Was it due to Italy Germany lost the war?

Piet Duits · Post by **Piet Duits** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:00 am

Hi all,

What do you think about this question? Was it due to the ill performing italians that The Reich got involved in fighting in the Balkans first, and later had to send in troops to Africa to bail out the italians?
Had the italians performed better, the germans would have been able to start Barbarossa sooner and thus had more time before the winter started AND would not have faced the british empire for a short while.

Well, what's your opinion? Am I too far off?

Piet

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:49 am

An indicator would be what percentage of the German war effort supporting the campaign in the Western Desert actually consumed?

And don't forget Churchill's infatuation with the "soft underbelly of Europe"; you could also look at North Africa as the Germans advancing to meet the British beyond the edges of their own possessions - rather than be on the defensive from day one in the Balkans or Sicily.

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:03 pm

Hi all,

Interesting question. I'll reverse it, and ask did the Germans make a fatal decision by allying with the Italians?

What real benefit did this give Germany, and how much of the decision stems from pre-war political alliances?

Cheers,

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:09 pm

Well, there was no actual treaty requirement for Germany to aid Italy LOL so no to the pre-war political alliance thing...or else Italy would have been in on September 1st 1939, and Britain against them as of the 3rd. Hitler however alswys had this sort of mentor-student relationship with Mussolini when it came to the politics and domestic application of Fascism as a belief system, so more pre-war personal alliances/friendships.

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:40 pm

Hi Phylo,

That's exactly what I meant. I'm aware there was no formal treaty in place, though I'll admit I was slightly vague as to my thrust, in my previous post. I was alluding to what you said, with regards to the political situation in pre war Europe.

Had I not been 9 cans down, I may have elaborated more fully in my initial post.

Cheers,

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:55 pm

Certainly there was a level to the relations of "All good Fascists together", particularly in the Italian debacle in Greece...though Greece was still formerly not an ally of Britain at that point, with only a minimal british presence in Greece when the Italians invaded.

But there would have been more longterm aims to that intervention too. The British-inspired coup in Yugoslavia immediately before had showed how volatile the Balkans could actually be, and if the Italians were properly defeated and rolled back INTO Albania...it would have thrown everything in the Balkans in a political turmoil in the rear of the southern advance into Russia! A couple of those Axis allies that later "turned turk"...unfortunate phraseology but you know what I mean...might have done so a LOT earlier and decisively! The heavy German involvement in Greece had a bit of "pour encourager les autres" in it...suspiciously on the eve of Barbarossa...

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:03 pm

Phylo, thats a good point, but I'll ask this - Even if the entire Balkan/Southern Europe area had become unstable, with no Axis intervention - even with Allied support, what harm could it have done to Barbarossa?

1/3rd of the troops Germany employed in that area could have protected a (hypothetical) restless southern flank, and even with heavy Allied support, I could not see that front being anything other than a minor thorn, had the Germans left it alone.

"All good Fascists together". My point exactly, and I suspect, the answer to my original question.

Cheers,

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:10 pm

Yes, but they wouldn't have had to JUST protect the southern front of Barbarossa, they'd have had to intervene and shore up EVERY tottering regime...ESPECIALLY those with forces actually IN Russia LOL - AS WELL as helping the Italians hold Albania or drive out the Greeks. All of a sudden there's a LOT of individual commands to set up and think about...

Getting the British out of the Balkans and keeping them out did a lot for the political stability in the region. But if it disintegrated it wouldn't be one piece falling away from the Axis as a bloc but a stack of individual nations and problems.

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:18 pm

I see where you are coming from Phylo, and understand that it would have caused massive instability, but the only fatal problem I can see in my hypothesis is that the Allies curry favour with the entire Balkans, and then launch 'D-Day' from that area.

Highly implausible, and unworkable. Germany could have protected its southern flank against angry little nations, even with Allied support, and as I said before, with far less manpower than they employed in the Balkans.

So why would they 'have' to shore up every tottering regime?

Cheers,

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:26 pm

Well, would YOU allow a change in government in Rumania, with Rumanians inside Russia? Yugoslavia...loosing Yugoslavia would take transporting Bulgarian chromium, right out of the question. As it was, it took considerable partisan efforts to keep the rail route through Yugoslavia shut. Loose Yugoslavia AND Albania - amd Mussolini ends up having an early mountain holiday for she'd have lost control of the Adriatic! The fascist Grand Council would CERTAINLY have given him the bum's rush for THAT! Rumania, Yugoslavia, Albania...Bulgaria wouldn't have wanted to be surrounded by hostiles.

