Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2021 16:15

Peter89 wrote:
10 Sep 2021 15:49
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 11:17
AH was in the same position as Turkey :Germany did not need AH to defeat France, but AH needed Germany in case of war with Russia .
AH was not in the same position as Turkey.

AH was needed by Germany if they were going to be successful against France; AH had to absorb the first Russian blows until Germany wins in the West.

OTOH, AH did not need Germany for its national security, because the AH did not want to go to war against Russia.
1 NO : Germany needed AH only as a pretext for declaring war on Russia .
2 The simple truth ,which most historians refuse to admit is that AH, Russia and Germany needed each other: none of each had any reason to fight against each other, but a lot of reasons not to fight against each other .
The fall of the Czar would result in a left wing Russian republic that would be very hostile to the Kaiser and FJ .
The fall of the Kaiser would result in the collapse of AH and the creation of anti Russian republics .
3 The only reason why Germany declared war on Russia was that the German socialists would not accept a war with France,without a war against Russia .
And as there were no problems between Russia and Germany, only AH could give Germany the excuse for a DOW on Russia .
4 The Kaiser said to the 7 armies who went to France in August : you will be back (at home ) before the leafs are falling from the trees (thus before October ): this means that there would be no war in the East .
Germany did not need the AH army as protection : the 8th army was sufficient . After the fall of France Russia would immediately give up .The Russian armies who were concentrated against AH in August 1914,could not be concentrated against Germany if AH remained neutral .

User avatar
joeylonglegs
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 May 2021 14:18
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by joeylonglegs » 10 Sep 2021 16:23

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 15:53
1 Compared to its possibilities, Italy did not bad, even good .
Italy failed on basically every major front despite massive numerical advantage. This was already explained to you multiple times.
2 Fascist Italy was not a genocidal state.
Fascist Italy committed genocide against Libyans, partook in the Holocaust in North Africa, and committed atrocities and war crimes in Ethiopia.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2021 16:36

Takao wrote:
10 Sep 2021 13:26
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 11:17
Was it possible for Germany to have done a better job training Turkey's army ?
It is easy to blame Germany more than 100 years after the facts .
And, about allies being relevant/irrelevant : the importance of Germany for Turkey was much bigger ,already before the war, than the importance of Turkey for Germany .
The importance of Russia for France was only relevant in war time,not in peace time .
For France ,Russia was only important if Germany attacked France, while the importance of France for Russia was much less,as Germany had no reason to make Russia its principal target .
It was the same for Turkey :a war between France and Germany would not involve Turkey, but a war between Russia and Germany ( such a war could only start if Germany attacked Russia ) would involve Turkey :a German defeat would be very bad for Turkey,but a Turkish defeat ( there were two of them before 1914 ) would have only minor consequences for Germany .
AH was in the same position as Turkey :Germany did not need AH to defeat France, but AH needed Germany in case of war with Russia .
Italy, OTOH, needed no one ,as neither AH, neither France, Britain or Russia would attack Italy .Italy could chose the allies who were giving them the biggest benefits. It did chose the Entente, but the Entente did not keep its promises .
You now go from contrariness to flip-flopping.

So now you are back-tracking from your previous statement that allies were irrelevant.

You are also back-tracking from another statement, that Italy joined Germany unwillingly - as you have now stated that Italy willingly joined for the biggest benefits.

I do not backtrack from my statement .
Without the hostility and sanctions from Britain and France ,Italy would remain neutral , possible even in June 1940 .
Italy remained neutral in September 1939 because
a the attitude of F +B prevented any rapprochement with these countries .
b because Italy disliked Germany and especially Nazi Germany
c because in September 1939 it was unclear who would won,although most experts were convinced that B+ F would win
Italy was choosing the German side in June 1940,because
a B + F were still hostile to Italy
b B+F were losing .And this was not the fault of Italy .
After 1914 B+F started negotiations with Italy to have Italy on their side . After September 1939 their contempt for Italy was that great that they refused to start such negotiations : they did not ask : what do you ask for a DOW on Germany ?
If you are refusing to ask what Italy wanted for a DOW on Germany,and if you are losing, you can't blame Italy for declaring war on you .You can only blame yourself .
In WW1 more than 1 million Italians were killed and wounded and Italy felt betrayed by its allies .
In June 1940 Italy felt again betrayed by these allies:the Stresa front was a lie :what did Italy obtain for its stopping the Germans to take over Austria ? NOTHING.Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy would have been stupid not to declare war on B+F.

