Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3320
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by stg 44 » 08 Jul 2021 23:11

ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2021 17:08
Erwinn wrote:
08 Jul 2021 06:20
All I can say is this: 1 extra Pz.Div might enable the early capture of Leningrad and would free the standing army which spent 3 years on an useless siege.

AG North was the ill-equipped one for the job. Having some extra troops would've helped them a lot.
Panzer Divisions do not capture cities : see what happened to Warsaw in 1939 .
Counterpoint: Orel in 1941.

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 09:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Erwinn » 09 Jul 2021 06:10

stg 44 wrote:
08 Jul 2021 23:11
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2021 17:08
Erwinn wrote:
08 Jul 2021 06:20
All I can say is this: 1 extra Pz.Div might enable the early capture of Leningrad and would free the standing army which spent 3 years on an useless siege.

AG North was the ill-equipped one for the job. Having some extra troops would've helped them a lot.
Panzer Divisions do not capture cities : see what happened to Warsaw in 1939 .
Counterpoint: Orel in 1941.
I did not say the extra Pz.Division could capture the city on it's own. I say it could enable the early capture of the city.

Yet again ljadw is twisting posts to his own vision.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 09 Jul 2021 06:33

Erwinn wrote:
09 Jul 2021 06:10
stg 44 wrote:
08 Jul 2021 23:11
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2021 17:08
Erwinn wrote:
08 Jul 2021 06:20
All I can say is this: 1 extra Pz.Div might enable the early capture of Leningrad and would free the standing army which spent 3 years on an useless siege.

AG North was the ill-equipped one for the job. Having some extra troops would've helped them a lot.
Panzer Divisions do not capture cities : see what happened to Warsaw in 1939 .
Counterpoint: Orel in 1941.
I did not say the extra Pz.Division could capture the city on it's own. I say it could enable the early capture of the city.

Yet again ljadw is twisting posts to his own vision.
And,what is the difference between capturing a city and enabling the early capture of the city ?
About Orel : on 3 October,4 Pz reached Orel and the very weak Soviet forces in the city abandoned Orel without fighting.
If more Soviet forces were present, 4 PzD would have failed, while an ID would have succeeded .
Once the Soviets decided to fight for and in Leningrad, the capture of the city was excluded .See what happened to Stalingrad and to Aachen .
The aim of mobile divisions is to fight a mobile war and to avoid to be absorbed by street fighting in cities,something which only delayed their advance .
What was the result of the capture of Orel ? The result was that the advance of 4 PzD was stopped .

mezsat2
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 05 Jun 2009 12:02

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by mezsat2 » 13 Jul 2021 21:34

By not involving itself with Italy's African jackassery, that would qualify as "suppressing Italy". All Germany needed to do is occupy Malta (which it could legitimately do through Vichy), and establish an enormous airbase to completely block all sea traffic from entering the Mediterranean. This would be far less costly than the attack on Crete.

I do know Hitler committed 250 JU-52s and 250K troops to the reinforcement of a doomed Tunisia while the 6th Army was dying in Stalingrad. Could these forces have turned the tide at Stalingrad? I would say yes, although getting America involved by bombing Britain and sinking American ships was the fatal error. American trucks and jeeps made the Red Army mobile for the first time and their attacks far more sustained and rapid.

The bottom line is that no, suppressing Italy could not have won Barbarossa for Germany. "Suppressing" America might have turned the tables.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 14 Jul 2021 06:22

mezsat2 wrote:
13 Jul 2021 21:34
By not involving itself with Italy's African jackassery, that would qualify as "suppressing Italy". All Germany needed to do is occupy Malta (which it could legitimately do through Vichy), and establish an enormous airbase to completely block all sea traffic from entering the Mediterranean. This would be far less costly than the attack on Crete.

I do know Hitler committed 250 JU-52s and 250K troops to the reinforcement of a doomed Tunisia while the 6th Army was dying in Stalingrad. Could these forces have turned the tide at Stalingrad? I would say yes, although getting America involved by bombing Britain and sinking American ships was the fatal error. American trucks and jeeps made the Red Army mobile for the first time and their attacks far more sustained and rapid.

The bottom line is that no, suppressing Italy could not have won Barbarossa for Germany. "Suppressing" America might have turned the tables.
Why would it be legitimate through Vichy ?
And why would it be needed ? Britain had ceased to use the Mediterranean in June 1940,because of the Italian DOW .
About Tunis : Hitler did NOT send 250000 K troops to Tunisia and the JU-52s could not save Stalingrad : it was not a question of more aircraft, but a question of more supplies ,and these supplies had to be transported from Germany by rail .

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 09:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Erwinn » 14 Jul 2021 07:17

Apparently Luftwaffe didn't lose 2.500 Aircraft between November 42-May 43 on the Mediterranean theatre and Rommel's estimation of 130k German POW's at the end of Tunisian campaign is also false.

Hitler did not sent 250k troops but 243k Axis reinforcements appeared out of thin air at the start of 1943.

Germans, instead of pulling out, tried to hold Tunisia over Hitler's view and lost precious troops and aircraft there which could have substantial help on other places. For example, If you avoid the losses on Tunisia and put them on Sicily, you don't have to divert troops from Eastern Front when the landings happened.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 15 Jul 2021 16:47

Hitler did not send Axis reinforcements, but German reinforcements .
And, the 130000 POWs in May 1943 were NOT only the reinforcements sent to Africa in November 1942 and later , but also the forces who were already in Africa before Alamein= those commanded by Rommel .
What Rommel said (130000 POWs) is contradicted by Arnim who said 100000 German POWs,and Arnim was commander at the end in May, Rommel was in Germany .
About the LW losses : the 2500 aircraft that were lost were losses of the Mediterranean theatre, not of Tunisia .
The Germans bought time (6 months, which is a lot of time ) by sending troops to Tunisia and if they did not send troops to Tunisia, the Germans already present in NA,were doomed .