All of a sudden you're knocking at Hungary and Czechoslovakia...

So instead you'd have to intervene massively in each nation, either politically or militarily depending on the nature of the problem in each.

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:32 pm

I'm just off to bed, but I'll come back to this tomorrow.

I'll still hint towards the respective military strengths of the aforementioned countries, and ask whether holding them back (in the event of a potential attack - unlikely IMO) would have used less, or more, manpower than was used in subduing the Balkans in the first place?

RE, Romanians inside Russia, Could you clarify that? And regarding the loss of German allies, what was the gross profit of Hungary and Romania's war effort, when weighed against Germany's total expenditure in securing these alliances?

Cheers,

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:42 pm

Well, there were Rumanians at Stalingrad??? When did they join the German campaign? The Eastern front isn't my thing.

And regarding the loss of German allies, what was the gross profit of Bulgaria and Romania's war effort, when weighed against Germany's total expenditure in securing these alliances?

Not the total expenditure. What did they spend in all ways to secure them initially because we wouldn't be talking a British effort into the Balkans in 1944 or '45, but as soon as the Greeks would have managed to defeat the Italians with British help...so late summer or autumn 1941? Dont forget not supporting the Italians means not supporting them in North Africa too, so Cairo would have been free to put everything they could spare into the Balkans.

Jock · Post by **Jock** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:46 pm

Sorry, was being slightly obtuse. Yes, there was 3 (I think...damn Carlsberg) Romanian divisions at Stalingrad.

Don't get me started on them though. Brave men, but by no means up to Wehrmacht standard. Coincidence that the Russians chose to attack where the Romanians were?

Ill be back to this...need sleep though!

Cheers,

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 pm

Jock wrote:Sorry, was being slightly obtuse. Yes, there was 3 (I think...damn Carlsberg) Romanian divisions at Stalingrad.

Don't get me started on them though. Brave men, but by no means up to Wehrmacht standard. Coincidence that the Russians chose to attack where the Romanians were?

Ill be back to this...need sleep though!

Cheers,

No coincidence, whatsoever, one can imagine. In an earlier post, it was either Paddy or phylo who rightly maintained that simple, low-level observers--that is, children, tourists, and old folk--often provide the finest in military intelligence simply through their ability to live safely within an enemy's encampment.

Fifteen-year-old Sacha Fillipov, a master cobbler, moved among the frozen Germans at will throughout the battle, caring for their invaluable footwear even as he lifted ultra-sensitive information from the desks of unwary German officers and transported it to Soviet intelligence officers in the weeks preceding Uranus. It's likely that there were many such Sacha Fillipovs' among the Germans and Rumanians, perhaps gleaning bits of information here and there, and then transmitting it afoot and by word of mouth among friends. A youthful Red Orchestra, one might say. Such information would then likely have fallen into the hands of those like General Viktor Volsky, chief of the Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps, and then--ultimately--into the hands of Uranus's planners, Zhukov and Vasilevsky.

And the Rumanian army based at Serafimovich and Kletskaya can't argue that it didn't have ample warning of the impending disaster: On November 17, within 36 hours of the Soviet attack, Leutnant Gerhard Stoeck, a German advisor to the Rumanians, had radioed Golubinka (6th Army's HQ at the time) that Rumanian forward observers had reported the massings' of hundreds of Soviet tanks, their engines easily heard on the winter wind as they revved for battle some one-hundred miles northeast of the Kessel. Meanwhile, Russian radio-traffic increased dramatically--another telltale sign that an offensive was imminent.

When 3,500 Russian guns opened up on the Rumanian Third Army's lines on November 19, they marched high-explosive straight up and down the Rumanians' lines almost as if they knew precisely where the Rumanians were sheltered, guarding that vital German northwest flank.

Carl Schwamberger · Post by **Carl Schwamberger** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:53 pm

Getting back to the original question: I've argued for several years Germany would be far better with Italy as a nuetral. Germany can buy what little the Italians have to offer for military use. Trucks and ammo I suspose. And, the Germans can concentrate on fighting the USSR without distractions. With Italy acting as a nuetral conduit for resources from outside Europe Britian is faced with a much more difficult task n enforcing a blockade. All of the Mediterrainian littoral becomes a giant hole in the blockade. With Italy not at war the actual capabilities ofthe Italian military remain a unknown quantity which Britian must becarefull about provoking.