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 » 10 Sep 2021 17:10

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:36
Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy would have been stupid not to declare war on B+F.
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 .

Before now you was write Italy was go on war on reason Britain hysterics on 1935.year .

Now you was write Italy was go on war on reason for to obtain more than was obtain on Versailes and because it was be intelligent decision .

New day new ljadw imagination story.

: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 » 10 Sep 2021 17:21

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:36

I do not backtrack from my statement .
Without the hostility and sanctions from Britain and France ,Italy would remain neutral , possible even in June 1940 .
Italy remained neutral in September 1939 because
a the attitude of F +B prevented any rapprochement with these countries .
b because Italy disliked Germany and especially Nazi Germany
c because in September 1939 it was unclear who would won,although most experts were convinced that B+ F would win
Italy was choosing the German side in June 1940,because
a B + F were still hostile to Italy
b B+F were losing .And this was not the fault of Italy .
After 1914 B+F started negotiations with Italy to have Italy on their side . After September 1939 their contempt for Italy was that great that they refused to start such negotiations : they did not ask : what do you ask for a DOW on Germany ?
If you are refusing to ask what Italy wanted for a DOW on Germany,and if you are losing, you can't blame Italy for declaring war on you .You can only blame yourself .
In WW1 more than 1 million Italians were killed and wounded and Italy felt betrayed by its allies .
In June 1940 Italy felt again betrayed by these allies:the Stresa front was a lie :what did Italy obtain for its stopping the Germans to take over Austria ? NOTHING.Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy would have been stupid not to declare war on B+F.
Complete & utter backtracking...

All your arguments prove is that Italy went to war willingly, and shows no proof to back up your previous claim that Italy went to war unwillingly.

Thank you for making my case.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2021 17:44

joeylonglegs wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:23
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 15:53

2 Fascist Italy was not a genocidal state.
Fascist Italy committed genocide against Libyans, partook in the Holocaust in North Africa, and committed atrocities and war crimes in Ethiopia.
Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy .
PS : there was no Holocaust in NA.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2021 17:45

And, I forgot :the example of poor Ethiopia .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 10 Sep 2021 17:57

Takao wrote:
10 Sep 2021 17:21
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:36

I do not backtrack from my statement .
Without the hostility and sanctions from Britain and France ,Italy would remain neutral , possible even in June 1940 .
Italy remained neutral in September 1939 because
a the attitude of F +B prevented any rapprochement with these countries .
b because Italy disliked Germany and especially Nazi Germany
c because in September 1939 it was unclear who would won,although most experts were convinced that B+ F would win
Italy was choosing the German side in June 1940,because
a B + F were still hostile to Italy
b B+F were losing .And this was not the fault of Italy .
After 1914 B+F started negotiations with Italy to have Italy on their side . After September 1939 their contempt for Italy was that great that they refused to start such negotiations : they did not ask : what do you ask for a DOW on Germany ?
If you are refusing to ask what Italy wanted for a DOW on Germany,and if you are losing, you can't blame Italy for declaring war on you .You can only blame yourself .
In WW1 more than 1 million Italians were killed and wounded and Italy felt betrayed by its allies .
In June 1940 Italy felt again betrayed by these allies:the Stresa front was a lie :what did Italy obtain for its stopping the Germans to take over Austria ? NOTHING.Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy would have been stupid not to declare war on B+F.
Complete & utter backtracking...

All your arguments prove is that Italy went to war willingly, and shows no proof to back up your previous claim that Italy went to war unwillingly.

Thank you for making my case.
If B+F had treated Italy better ,Italy would have remained neutral .But for stupid ideological reasons, they refused an alliance with Italy. The result was that Italy had the choice in June 1940 between remaining neutral (which would not give any benefit ) and joining with the winner .
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Gooner1 » 10 Sep 2021 18:17

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 17:57
If B+F had treated Italy better ,Italy would have remained neutral .But for stupid ideological reasons, they refused an alliance with Italy. The result was that Italy had the choice in June 1940 between remaining neutral (which would not give any benefit ) and joining with the winner .
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .
TheMarcksPlan's ideas seem more rooted in fact.

