Alternate WWII?

[dpapp2]

But what can Hitler do to make US intervention less likely, after France falls?

Falken

 

Besides kicking UK out the war first, not much. Even not declaring war combined with some diplomatic effort might not delay US preparing for Torch while not being at war with Germany. The USA was already supplying the USSR through Lend-lease before 7/12. Not attacking USSR has the consequence of Stalin declaring war on Germany 1943 the latest.

[redcoat]

Yes, but a smarter Italy

A smarter Italy would have stayed out of the war entirely

[DesertFox]

A smarter Italy would have stayed out of the war entirely

 

Would Germany's eyes have turned toward them?

[T19]

Would Germany's eyes have turned toward them?

Hitler was a tea totaler... what would he want from Italy? On time trains?

[DesertFox]

Hitler was a tea totaler... what would he want from Italy? On time trains?

 

His extreme hatred for Jews and that militarily it would be easy to take.......

[Tony Williams]

Hitler admired Mussolini - he saw him as a role model (the admiration faded later, of course). It would not have been difficult for Musso to "do a Franco" and stay friendly with Hitler, trade with Germany etc, while avoiding getting sucked into the fighting. Hitler had enough on his plate without opening up an entire new front, since if he invaded Italy he would instantly draw in the British to fight on the Italian side.

 

This thread reminds me of all the similar thinking I went through a few years ago when I wrote The Foresight War, a novel which explores what might have happened if present-day British and German historians woke up in 1934. In that, it's business as usual (only mostly better) for Germany, although they try not to get sucked into a war with the USA. The Brits make a few more radical changes, e.g. not giving that guarantee to Poland, which means that war is not declared in 1939 but in 1940, so the British Army isn't trapped in France.

[DesertFox]

Would an Italy not allied to German (and instead just friendly) mean a Greece which was still independent? Wouldn't the situation do much to protect the British interests in the Mediterranean at the same time?

[Tony Williams]

Would an Italy not allied to German (and instead just friendly) mean a Greece which was still independent? Wouldn't the situation do much to protect the British interests in the Mediterranean at the same time?

It would mean no war in the Mediterrannean theatre at all: no North Africa campaign, no moment of glory for Rommel - or for Montgomery, either. And therefore no El Alamein victory for Britain to celebrate after a long run of failure, in fact, nowhere for the BCE army to fight.

 

Makes you wonder what else might have happened. Possibly a more strenuous attempt to seize the Vichy French overseas possessions, such as Algeria, Dakar and Madagascar. Probably much more attention paid to defending the Far Eastern empire, given all the resources lying about unused: Singapore might have been defended? Perhaps more practical help to the USSR. Very likely D-day in 1943 - which could have gone badly, given the lack of experience of the Allies in big, contested amphibious landings.

[Jabberwocky]

It would mean no war in the Mediterrannean theatre at all: no North Africa campaign, no moment of glory for Rommel - or for Montgomery, either. And therefore no El Alamein victory for Britain to celebrate after a long run of failure, in fact, nowhere for the BCE army to fight.

 

Makes you wonder what else might have happened. Possibly a more strenuous attempt to seize the Vichy French overseas possessions, such as Algeria, Dakar and Madagascar. Probably much more attention paid to defending the Far Eastern empire, given all the resources lying about unused: Singapore might have been defended? Perhaps more practical help to the USSR. Very likely D-day in 1943 - which could have gone badly, given the lack of experience of the Allies in big, contested amphibious landings.

 

I'm currently about 2/3rds of the way through Porch's fascinating 'Hitler's Mediterranean Gamble', and his central argument is that, for all the grumbling and claims of misdirection by the US and sniping from the edges and lunatic outflanking operations proposed by the Britsh, the MTO acted as the pivotal theatre of war for the Western Allies. Without it to act as a nursery for the US and British to learn the art of combined arms warfare, improve their equipment and sound out their generals, the war could of quite easily been unnwinnable, or at least a lot longer and more painful for them.

 

He notes that even Marshall considered a 1942 'bull at a gate' invasion nothing more than a usless and bloody sacrificial gesture and that a landing in Continental Europe in before early in 1944 would of been an equally tragic folly, not the least because the Allies Mediterranean strategy allowed them to chew up/and or pin down more than 40 divisions to guard Italy, the Balkans and Southern France, which could of otherwise been deployed to face a cross-Channel invasion. Not to mention the extreeme stress that the Luftwaffe was under by late 1943/early 1944, much of it due to the MTO. Luftwaffe losses in the ETO dont realy start to climb beyond the German's ability to train replacement pilots until the middle of 1943, and even then it requires the arrival of the USAAF long range escorts in the ETO (three drop tank P-47Ds from Aug-Sep-1943 and P-51B/Cs from Dec-1943) in sufficent numbers to really hurt them (Luftwaffe loss rates more than tripple in the first four months of 1944).

