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
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 31 Jul 2021 18:11

ljadw wrote:
31 Jul 2021 11:50
Thus , you are claiming that 15000 German Übermenschen with a few tanks,were defeating 38000 British soldiers ,advanced 800 km in 2 months, and gave the Italians (100000 ) as consolation price the opportunity to capture 2 British generals ?
Sound far fetched? The British just pulled off the same stunt in the opposite direction, and against even greater odds.
At the end of April, Tobruk was attacked for the third time by ONE German and two Italian divisions (Brescia and Ariete ) .
This proves that without the Italians,the Axis forces could not have reached Tobruk .
Who made the claim they could?
Is this another strawman?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 31 Jul 2021 21:00

YOU did : you said that in February the Italians had collapsed,and that the WDF could have easily captured Tripoli .
IF this is so, it would have been impossible for the running away Italians, to be ,2 months later, at the border with Egypt and that thus the Germans would have advanced to Tobruk on their own .
As we know that in April the Italians were at the gates of Tobruk, this means that they were strong enough to prevent in February the WDF to go to Tripoli .
Other point : Britain did not pull off the same stunt in December 1940 .It was not against even greater odds .
Why were the (mainly Italian ) Axis forces not at the Canal in June 1941 and in November 1942
For the same reasons that the WDF was not in Tripoli in February 1941 and in December 1941 : the opponent was too strong and they were to weak .

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 31 Jul 2021 23:20

ljadw wrote:
31 Jul 2021 21:00
YOU did : you said that in February the Italians had collapsed,and that the WDF could have easily captured Tripoli .
Quote where I said the Italians had collapsed. I'll wait.
As we know that in April the Italians were at the gates of Tobruk, this means that they were strong enough to prevent in February the WDF to go to Tripoli .
Sorry, in April the Germans with the Italians in tow were at the gates of Tobruk. Remove the Germans from the equation (the basis of this WI) and the best the Italians can hope for is to retain the western half of Lybia, especially against a stronger WDF..
Other point : Britain did not pull off the same stunt in December 1940 .It was not against even greater odds .
Um yes they did. 150K Italians vs 36K British for Compass is greater odds than Sonnenblume, and the British actually advanced further than the Germans.
Check the historical record.
Why were the (mainly Italian ) Axis forces not at the Canal in June 1941 and in November 1942
For the same reasons that the WDF was not in Tripoli in February 1941 and in December 1941 : the opponent was too strong and they were to weak .
Irrelevant to our discussion. The whole premise of my argument is the WDF is not depleted by forces being sent to other theaters, and is properly supplied and equipped for a long range advance.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 06:47

Kingfish wrote:
31 Jul 2021 23:20


Sorry, in April the Germans with the Italians in tow were at the gates of Tobruk. Remove the Germans from the equation (the basis of this WI) and the best the Italians can hope for is to retain the western half of Lybia, especially against a stronger WDF..
Other point : Britain did not pull off the same stunt in December 1940 .It was not against even greater odds .
Um yes they did. 150K Italians vs 36K British for Compass is greater odds than Sonnenblume, and the British actually advanced further than the Germans.
Check the historical record.

1 Remove the Italians from the equation and the best the Germans can hope for is to retain the western half of Libya
2 It was never 150000 Italians against 36000 British .The Italian numerical superiority was only theoretical .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 07:04

Kingfish wrote:
31 Jul 2021 23:20
ljadw wrote:
31 Jul 2021 21:00
YOU did : you said that in February the Italians had collapsed,and that the WDF could have easily captured Tripoli .
Quote where I said the Italians had collapsed. I'll wait.

You said ( post 52 ) that the 4th Indian and 6 th Australian Divisions could have advanced to Tripoli (THOUSAND km away ) but that Churchill's orders prevented this advance .
You are wrong : they could not advance 1000 km,UNLESS the Italians were running away , and if this happened, they could still not go to Tripoli : only a small force of a few battalions could do this .
If the Italians had collapsed,the WDF would be in Tripoli before February .No one would stop them .
The Italians did not collapse and thus the BEF was not in Tripoli .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by pugsville » 01 Aug 2021 08:39

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 06:47
Kingfish wrote:
31 Jul 2021 23:20


Sorry, in April the Germans with the Italians in tow were at the gates of Tobruk. Remove the Germans from the equation (the basis of this WI) and the best the Italians can hope for is to retain the western half of Lybia, especially against a stronger WDF..
Other point : Britain did not pull off the same stunt in December 1940 .It was not against even greater odds .
Um yes they did. 150K Italians vs 36K British for Compass is greater odds than Sonnenblume, and the British actually advanced further than the Germans.
Check the historical record.

1 Remove the Italians from the equation and the best the Germans can hope for is to retain the western half of Libya
2 It was never 150000 Italians against 36000 British .The Italian numerical superiority was only theoretical .
How was the Italian numerical superiority only theoretical?

