Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

[MarkF617]

Another thought, if Malta is chosen over Crete it gives the RAF and RN a great base in the eastern Mediterranean. This is something Hitler would never allow.

Thanks

Mark.

[Peter89]

A simple airborne attack would not "bring down the island". See the many Malta threads on this forum and you will discover that it is far more complex.
How will the Germans "find a way" to get supplies forward, wave a magic wand? If a way is found to get the extra 10-15% of supplies forward how much is sent forward, how much stays to support Tripoli and the Libyan colonies and how much is shot up by the RAF as it moves down the coast by lorry or small boat? With no British convoys going through the Mediterranean I don't see holding it much of a bonus for Germany, Britain will probably be better off as they will avoid all the losses trying to re-supply the island.
On another note, if the Germans are just capturing Malta and leaving the Italians to it then without Rommel and the Afrika Korp the Italians will probably be evicted from Lybia by mid 1941. Just as Barbarossa is launced Hitler will have to help out or risk having the British in Rome.

Thanks

Mark.

The British could not get to Rome before 1943. Even evicting the Italians from Lybia by mid-1941 is unprobable. First, the Iraq revolt, then the French Levant, then the Persian neutrality and then the remnants of the IEA forces had to be dealt with. Then there was the decision to send troops to Greece. Also the Italian fleet was not broken before the Cape Matapan battle. Also: the fight in Africa would not cease for the British, even if there was no Italians or Germans. There was the vast Vichy French empire who would not cease to fight with the Germans looking strong and the Paris protocols just signed.

[MarkF617]

Sorry, mis-type. I meant mid 1942. The forces historically used for Crusader would have been enough to finish the Itallians off and they would be starting from much further forward as the Italians wete in no position to push the British back after Beda Fom. Without German input I believe both would sit where they were until ready and I think the Italians would dig in and await the British offensive which they wouldn't stop.

Thanks

Mark.

[Peter89]

Sorry, mis-type. I meant mid 1942. The forces historically used for Crusader would have been enough to finish the Itallians off and they would be starting from much further forward as the Italians wete in no position to push the British back after Beda Fom. Without German input I believe both would sit where they were until ready and I think the Italians would dig in and await the British offensive which they wouldn't stop.

Thanks

Mark.

Yeah, this is very much possible. But still, I don't see the British breaking the Italian peninsula's defenses before 1943. They would have an easier time to break Italy's commitment to the Axis side and the war.

I tend to agree with Douglas Porch's views and I see the Allied struggle in the MTO as the best thing that could happen to them, somewhat like a prerequisite for a successful invasion of mainland Europe.

[ljadw]

Sorry, mis-type. I meant mid 1942. The forces historically used for Crusader would have been enough to finish the Itallians off and they would be starting from much further forward as the Italians wete in no position to push the British back after Beda Fom. Without German input I believe both would sit where they were until ready and I think the Italians would dig in and await the British offensive which they wouldn't stop.

Thanks

Mark.

Compass was stopped by the Italians BEFORE the arrival of Rommel .
Thus,there is no reason to believe that Crusader would do what Compass could not do,without or with the presence of the Germans .
The Italian strength in NA at the start of Crusader was 166000 men, strength of the AK was 48000 men .

[ljadw]

Another thought, if Malta is chosen over Crete it gives the RAF and RN a great base in the eastern Mediterranean. This is something Hitler would never allow.

Thanks

Mark.

The RAF and the RN had already a great base in the eastern Mediterranean : Cyprus .

[MarkF617]

IIRC cunningham was ecstatic when he was told he could use Suda Bay.
RAF Bombers could bomb Ploiesti from Crete and light bombers could cover more of the mainland than from Cyprus. They could even have fighter cover over southern Greece.

Thanks

Mark.

[T. A. Gardner]

Let's see...

Italy stays out of the war. That's the original premise.

There is no campaign in the Mediterranean theater for Britain or Germany. This means:

The British end up with something like a quarter million more troops available to invade France / Europe, maybe more. A side affect is Singapore is far better defended because the British and Commonwealth have more stuff available.
British naval and shipping losses in the Med are far lower. This helps with the U-boat campaign.
Because there is no war in the Med, the British can convoy ships through the Med instead of around Africa saving weeks in transit by shipping making more available to move materials.
The British immediately have more war material they can supply to Russia via Lend-lease. With no N. African campaign, the Iran to Russia route is more readily available as an alternative to Murmansk.

If we assume the US still enters the war at about the same point, then the worst will happen.

