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: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 14:24

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
It was Wavell : Carver said ( on P 191 of Britain's Army in the 20th Century ) that Wavell told Eden (secretary of War ) that he planned a short operation of not more than 5 days to eliminate the Italians who had entered Egypt and that he then intended to switch 4 Indian to Sudan and to replace her by 6 Australian .
This invalidates even more the claims that Winston was the culprit .
And Carver continued that after the fall of Tobruk on 22 January,the logistics of O'Connor were stretched to breaking point.
And this invalidates the claim that O' Connor could have advanced to Tripoli .
Carver said also that it would have been very difficult,if not impossible to have provided the needed air,naval and logistical support for an advance to Tripoli .

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 01 Aug 2021 15:55

ljadw wrote:
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 .
Completest fantasy words

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 01 Aug 2021 15:58

ljadw wrote:
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 .
You must to be mostest confused ljadw or you was want for to peoples believe false history.

Wavell was believe can for to go to Tripoli. He was ask permission for to start on advance and was write he was already start on make plan on advance.

London was not give permission.

Later Wavell was say he was not against go on Greece.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 16:56

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
01 Aug 2021 15:58
ljadw wrote:
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 .
You must to be mostest confused ljadw or you was want for to peoples believe false history.

Wavell was believe can for to go to Tripoli. He was ask permission for to start on advance and was write he was already start on make plan on advance.

London was not give permission.

I prefer to believe what Carver was saying than what you are claiming .

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 17:19

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:46
The last sentence is wrong : if NA was an unnecessary distraction, why did Germany send to NA the 5th Panzer Army and von Arnim ?
Two entirely different strategic situations. Try to stay focused on the one currently in debate.
NA was important for Germany as it tied British forces,who,otherwise could have attacked Southern Europe ,while the WM was in Russia .
If that were the case Germany would have sent far more than 2 panzer divisions to operate on a shoestring of logistics. If they truly saw the British as a threat to their southern flank they would made every effort to eliminate that threat.
And two more PZD in 1941 would still result in the failure of Barbarossa in the end of the Summer of 1941 .
No one has argued otherwise.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 17:23

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:40
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 .
Um, no, it means the divisions you claim were "exhausted" could have continued the advance towards Tripoli.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2638
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 01 Aug 2021 17:28

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 17:19
If they truly saw the British as a threat to their southern flank they would made every effort to eliminate that threat.
Which is why they occupied Greece and Crete isn't it? Because they saw the British as a threat to their southern flank?

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 17:29

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:48
But there was no battle between 150000 Italians and 36000 British :the Italians were eliminated piecemeal.
Who claimed there was a battle between 150K Italians vs 36K British?

Let me guess, another strawman?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 01 Aug 2021 18:30

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 16:56
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
01 Aug 2021 15:58
ljadw wrote:
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 .
You must to be mostest confused ljadw or you was want for to peoples believe false history.

Wavell was believe can for to go to Tripoli. He was ask permission for to start on advance and was write he was already start on make plan on advance.

London was not give permission.

I prefer to believe what Carver was saying than what you are claiming .
I prefer to believe what Wavell was write.

It seems to me for to believe what ljadw was think on misrepresent what was Carver must to be complete crazy.

Wavell was write on telegram number 0/40808 to CIGS on 10.febuary 1941.year:
Extent of Italian defeat at Benghazi makes it seem possible that Tripoli might yield to small force if despatched without delay, repeat undue delay. Am working out committment involved but hesitate to advance further in view of Balkan situation, unless you tbink capture of Tripoli might have favourable effect on the attitude of French North Africa.
...
Will make plans for capture of Sirte, which must be first step.
Answer next day from Churchill on telegram number 51265:
We are delighted that you have got the prize three weeks ahead of expectation, but this does not alter, indeed it rather confirms our previous directive, namely, that your major effort must now be to aid Greece and/or Turkey. This rules out any serious effort against Tripoli...



