification, but for sure the 3 main Axis powers did little in the way of a grand plan to maximize efforts to the best good.

To wit:
Italy jumping into the French conflict in 1940 when the battle was as good as won by Germany. This meant that the Italian Navy and Army would be no longer just a threat to British interests but a target for them. Had it not been for Germany, Italy would likely have been knocked out by 1941 at the latest.

Italy expanded the war in Africa at a time when Germany didn't need more fronts. The DAK did well in its attempt to conquer Africa at first, but it was merely a side show and bled off troops needed elsewhere.

Barbarossa caught the Japanese off guard as the Pearl Harbour attack did Germany. A determined attack on Russia by both partners would have achieved more in the long run.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#7

Post by BDV » 17 May 2011, 18:28

A "spanish" WWII Italy has an significant impact on the course of WWII. British assets fighting against the Italian colonial forces would invade sundry Vichy possessions instead, FreeFeenching them likely 1 year earlier than OTL. Most likely including Corsica.

Soviet Union can be supplied through the Med-Black Sea corridor enormously increase the deliverability of materiel. Turkey might be strongarmed into declaring the Dardanelles open, and allowing RN to take the battle to the weak Axis forces in the Black Sea, basically allowing the Soviets to engage in amphibious operations at will.

Without the materiel expeditures of North Africa, the Dieppe raid might become the Dieppe Invasion. Given the local success even that half-assed effort had against the german defenders, an actual invasion might have unexpected success in at least turning France into a battlefield as opposed to the historical milk-cow it was for Germany. Significant more effort and oversight can be dedicated to the strategic bombing campain.

Without Italian support, Germany will likely be defeated by mid 1944.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#8

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 May 2011, 20:15

BDV wrote:A "spanish" WWII Italy has an significant impact on the course of WWII. British assets fighting against the Italian colonial forces would invade sundry Vichy possessions instead, FreeFeenching them likely 1 year earlier than OTL. Most likely including Corsica.

Soviet Union can be supplied through the Med-Black Sea corridor enormously increase the deliverability of materiel. Turkey might be strongarmed into declaring the Dardanelles open, and allowing RN to take the battle to the weak Axis forces in the Black Sea, basically allowing the Soviets to engage in amphibious operations at will.

Without the materiel expeditures of North Africa, the Dieppe raid might become the Dieppe Invasion. Given the local success even that half-assed effort had against the german defenders, an actual invasion might have unexpected success in at least turning France into a battlefield as opposed to the historical milk-cow it was for Germany. Significant more effort and oversight can be dedicated to the strategic bombing campain.

Without Italian support, Germany will likely be defeated by mid 1944.
Couldn't disagree more. Britain was weak with infantry and armour post battle of France. Italy drew the Wehrmacht into precisely the kind of campaign that Britain needed to buy time. ie a theatre away from the home front, where close interservice cooperation was required, That was an area sadly lacking in the Axis. Britain could put just enough men into Africa to hold on to its toehold provided the RAF and Navy could wreak havoc on the Axis supply chain. (They could and did!) Meanwhile fully motorized Wehrmacht divisions that could have been used in the coup de grace in Barbarossa were wasted in North Africa.

You are right that Dieppe was half assed, but extrapolating this disaster into an earlier entry into France is a gross miscalculation. The Allies had so few landing craft available at the time that 6000-odd troops needed to be landed in three waves. How would a division strength invasion get on shore and be supplied in this case?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#9

Post by ljadw » 17 May 2011, 21:08

kenmac wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
kenmac wrote:Hitler believed that Mussolini's invasion of Greece and the subsequent delay in the launch of Operation Barbarossa cost Germany the war.
Do you agree? and what consequences would of an earlier Barbarossa brought?
Barbarossa could only have been launched two weeks earlier anyway. Weather conditions were too poor before that - there had been a lot of rain, and muddy dirt tracks would slow down the German wheeled lorries so much that attacking in the wet would benefit the Soviets more than the Germans.

Two weeks extra time would not be enough to ensure the fall of Moscow. Even if surrounded, the city could have held out until the Soviet winter counter-offensive.
A two week delay was the most likely.
We are looking at May 29th as the invasion date without the Balkan Aversion.
Thats 24 days extra campaign time and Army group Souths tanks in much better order, plus a lot more aircraft.
Not a lot more aircraft:these returned at time (22 june)
24 more days would give the SU also 24 more days to defeat the Germans .(what they did)

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#10

Post by BDV » 17 May 2011, 22:43

maltesefalcon wrote:Britain was weak with infantry and armour post battle of France.
So having to deploy armor and troops to Egypt helps this situation how?

Italy drew the Wehrmacht into precisely the kind of campaign that Britain needed to buy time. ie a theatre away from the home front.
Behind the RN and the RAF Britain was safe from invasion. Britain had time. The italian attack (properly executed) is EXACTLY what the Axis should be doing in the second half of 1940. Relentlessly attack all exposed areas of the Empyr - Malta, Egypt, Gibraltar, and Middle East.

You are right that Dieppe was half assed, but extrapolating this disaster into an earlier entry into France is a gross miscalculation. The Allies had so few landing craft available at the time that 6000-odd troops needed to be landed in three waves. How would a division strength invasion get on shore and be supplied in this case?
Without the immense drain on materiel and trained troops of North Africa, where (Rommel-Kult aside) Italians did most of the fighting, Britain is in excellent shape to spring a surprise on the Nazis. Not only the Dieppe Invasion, how about a Torch a la Marseille?