That is, because the Germans have pushed most of their army and air force into Russia to win there, and there's no N. African campaign, when the US enters the war they decide to land in France in late 1942 instead of Vichy N. Africa. The British / Commonwealth with more troops and material available go along with that. Germany is faced with a two-front war and the Allies are in France in early 1943...

Even the OP hints at the weakness of German forces in France by late 1942. The US could do Roundup with British / Commonwealth support and get ashore in France in large numbers. That means Germany is now definitely in a two front war on land a year to a year and a half earlier.

[Kingfish]

Compass was stopped by the Italians BEFORE the arrival of Rommel .

I'm sure you mean logistics and diversion of forces to Greece stopped Compass. In a hypothetical where Op Lustre does not occur, and Compass is planned as a long range exploitation - instead of merely a spoiling attack - there is nothing the Italians could have done to prevent the British from reaching the gates of Tripoli.

The Italian strength in NA at the start of Crusader was 166000 men, strength of the AK was 48000 men .

Irrelevant. The Italians had a 4:1 numerical advantage over the British at the start of Op Compass, and look how well they fared then.

[MarkF617]

Kingfish,

I think what he means when he says stopped by the Italians is that if the Italians were totally and utterly destroyed in North Africa then a few lorries and some fuel could be scraped together and a small force drive to Tripoli to take the surrender. As this could not be done without re-enforcement and resupply then it was the Itallians that stopped them.

Thanks

Mark

[ljadw]

Compass was stopped by the Italians BEFORE the arrival of Rommel .

I'm sure you mean logistics and diversion of forces to Greece stopped Compass. In a hypothetical where Op Lustre does not occur, and Compass is planned as a long range exploitation - instead of merely a spoiling attack - there is nothing the Italians could have done to prevent the British from reaching the gates of Tripoli.

There is no proof for this : all we know is that Britain did not reach the gates of Tripoli in January 1941 .
Logistics and diversion of forces ( diversion of forces is on the same level as ''Hitler sleeping on D Day " prevented the Germans from defeating the invasion ) are not the reasons why Britain did not reach the gates of Tripoli, the reason is that Italy did not collapse and stopped the WDF.
If the Italians had collapsed, Britain would have captured Tripoli with one battalion .
The same happened in September 1944 when Patton failed to invade Germany : the reason was not that Patton had not enough fuel (this is a search for a scapegoat ) but that Germany did not collapse . If Germany had collapsed, Patton would have sufficient fuel .

[ljadw]

Kingfish,

I think what he means when he says stopped by the Italians is that if the Italians were totally and utterly destroyed in North Africa then a few lorries and some fuel could be scraped together and a small force drive to Tripoli to take the surrender.

As this could not be done without re-enforcement and resupply then it was the Itallians that stopped them.

Thanks

Mark

1 Yes
2 NO : if the Italians had collapsed, Tripoli could be captured by ONE battalion .
Lustre would not prevent O' Çonnor to send one battalion to Tripoli /
It was the same for Market Garden : if ''The Hun was still on the run '',the MG forces would have been able to go to Berlin .
But : he was no longer on the run .
Victory does not depend only on the winner, and defeat on the loser .
It was also the same in Russia in 1941 : it was not the rasputitza that stopped the Germans, but the Russians .

[ljadw]

IIRC cunningham was ecstatic when he was told he could use Suda Bay.
RAF Bombers could bomb Ploiesti from Crete and light bombers could cover more of the mainland than from Cyprus. They could even have fighter cover over southern Greece.

Thanks

Mark.

There was also Alexandria : to use 2 bases, the RN needed more aircraft .
And, about Ploesti : it is the same : to attack Ploesti from Crete,the RAF needed more bombers than it had in the HTL.

[ljadw]

I agree totally with TAG: a neutral Italy would not prevent war in the Mediterranean and would not prevent the danger of allied invasion(s ) in Southern Europe .

[Kingfish]

There is no proof for this : all we know is that Britain did not reach the gates of Tripoli in January 1941 .

But there is proof. All three divisions that participated in Compass were either sent to other theaters or back to Egypt for refit, and replaced with weak and ill equipped formations that lacked sufficient transport to continue the advance.

If the Italians had collapsed, Britain would have captured Tripoli with one battalion .

This is what's called a false dichotomy - either the Italians were completely routed or fully capable of stopping the 8th army had it continued the advance. The truth is there was another reason: the British decided to go on the defensive and send fully capable forces to other theaters.