Wavell was write on letter on date 31.oktober 1942.year:
Naturally, the decision to send the maximum aid to Greece put me in a position of some difficulty, as it required all the trained and equipped troops I had, to make up even a small expeditionary force for Greece. But I never questioned the wisdom of the decision to support Greece and have always expressed my self in full agrement with the policy.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 19:07

Conclusions
1 Wavell said that he was in full agreement with the decision to support Greece
2 Wavell said that a small force might (MIGHT ) capture Tripoli,which means : NOT the Compass force .
3 That a small force might capture Tripoli was depending on the collapse of the Italians
4 Both Lustre and the proposal to send a small force to Tripoli were possible . At the same time .
5 Telegram 51265 did not prohibit to send a small force to capture Tripoli .
6 Wavell did not send a small force to capture Tripoli,although he had the consent from London .
7 The reason why Wavell did not send a small force to Tripoli was that there was no Italian collapse .
8 Thus it is not so that Churchill forbade to send a small force to Tripoli .
9 Lustre and going to Tripoli did not exclude each other .
The whole discussion is the usual after war myth,invented by journalists .As one can expect .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 19:25

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 17:29
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:48
But there was no battle between 150000 Italians and 36000 British :the Italians were eliminated piecemeal.
Who claimed there was a battle between 150K Italians vs 36K British?

Let me guess, another strawman?
Numerical superiority of 4/1 means a battle between 150000 against 36000 . There was no such battle, thus there was no numerical superiority .
Besides : if you count 150000 , you must include also the British forces in Palestine .
No one is using the 1SS PzD to count the German strength in Normandy , thus one can not count the divisions who were at Derna ,168 km from Tobruk .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 19:28

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 17:23
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:40
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 .
Um, no, it means the divisions you claim were "exhausted" could have continued the advance towards Tripoli.
If these divisions were not exhausted, why was Wavell proposing to go to Tripoli with a small force, not with the Compass forces ?
It would take these divisions months to go to Tripoli that was almost 2000 km away from Tobruk : the stronger the advancing force, the slower its advance .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12061
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 01 Aug 2021 19:31

Kingfish wrote:
01 Aug 2021 17:19
ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 13:46
The last sentence is wrong : if NA was an unnecessary distraction, why did Germany send to NA the 5th Panzer Army and von Arnim ?
Two entirely different strategic situations. Try to stay focused on the one currently in debate.
NA was important for Germany as it tied British forces,who,otherwise could have attacked Southern Europe ,while the WM was in Russia .
If that were the case Germany would have sent far more than 2 panzer divisions to operate on a shoestring of logistics. If they truly saw the British as a threat to their southern flank they would made every effort to eliminate that threat.
And two more PZD in 1941 would still result in the failure of Barbarossa in the end of the Summer of 1941 .
No one has argued otherwise.
Far more than two panzer divisions could not operate in the desert of Libya .There were almost no roads in Libya .

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 01 Aug 2021 19:43

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 19:07
Conclusions
1 Wavell said that he was in full agreement with the decision to support Greece
2 Wavell said that a small force might (MIGHT ) capture Tripoli,which means : NOT the Compass force .
3 That a small force might capture Tripoli was depending on the collapse of the Italians
4 Both Lustre and the proposal to send a small force to Tripoli were possible . At the same time .
5 Telegram 51265 did not prohibit to send a small force to capture Tripoli .
6 Wavell did not send a small force to capture Tripoli,although he had the consent from London .
7 The reason why Wavell did not send a small force to Tripoli was that there was no Italian collapse .
8 Thus it is not so that Churchill forbade to send a small force to Tripoli .
9 Lustre and going to Tripoli did not exclude each other .
The whole discussion is the usual after war myth,invented by journalists .As one can expect .
You was write completest tosh.

I was write quote on original documents.

You was have ljadw imagination story what is nonsense.

Churchill was forbid on 11.february 1941.year advance on Tripoli.

Forbid was be advance on extra small force small force medium force big force extra big force.

O'Connor was think it was can be possible for to go to Tripoli.
Wilson was think it was can be possible for to go to Tripoli.
Wavell was think it was can be possible for to go to Tripoli.
Churchill was forbid.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3087
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 01 Aug 2021 20:49

ljadw wrote:
01 Aug 2021 19:25
Numerical superiority of 4/1 means a battle between 150000 against 36000 .
The 150K was within the immediate area and available to counter the British attack, and contrary to your previous claim they weren't spread out from Nibeiwa to Benghazi.

Here is a map of the Italian layout around Sidi Barrani:
Image

But if you want to think of the Italians as a series of isolated positions then you should also consider the British attacked each position with only a fraction of its available forces.
Besides : if you count 150000 , you must include also the British forces in Palestine .
Not if they weren't involved in the operation. The British met and defeated the Italian 10th army using the forces allotted to Compass. Aside from the 6th Australian division the forces in Palestine remained in place, only coming forward once Compass was terminated.
No one is using the 1SS PzD to count the German strength in Normandy , thus one can not count the divisions who were at Derna ,168 km from Tobruk .
Which divisions were at Derna?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Return to “What if”