[DesertFox]

Assuming that Spain fully allied itself with Germany, how would Gibraltar been to take?

[swerve]

... a landing in Continental Europe in before early in 1944 would of been an equally tragic folly, not the least because the Allies Mediterranean strategy allowed them to chew up/and or pin down more than 40 divisions to guard Italy, the Balkans and Southern France, which could of otherwise been deployed to face a cross-Channel invasion. ...

 

Italy is Continental Europe.

 

Germany would still have needed to guard against an invasion of southern France (you must assume Allied control of French North Africa no later than in actuality), & would probably still have needed troops in Yugoslavia, so not all the troops in the Mediterranean & Balkans could have been redeployed. A few would have been needed to watch the Italian border (Mussolini was perfectly capable of switching sides if he thought it would benefit him), & keep an eye on Greece - though fewer than were needed to occupy it.

[Marek Tucan]

Would an invasion in 1943 with limited goals - say just seize Cotentin and Cherbourg and hold there AND let Germans to attack through bocage - be possible? Or seizing Vichy Sardinia?

 

EDIT:

And if considering Italy outta war, would Mers el Kebir happen? Would France collapse so totally without the stab in the back or would the government feel it's worth fighting overseas? Will there be atleast more Free French volunteers, incl. say elements of navy?

Also what about air war? Med wasn't all that primary theatre but still Malta defense took plenty of aircrafts.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Tuccy

[Guest bojan]

Italy is Continental Europe.

 

Germany would still have needed to guard against an invasion of southern France (you must assume Allied control of French North Africa no later than in actuality), & would probably still have needed troops in Yugoslavia,

...

 

But would have Hitler attacked Yugoslavia in 1941. or left it for later if Italy stayed neutral and did not attack Greece? Relations only went south after March demonstration in 1941. and those were largely consequance of Yugoslavia joinning Axis. W/o Italy attacking Greece (and screwing up royaly) there wouuld be no British asistance to Greece, hence no need for German attack on Greece to bail out Italy/prevent Brits from gaining strongpoint, hence no need for Yugoslavia to grant a passage for German troups, hence no demonstrations, hence no prince Pavle overthrow, hencec no German intervention... I do not doubt that Yugoslavia would have been involved later but I doubt that it would be in 1941.

[swerve]

Would an invasion in 1943 with limited goals - say just seize Cotentin and Cherbourg and hold there AND let Germans to attack through bocage - be possible? Or seizing Vichy Sardinia?

 

EDIT:

And if considering Italy outta war, would Mers el Kebir happen? Would France collapse so totally without the stab in the back or would the government feel it's worth fighting overseas? Will there be atleast more Free French volunteers, incl. say elements of navy?

Also what about air war? Med wasn't all that primary theatre but still Malta defense took plenty of aircrafts.

 

Vichy Corsica, not Sardinia.

 

The Italian attack on France in 1940 made no difference to the outcome in France proper, but it might have affected the French governments willingness to try to continue the fight from abroad. With Italy neutral, Hitler wouldn't really have had any way to get at French North Africa. Might even have been possible to hold Corsica - or we can imagine the Germans doing a Crete on Corsica instead.

 

Without Italy in the war, the RN & RAF would have had to devote fewer resources to the Med. I don't think it would have affected the Battle of Britain much, it but would have made life much easier in 1941. More sub-hunting capability, fewer subs to hunt, in less sea. More fighters for home defence.

[swerve]

But would have Hitler attacked Yugoslavia in 1941. or left it for later if Italy stayed neutral and did not attack Greece? Relations only went south after March demonstration in 1941. and those were largely consequance of Yugoslavia joinning Axis. W/o Italy attacking Greece (and screwing up royaly) there wouuld be no British asistance to Greece, hence no need for German attack on Greece to bail out Italy/prevent Brits from gaining strongpoint, hence no need for Yugoslavia to grant a passage for German troups, hence no demonstrations, hence no prince Pavle overthrow, hencec no German intervention... I do not doubt that Yugoslavia would have been involved later but I doubt that it would be in 1941.

 

Agreed, I don't see a German invasion in 1941, but I don't see the Balkans, & Yugoslavia in particular, as an area Hitler could keep troops out of forever. I would expect British, & (after the invasion of the USSR) Soviet intrigues.

[Marek Tucan]

Vichy Corsica, not Sardinia.

 

Oops... I ask to be declared honorary American

 

The Italian attack on France in 1940 made no difference to the outcome in France proper, but it might have affected the French governments willingness to try to continue the fight from abroad. With Italy neutral, Hitler wouldn't really have had any way to get at French North Africa. Might even have been possible to hold Corsica - or we can imagine the Germans doing a Crete on Corsica instead.