User avatar
joeylonglegs
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 May 2021 14:18
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by joeylonglegs » 10 Sep 2021 18:26

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
10 Sep 2021 17:10
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:36
Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy would have been stupid not to declare war on B+F.
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 .

Before now you was write Italy was go on war on reason Britain hysterics on 1935.year .

Now you was write Italy was go on war on reason for to obtain more than was obtain on Versailes and because it was be intelligent decision .

New day new ljadw imagination story.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ljadw came onto a military forum and started writing fanfiction.
Last edited by joeylonglegs on 10 Sep 2021 18:36, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
joeylonglegs
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 May 2021 14:18
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by joeylonglegs » 10 Sep 2021 18:27


Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy .
PS : there was no Holocaust in NA

>"Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy ."

This is whataboutism. None of it changes the fact that Italy committed atrocities in Libya and Ethiopia

>"PS : there was no Holocaust in NA."

You should be banned from this forum for holocaust denial.
Last edited by joeylonglegs on 11 Sep 2021 02:34, edited 7 times in total.

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 » 10 Sep 2021 18:37

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 17:57
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .
New day new ljadw tosh invents .

Some real history
Da qualche tempo il tema della politica italiana nei Balcani sta occupando la crescente attenzione dell'opinione pubblica inglese. Non passa giorno che la stampa di ogni •co1dre -dal Times al Daily Herald -non vi dedichi qualche corrispondenza o qualche commento editoriale, il cui tono generale è quello di un incondizionato e compiaduto riconoscimento della parte essenziale che l'Italia ha giocato e sta giocando nel tenere i Balcani a posto, al riparo di una neutralità, che li immunizzi dal conta.gio sovietico e renda più difficile per la Germania un eventuale colpo di mano in quella direzione.

Agli inizi delle ostilità, s•i vide in Inghilterra qualche esaltato patrocinare l'idea di appiccare ii fuoco ai Balcani, allo scopo di creare un nuovo fronte di operazioni militari in una zona in cui la Germania appariva più vulnerabile. Gli sviluppi della guerra, l'avanzata minacciosa della Russia, e l'affermarsi e il precisarsi della neutralità italiana, diedero il colpo di grazia a simili dtsegni e fantasie di pochi irresponsabili~. Oggi non vi è più un inglese che non ritenga interesse supremo mantenere la pace nel settore sud-orientale dell'Europa e che non si vada sempre più convincendo che senza l'apporto dell'Italia nulla può essere fatto in questo campo.

La ,possibilità di una collaborazione diplomatka ed economka anglo-italiana nella penisola balcanica viene di frequente ventilata nelle conversa•zioni private, anche fra persone che per un verso o per l'altro si interessano attivamente alla politica e sono in costante col1egamento ,con le sfere ufficiali. Le idee sono ancora, e spesso, confuse e impigliate in vecchie posizioni che l'esperienza degl:i anni recenti ha completamente smantellato; ma i propos·iti sono, o paiono, più sinceri e ·comunque più avanzati di quelli ·che affiorano nell'alleata Francia, per quanto concerne il riconoscimento della preminenza italiana nei Balcani.

Per citare un esempio, giorni or sono il signor George Martelli, ex giorna-lista e pubblicista, oggi appartenente al Politica.t Intelligence Department, si inoontlrò ·oon uno dei funz1onari di questa Ambasci<ata. (Come è noto, U Political InteHigence Department è costitulto da un gruppo di iPersone che lavorano in una casa di campagna alle dirette dipendenze del Foreign Offìce. Essi rkevono copia di ·tutti i telegrammi e rapporti tanto del Foreign Offìce quanto del ser-vizio segreto di informazioni, e discutendoli e confrontandoli ne ricavano dedu-zioni che sottopongono settimanalmente a Halifax e ai Ministri di Gabinetto. Capo del nuovo Dipartimento è Leeper, che nel ruolo diplomatico ha oggi il rango di Ministlro, che fu per molti anni ·capo dell'Uffido Stampa del Foreign Offìce, e che Illel co~so della passa:ta guer!l'a fece pai'Ite di un ufficio anaJ.~ogo, insieme a Tyrrel e a Harold Nichol:son).