One more tidbit - without Italy in war, there is no pressure to conclude Catapult quickly, so chances are good for a nice chunk of the French Navy to end up in Free French hands, one way or another.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#11

Post by maltesefalcon » 18 May 2011, 03:01

To the above. Torch was launched against predominantly Free French forces, not seasoned and well equipped Wehrmacht troops. In addition, the Allies already had considerable forces in Africa in the form of the British 8th army, which had just won at Alamein.

Any troops landing in France would be the only ones there. In 1942 they would be hit for six. Are you really suggesting that at the time of Dieppe the allies could mount a second invasion in Marsielles?
Why in hell would they go there if by definition they were not fighting a Med campaign? It would be easier for this phantom force to just cross the channel. Luftwaffe and DKN interfererence would not be abated on the south shore of France. Not only that the invasion force would have a more perilous and longer supply route. And what if Italy suddenly came into the war once the Allies had commited to southern France?

Let's see if I can find another way of supporting my argument that would bolster my position that the Axis weakened its position by fighting in Africa. Hmmm.....

Oh. I know. The Axis lost the campaign. And a mass surrender of troops in Tunisia to rival Stalingrad.
Last edited by maltesefalcon on 18 May 2011, 13:51, edited 1 time in total.

kenmac
Banned
Posts: 851
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 17:03

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#12

Post by kenmac » 18 May 2011, 12:56

ljadw wrote:
kenmac wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
kenmac wrote:Hitler believed that Mussolini's invasion of Greece and the subsequent delay in the launch of Operation Barbarossa cost Germany the war.
Do you agree? and what consequences would of an earlier Barbarossa brought?
Barbarossa could only have been launched two weeks earlier anyway. Weather conditions were too poor before that - there had been a lot of rain, and muddy dirt tracks would slow down the German wheeled lorries so much that attacking in the wet would benefit the Soviets more than the Germans.

Two weeks extra time would not be enough to ensure the fall of Moscow. Even if surrounded, the city could have held out until the Soviet winter counter-offensive.
A two week delay was the most likely.
We are looking at May 29th as the invasion date without the Balkan Aversion.
Thats 24 days extra campaign time and Army group Souths tanks in much better order, plus a lot more aircraft.
Not a lot more aircraft:these returned at time (22 june)
24 more days would give the SU also 24 more days to defeat the Germans .(what they did)
The Germans advanced right up to the Soviet Counter offensive in Decemeber 1941.
24 summer campaign days would be 24 more days of German advances.
Last edited by kenmac on 18 May 2011, 13:26, edited 1 time in total.

kenmac
Banned
Posts: 851
Joined: 29 Apr 2010, 17:03

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#13

Post by kenmac » 18 May 2011, 13:25

32 Italian and 7 German Divisions had to occupy the Balkans.
This is a large number of men who could have been used against the USSR.
Not to mention the loses and wear and and tear of German aircraft and tanks that could have been used for the invasion of the USSR.
By 1943 the Germans over 20 divsions there.
All of these could have made a big difference in the East.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#14

Post by maltesefalcon » 18 May 2011, 13:46

Let's add the fact that post Battle of France, the British Army and RAF realized they had serious deficiencies in air support and cooperation with troops vs the Germans.

North Africa gave the British an ideal landscape to relearn modern combat techniques and to probe for weaknesses in the German Blitzkrieg system. All this while essentially bleeding the Italian forces white with relatively smaller casualties themselves.

Without this apprenticeship program the bulk of the Allied forces that eventually would end up in Europe would be green as grass, including most of the division commanders.

The African Desert was an area where (on its own)the war could neither be won nor lost by either side and the Axis was foolish to get involved in it while they had bigger fish to fry.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Did Italy cost Germany the War?

#15

Post by BDV » 18 May 2011, 15:48

maltesefalcon wrote:Torch was launched against predominantly Free French forces, not seasoned and well equipped Wehrmacht troops. In addition, the Allies already had considerable forces in Africa in the form of the British 8th army, which had just won at Alamein.
Torch was launched against Vichy forces, and in this ATL Vichy has not been irritated by Catapult. An 1942 invasion of Marseille will also happen against Vichy forces. From what ATL bases would the Deutsche Kriegsmarine interfere against RN operations in the Med? How would its ships get there? And for LW interference do you propose Germany occupies the ENTIRETY of France? Then there's no Vichy whatsoever, just Free French under the astute leadership of Admiral Darlan.

Let's see if I can find another way of supporting my argument that would bolster my position that the Axis weakened its position by fighting in Africa. Oh. I know. The Axis lost the campaign. And a mass surrender of troops in Tunisia to rival Stalingrad.
The cost to Germany+Italy of the North Africa campaign may exceed the cost to Great Britain (or the tradeoff Great Britain could otherwise exact on the Axis). However, Germany only had a minute committment to this front, while it sucked the majority of the British land war effort. So for the Afrika Campaign 3rdR+Italy cost > GB cost, BUT 3rdR cost << GB cost.

Also with Med wide open to British shipping, with the Italian hands firmly planted in italian pockets, and British and Russian diplomatic hijinks in Belgrade and Athens, does Germany still need to do the Maritza? That's gonna be a hoot without Italian softening of the greeks, and with RN (free of RM interference) blockadeering any large island, so good luck to the starving garrisons across the greek archipelago. Rather, if Germany attacks, the archipelago will stay Free Greek. Bombing the Ploiesti just got 400% easier.

So no Maritza. With Jugoslavia neutral, does Horthy manage to keep his distance from the repulsive Nazis? Goodbye Uman pocket, welcome running out of steam on the Dniepr - if not Dniestr. Then Romanians would suddenly only afford one army to the Eastern Front, and will not cross the Dniestr (see, gotta keep an eye on the Hungarians from taking over the other half of Transylvania).

The implications of Italian inaction in WWII are breathtaking in their scope, and not good for Germany, Rommel-Manstein Kult aside.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”