Would they have the capacity? They'd need to take some French port in South France first to do that, no? After all, Italy as base for such op would not be possible in this scenario and I doubt Hitler would be willing to commit his Fallschirmjäger into an opp where there's no way for them to be supplied and reinforced. But then, Göring might try to convince him he'll manage it via air and things would get ugly for Luftwaffe sooner.

 

Without Italy in the war, the RN & RAF would have had to devote fewer resources to the Med. I don't think it would have affected the Battle of Britain much, it but would have made life much easier in 1941. More sub-hunting capability, fewer subs to hunt, in less sea. More fighters for home defence.

 

Was thinking so. The three Gladiators would be enough to show flag over Malta if Italy was safe.

[Ken Estes]

About the most important thing Hitler could have done differently was not to occupy the rump of Czechoslovakia, in March 1938, because this is the act which set alarm bells ringing in both Britain and France, and caused them to sign a treaty with Poland, on the issue of Polands borders with Germany.

If he hadn't done this, its unlikely Britain and France would have had a treaty with Poland, and so when the Germans attack Poland in September 1939, its highly unlikely Britain and France would have declared war on Germany.

You mean March of 39, of course, but it brings the point that H preferred that the war start in 1938 [felt cheated at Munich], with the Czech Crisis, but I suppose we have discussed before [??] whether outbreak of war in 1938 would really have worked for Germany. It remains at least arguable that it would, because German rearmament was well underway, with GB and France still sorting out various problems and the USSR in between five year plans, and so forth. The Q is then how effective the German forces would have been and if the Czechs held for a month, would Germany run out of munitions?

[DesertFox]

You mean March of 39, of course, but it brings the point that H preferred that the war start in 1938 [felt cheated at Munich], with the Czech Crisis, but I suppose we have discussed before [??] whether outbreak of war in 1938 would really have worked for Germany. It remains at least arguable that it would, because German rearmament was well underway, with GB and France still sorting out various problems and the USSR in between five year plans, and so forth. The Q is then how effective the German forces would have been and if the Czechs held for a month, would Germany run out of munitions?

 

I thought I remember reading that there were huge problems with breakdowns among German units in the "games" which occurred after the Sudetenland events?

[Ken Estes]

I thought I remember reading that there were huge problems with breakdowns among German units in the "games" which occurred after the Sudetenland events?

That has been brought up before, but closer investigations [Citino, etc.] show no serious breakdown rate out of the ordinary...they are tanks after all. If one has not broken down; it will.

 

More serious are new investigations into how tough the Czech defenses [not just forts] could have been, to the point that German attacks might have been stalled after 30 days of ops.

[DesertFox]

That has been brought up before, but closer investigations [Citino, etc.] show no serious breakdown rate out of the ordinary...they are tanks after all. If one has not broken down; it will.

 

More serious are new investigations into how tough the Czech defenses [not just forts] could have been, to the point that German attacks might have been stalled after 30 days of ops.

 

Why do those "legends" go so far back. I think I got it from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?"

 

Were the Czech defenses better than Poland at least?

[Marek Tucan]

More serious are new investigations into how tough the Czech defenses [not just forts] could have been, to the point that German attacks might have been stalled after 30 days of ops.

 

IMO at least theoretically, the defences along the axis of most dangerous attack route (from Northern Moravia down to cut Czechoslovakia in two) can hold pretty long - both heavy and light fortification lines were pretty much finished there, except for the artillery forts that still didn't get artillery. A tad worse situation on North-Eastern Bohemian border, many forts under construction and without cloches.

In 1938, the most critical weakness was probably Southern Moravia - crash-building programme of light fortification system was almost complete there but still the area was relatively weakly defended and allowed "easy route" to major communication lines to Slovakia.

General plan was to fight a large delaying battle, covering retreat to the East, with light fortification lines serving as speedbumps to cover the retreat. Heavy fortification line was designed to bolster this up, individual blockhouses were to be able to resist for three weeks.

 

More things later - I will in short time finish the (long time) delayed last chapters of my fortifications thread.

[Ken Estes]

Why do those "legends" go so far back. I think I got it from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?"

 

Were the Czech defenses better than Poland at least?

 

Uh, one should not read Shirer for anything but a reference on Shirer. It is long obsolete, held in disrepute.

 

Check Tuccy's thread on the forts, about the most modern in Europe.

[DesertFox]

Uh, one should not read Shirer for anything but a reference on Shirer. It is long obsolete, held in disrepute.

 

Check Tuccy's thread on the forts, about the most modern in Europe.

 

Isn't there a certain value in such a close observation? He was in Germany during the Czech crisis.....

[Guest aevans]

Isn't there a certain value in such a close observation? He was in Germany during the Czech crisis.....

 

But he didn't adhere to what is now the correct political line among hysterians.

[DesertFox]

But he didn't adhere to what is now the correct political line among hysterians.

 

Explain, please?