Il Martelli, dunque, dichiarò al funzionario di questa Ambasciata che l'at-tuale politica italiana nei: Balcani torna vivamente .gradita al Governo britan-nico e che sarebbe un peccato non approfittare di questo fatto per !stabilire fra i due Governi nel settore <balcanico un terreno comune di stretta collabo-razione.

Il funzionario dell'Ambasciata rispose al Martelli che, anzitutto, se l'In-ghilterra nutriva al riguardo seri propositi, spettava ad •essa, e non all'Italia, di prendere l'iniz·iativa; ma che in ogni caso l'Inghilterra doveva cominciare coll'arrendersi all'evidenza, la quale dimostra la vanità degH sforzi di costituire una qualsiasi stabilità balcanica senza il contributo dell'Italia, e la necessità e convenienza, nell'interesse stesso dell'Inghilterra, di aJbbandonare quella zona dell'Europa alla costruttiva influenza italiana.

Il Martelli si è successivamente incontrato con un altro funzionario del-l'Ambasdata e gli ha tenuto press'a poco questo linguaggio:
«Noi siamo informati che la Romania ha avanzato una proposta per la costituzione di un blocco balcanico, e vedrebbe con favore l'Italia assumere la guida di tale blocco purchè essa non incoraggiasse troppo le aspirazioni territo-riali bulgare. Una eventuale cessione della Dobrugia alla Bulgaria costituirebbe infatti in questo momento un precedente per le rivendtcazioni russe sulla Bes-sarabia. La Bulgaria allora potl'ebbe diventare il 1centro dell'azione sovietica nei Balcani. Questi timori della Romania sono pienamente condivisi dagH Alleati, e forse anche dalla Germania, la quale ha interesse ad arginare il panslavismo e il bolscevismo nella penisola balcanica. Forse dall'incontro di questi due con-vergenti punti di vista potrebbe scaturire il conferimento all'Italia della mis-sione di tutelare e guidare i paesi balcanici. Ci si chiede oggi a Londra quale potrebbe essere 1a risposta dell'Italia ove le fosse ·chiesto fonnalmente di assu-mere la funzione di mantenere la pace nei Balcani».

Che cosa vi sia di serio e ·concreto sotto questi e simili discorsi, non è facile dire con assoluta ~certezza. Ma è cel'to che i d1scorsi priV'a:tamoote :llatti da noti agenti del Foreign Office, gli articoli della stampa e i coonmenti della Radio, tutti intonati nello stesso senso, non sono fatti casuali e slegati, ma sembrano corrispondere ad un orientamento, se non proprio ad un piano, del Governo: orientamento che mira per lo meno a dare all'Italia l'impressione che l'Inghilterra le concederebbe volentieri mano Hbera nei Balcani, e favori-rebbe la conquista o riconquista economic·a italiana dei mercati balcanici.

Poichè nessuna personalità responsabile mi ha finora intrattenuto sull'ar-gomento, ·che da parte mia mi astengo naturalmente dal sollevare, mi limito per ora riferire a V. E. •questi vari e talvolta timidi approcci e sondaggi, che potranno, o anche non potranno, precedere un'azione precisa di questo Governo, ma che per se stessi costituiscono un sintomo meritevole di attenzione.
Text and format was not be good because i was cut and paste on old document .

Text was be telegram from Bastianini to Ciano 6.novembar 1939.year.

When you read you can to see ljadw was write completest tosh again .