1999
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 24 Jun 2021 08:44
Location: Spain

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by 1999 » 16 Jul 2021 14:44

I think you are selling the skin of the Russian bear a little too quickly. Who says that the capture of Moscow ends the war ?
Napoleon took Moscow and he lost and Stalin planned to leave Moscow with his administration.

So, the question is : if Moscow fell, would the Germans win the war ? I think not.


PS : As long as Hitler leaned towards Barbarossa and not the Mediterranean option, it was obvious that Rome was a very heavy weight. Poorly managed, the North African secondary front was no more than a place where the Reich squandered precious resources.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3320
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by stg 44 » 16 Jul 2021 15:59

1999 wrote:
16 Jul 2021 14:44
I think you are selling the skin of the Russian bear a little too quickly. Who says that the capture of Moscow ends the war ?
Napoleon took Moscow and he lost and Stalin planned to leave Moscow with his administration.
1812 is not 1941. Moscow was the heart of the Soviet rail and landline system by 1941, not to mention its industry and prestige factor. Stalin fleeing with the administration to Kuibyshev (modern Samara) is beside the point especially since they will effectively have their command and control over the nation disrupted. Though taking the city is hardly a knockout blow instantly it begins the unraveling process of the Soviet regime if it falls. Show me a country in WW2 that survived the loss of its capital.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 16 Jul 2021 16:36

stg 44 wrote:
16 Jul 2021 15:59
1999 wrote:
16 Jul 2021 14:44
I think you are selling the skin of the Russian bear a little too quickly. Who says that the capture of Moscow ends the war ?
Napoleon took Moscow and he lost and Stalin planned to leave Moscow with his administration.
1812 is not 1941. Moscow was the heart of the Soviet rail and landline system by 1941, not to mention its industry and prestige factor. Stalin fleeing with the administration to Kuibyshev (modern Samara) is beside the point especially since they will effectively have their command and control over the nation disrupted. Though taking the city is hardly a knockout blow instantly it begins the unraveling process of the Soviet regime if it falls. Show me a country in WW2 that survived the loss of its capital.
NO : Moscow could only fall AFTER the collapse of the Soviet regime .
It was impossible for the Ostheer to go by fighting to Moscow and to capture the city by fighting .
And for the last point : capitals were lost after and because the armed forces were defeated .Paris was lost after the defeat of the French army.
The fall of Moscow would not be decisive : Stalin planned to leave Moscow and to continue the war from Kuibyshev .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 16 Jul 2021 16:41

1999 wrote:
16 Jul 2021 14:44
I think you are selling the skin of the Russian bear a little too quickly. Who says that the capture of Moscow ends the war ?
Napoleon took Moscow and he lost and Stalin planned to leave Moscow with his administration.

So, the question is : if Moscow fell, would the Germans win the war ? I think not.


PS : As long as Hitler leaned towards Barbarossa and not the Mediterranean option, it was obvious that Rome was a very heavy weight. Poorly managed, the North African secondary front was no more than a place where the Reich squandered precious resources.
NA was secondary ( in the sense that the loss of the Canal would not force Britain to give up ),but it was not poorly managed .
And the correct question is :how could Moscow fall ?
And the correct answer is : after the defeat of the Soviet Union .

1999
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 24 Jun 2021 08:44
Location: Spain

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by 1999 » 17 Jul 2021 11:31

"Show me a country in WW2 that survived the loss of its capital."


China because it have the strategic depth to resist. The Japanese thought they would win after taking all the major cities. They took Shangaï, Pekin... Eight years later, they were still there.
Now, in our case, the USSR has this immense strategic depth and its regime hardly meets any opposition - this last point is complex and deserves to be discussed in another thread; that is why I am simplifying roughly. Plus, a Thomas's report at the end of 1941 said that the capture of Moscow will not destroy the industrial potential of the USSR. For that, it would be necessary to reach the Urals. Napoleon had taken Moscow and lost the war.

In this case, another problems appears: how to defeat the USSR ? And if the Reich wins, has Hitler won the Second World War ?
According to our thinking, Italy hardly plays a role in it. So Italy is not the factor that sank Barbarossa.


PS : the Italians made big mistakes and the Germans did not know how to impose themselves enough at certain moments. For example, the Germans wanted to storm Malta but the Italians did not want to. This is why I think that there are shortcomings in the strategic and operational management of the North African front.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12145
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 17 Jul 2021 11:50

Without the capture of Malta,15 % only of the Axis supplies transported to NA were lost,of which 10 % by Malta forces .
If Malta was captured 10 % more supplies would arrive ....at the harbours of NA, not at he front,and these 10 % would remain at the harbours where they would be useless .

1999
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 24 Jun 2021 08:44
Location: Spain

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by 1999 » 22 Jul 2021 08:37

But that's still 10% more supplies! Even if these supplies were in the ports, the German-Italians would have found ways to transport them. Moreover, the capture of Malta would have allowed the German-Italians to transport supplies to Libya more easily. In the longer term, it secured southern Sicily.
Given the weakness of Malta at certain times, a simple airborne attack could have brought down the island. This is what the Germans wanted and what Rome did not do.
Whatever the scenario, not taking Malta was a mistake.
This is why I say that the North African front had its shortcomings. These are not so much on a tactical scale - we admire Rommel's gesture! - as on an operational or strategic scale.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 16 Jun 2014 21:11
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by MarkF617 » 22 Jul 2021 10:55

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.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

Return to “What if”