If you total the troops on each side you do get 150,000 Italians, 36,000 British how is this actually not just factual?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 11:14

The Italian numerical superiority was only theoretical,because there was never a battle of 36000 British against 150000 Italians . The Italian forces were stationed far away of each other with as result that they could not help each other,while British forces were more mobile and destroyed 10th army piecemeal .
3 divisions were at Sidi Barrani, 2 other divisions at Derna.
Distance Tobruk-Benghazi 460 km : the forces in Benghazi could not help those in Tobruk .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by pugsville » 01 Aug 2021 11:28

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:14
The Italian numerical superiority was only theoretical,because there was never a battle of 36000 British against 150000 Italians . The Italian forces were stationed far away of each other with as result that they could not help each other,while British forces were more mobile and destroyed 10th army piecemeal .
3 divisions were at Sidi Barrani, 2 other divisions at Derna.
Distance Tobruk-Benghazi 460 km : the forces in Benghazi could not help those in Tobruk .
So What? The Italians had the forces. They arranged them as they would.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 11:29

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 07:04
You said ( post 52 ) that the 4th Indian and 6 th Australian Divisions could have advanced to Tripoli (THOUSAND km away ) but that Churchill's orders prevented this advance .
Here is what I said in post #52:
Only 7th armored would fit that description. Both 4th Indian and 6th Australian were actively campaigning well into the summer of '41 and there is no reason they couldn't put forth the same effort in a drive towards Tripoli.[/i]

Where in those two sentences do you see the word 'collapse'?

Better yet, find any post of mine where I said the Italians had collapsed.

Again I'll wait.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2681
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 01 Aug 2021 11:30

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 07:04
You said ( post 52 ) that the 4th Indian and 6 th Australian Divisions could have advanced to Tripoli (THOUSAND km away ) but that Churchill's orders prevented this advance .
I'm not sure that it was a decision by Churchill to move the 4th Indian Division to the East African campaign - I'd always thought that decision was made by Wavell who wanted to use a well-trained and more experienced division for that campaign. Is that not right?

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 11:34

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 06:47
1 Remove the Italians from the equation and the best the Germans can hope for is to retain the western half of Libya
Um, no.

Remove the Italians from the equation and Germany goes about its business invading Russia, with 2 more panzer divisions added to the OOB.
Germany saw the North African theater as an unnecessary distraction.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 13:37

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:30
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 07:04
You said ( post 52 ) that the 4th Indian and 6 th Australian Divisions could have advanced to Tripoli (THOUSAND km away ) but that Churchill's orders prevented this advance .
I'm not sure that it was a decision by Churchill to move the 4th Indian Division to the East African campaign - I'd always thought that decision was made by Wavell who wanted to use a well-trained and more experienced division for that campaign. Is that not right?

Regards

Tom
After the war,a lot of people (Wavell included ) said that without the decision to execute Lustre ( a child of Winston ) the WDF could have captured Tripoli before the arrival of the Germans and thus would have finished the war in NA, but that this was not done because of Winston .
Later, it has leaked out ( but it is still hided ) that Wavell had no objections to Lustre and if Wavell ordered to transfer 4 Indian to East Africa (to which Winston did not object ) ,we can assume that the reason was that Wavell considered an advance to Tripoli as impossible .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 13:40

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:29
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 07:04
You said ( post 52 ) that the 4th Indian and 6 th Australian Divisions could have advanced to Tripoli (THOUSAND km away ) but that Churchill's orders prevented this advance .
Here is what I said in post #52:
Only 7th armored would fit that description. Both 4th Indian and 6th Australian were actively campaigning well into the summer of '41 and there is no reason they couldn't put forth the same effort in a drive towards Tripoli.[/i]

Where in those two sentences do you see the word 'collapse'?

Better yet, find any post of mine where I said the Italians had collapsed.

Again I'll wait.
If there is no reason they couldn't put forth the same effort in a drive towards Tripoli, this means that the Italians had collapsed .Their drive towards Tripoli depended on the Italians .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 13:46

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:34
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 06:47
1 Remove the Italians from the equation and the best the Germans can hope for is to retain the western half of Libya
Um, no.

Remove the Italians from the equation and Germany goes about its business invading Russia, with 2 more panzer divisions added to the OOB.
Germany saw the North African theater as an unnecessary distraction.
The last sentence is wrong : if NA was an unnecessary distraction, why did Germany send to NA the 5th Panzer Army and von Arnim ?
NA was important for Germany as it tied British forces,who,otherwise could have attacked Southern Europe ,while the WM was in Russia .
And two more PZD in 1941 would still result in the failure of Barbarossa in the end of the Summer of 1941 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12170
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 13:48

pugsville wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:28
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 11:14
The Italian numerical superiority was only theoretical,because there was never a battle of 36000 British against 150000 Italians . The Italian forces were stationed far away of each other with as result that they could not help each other,while British forces were more mobile and destroyed 10th army piecemeal .
3 divisions were at Sidi Barrani, 2 other divisions at Derna.
Distance Tobruk-Benghazi 460 km : the forces in Benghazi could not help those in Tobruk .
So What? The Italians had the forces. They arranged them as they would.
But there was no battle between 150000 Italians and 36000 British :the Italians were eliminated piecemeal.

Return to “What if”