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Peter89 » 10 Sep 2021 18:39

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15

1 NO : Germany needed AH only as a pretext for declaring war on Russia .
So that they could divide their forces between the West and the East?
Are you serious or trolling? :D
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
2 The simple truth ,which most historians refuse to admit is that AH, Russia and Germany needed each other: none of each had any reason to fight against each other, but a lot of reasons not to fight against each other .
I don't know what "historians" are you talking about again, but everyone knows the Союз трёх императоров or Dreikaiserabkommen of 1873. For me it is an obvious thing that Germany, the people of Central-Eastern Europe and Russia/SU need each other. Not as overlords and subjects, but as partners and balances. This is somewhat a common knowledge and a historical reality.
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
The fall of the Czar would result in a left wing Russian republic that would be very hostile to the Kaiser and FJ .
The fall of the Kaiser would result in the collapse of AH and the creation of anti Russian republics .
Not really, the fall of the Czar resulted a pro-German or at least neutral Soviet-Russia. Without it, Hitler would never get to the eastern end of Poland, and he could never dream of being at the gates of Moscow.

The fall of the Kaiser would not necessarily result the collapse or disintegration of the AH Empire; it would mean only minor territorial losses. The way the AH collapsed was thanks to a prolonged war and a civil war, where social unrest was equally important as national frictions.
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
3 The only reason why Germany declared war on Russia was that the German socialists would not accept a war with France,without a war against Russia .
Okay... no comment.
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
And as there were no problems between Russia and Germany, only AH could give Germany the excuse for a DOW on Russia.
An excuse? Wtf? :D
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
4 The Kaiser said to the 7 armies who went to France in August : you will be back (at home ) before the leafs are falling from the trees (thus before October ): this means that there would be no war in the East .
For me it means there would be no war in the West...
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
Germany did not need the AH army as protection : the 8th army was sufficient .


What was the Imperial Russian Army's disposition when the hostilities started? Could you please recall?
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
After the fall of France Russia would immediately give up .
Give up what?
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:15
The Russian armies who were concentrated against AH in August 1914,could not be concentrated against Germany if AH remained neutral .
What do you mean by that? They had a religious belief that they had to die in Lemberg and Limanova, or what?
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

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 » 10 Sep 2021 19:36

ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 17:57
If B+F had treated Italy better ,Italy would have remained neutral .But for stupid ideological reasons, they refused an alliance with Italy. The result was that Italy had the choice in June 1940 between remaining neutral (which would not give any benefit ) and joining with the winner .
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .
How Britain & France treated her several years earlier is immaterial to your argument that Italy unwillingly joined Germany in war.

Italy willingly made the choice to join Germany for the reasons you have stated.
ljadw wrote:
10 Sep 2021 16:36
Italy remained neutral in September 1939 because
a the attitude of F +B prevented any rapprochement with these countries .
b because Italy disliked Germany and especially Nazi Germany
c because in September 1939 it was unclear who would won,although most experts were convinced that B+ F would win
Italy was choosing the German side in June 1940,because
a B + F were still hostile to Italy
b B+F were losing .And this was not the fault of Italy .
After 1914 B+F started negotiations with Italy to have Italy on their side . After September 1939 their contempt for Italy was that great that they refused to start such negotiations : they did not ask : what do you ask for a DOW on Germany ?
If you are refusing to ask what Italy wanted for a DOW on Germany,and if you are losing, you can't blame Italy for declaring war on you .You can only blame yourself .
In WW1 more than 1 million Italians were killed and wounded and Italy felt betrayed by its allies .
In June 1940 Italy felt again betrayed by these allies:the Stresa front was a lie :what did Italy obtain for its stopping the Germans to take over Austria ? NOTHING.Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .
Italy willingly joined the war out of her own greed, as you have rightly pointed out several times. She thought she would have an easy time and reap far more spoils than she actually earned.

Italy was not negotiated with because her warmaking potential was infantesimal compared to Germany's. If Germany had not started the war and won large victories, Italy was certainly not going to start a war of her own volition, as Italy lacked the military to carry out such a venture. So there is no good reason to treat with Italy.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15437
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 11 Sep 2021 06:15

joeylonglegs wrote:
10 Sep 2021 18:27

Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy .
PS : there was no Holocaust in NA

>"Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy ."

This is whataboutism. None of it changes the fact that Italy committed atrocities in Libya and Ethiopia

>"PS : there was no Holocaust in NA."

You should be banned from this forum for holocaust denial.
That Italy committed atrocities in its colonial wars in Africa is irrelevant : every one did it .Also non fascist Italy .
And, there were no extermination camps in NA, thus you can't claim that there was a Holocaust in NA.

Return to “What if”