W.W.2 No Germans to North Africa...

[Rick]

But went instead to Russia, any noticeable difference in the outcome of the war against Russia? And, while we're at it, no U..S. ;Lend-Lease to the Soviets. My uniformed guess is no, would have just taken a little longer. 

From memory, I think aspects of this was covered in the past?

 

[Argus]

In a nutshell -
1/ Italians out by the end of 41 (timing depends on what happens with Greece)

2/ Opening the Med to trade  - so mopping up the Italian islands (Panellerea ete), then turning on Sicily either neutralize from the air or actually invade. 

3/ Is too far from the PoD to project without more context, and doesn't really matter anyway. If the Med is open to shipping, the British Empire is back on its feet in both economic and logistic terms, so many things become possible. 

4/ Japan likely thinks twice about getting froggy 

Edited January 27, 2024 by Argus

[bojan]

Result would be probably Berlin being first nuked city.

[Rick]

9 hours ago, bojan said:

Result would be probably Berlin being first nuked city.

Why?

[bojan]

Because it would probably delay fall of Germany enough for nukes to be ready, and when they are ready they will be used.

[Harold Jones]

Does the Nuking of Berlin lead Japan to surrender or will they still need their own local demonstration?

[urbanoid]

13 hours ago, bojan said:

Result would be probably Berlin being first nuked city.

Maybe, though what actually happened to Berlin might have been similar or worse than a nuke.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Maybe, though what actually happened to Berlin might have been similar or worse than a nuke.

Not really. It was too far apart to be effectively burned. If I remember Middlebrooks book correctly, Bomber Command got close to launching one firestorm, but it didnt take, presumably because of the really wide boulevards. They certainly hammered the hell out of it all through the autumn and winter of 1943, but it was nothing compared to what Hamburg and Dresden got.  It just wasnt a good target, the inconsiderate bastards.

The point about Berlin being nuked though, Id never considered that, but its an interesting point. When the Eighth Army got to Tunisia, Hitler started sending over forces, including 2 Tiger Tank Battalions IIRC? Several more divisions, and the amount of aircraft they lost was horrendous.

I guess it was the sunk costs fallacy, when they had already invested in North Africa so much. Hitler refused to recognise the smart thing to do would be to pull all their forces out and base the defence on Sicily and Italy. if they had done that and saved the bulk of the Africa corp and the Italian Army, they might have made Italy unviable, making the South of France the only other viable target.

The result, as many went into the bag over the campaign as got taken in Stalingrad. And Von Thoma, rightly or wrongly, was highly regarded by Basil Liddell Hart and Churchill. They couldnt afford to keep losing decent generals.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not really. It was too far apart to be effectively burned. Bomber Command got close to launching one firestorm, but tit didnt take, presumably because of the really wide boulevards. They certainly hammered the hell out of it all through the autumn and winter of 1943, but it was nothing compared to what Hamburg and Dresden got.  It just wasnt a good target, the inconsiderate bastards.

The point about Berlin being nuked though, Id never considered that, but its an interesting point. When the Eighth Army got to Tunisia, Hitler started sending over forces, including 2 Tiger Tank Battalions IIRC? Several more divisions, and the amount of aircraft they lost was horrendous.

I guess it was the sunk costs fallacy, when they had already invested in North Africa so much. Hitler refused to recognise the smart thing to do would be to pull all their forces out and base the defence on Sicily and Italy. if they had done that and saved the bulk of the Africa corp and the Italian Army, they might have made Italy unviable, making the South of France the only other viable target.

The result, as many went into the bag over the campaign as got taken in Stalingrad. And Von Thoma, rightly or wrongly, was highly regarded by Basil Liddell Hart and Churchill. They couldnt afford to keep losing decent generals.

I don't mean 'just' the bombing, but bombing, Soviet assault AND the aftermath.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Other than the combat troops, whom presumably would have been fighting elsewhere anyway, there is a listing of 125000 civlian deaths in the fighting. In Hiroshima it was 140000. In Nagasaki it was 74000, but that was a bigger bomb and it was a bust because the city was built in valleys. Those figures dont include death by radiation poisoning though.

Berlin is fairly flat, so it presumably wouldnt have had any benefit at all from terrain. Yeah, I think Berlin got lucky, all things considered.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

In a nutshell -
1/ Italians out by the end of 41 (timing depends on what happens with Greece)

The Italians will be out of Libya in 1941, but the British did not have the shipping, air forces, troops, or the logistics to threaten Sicily without the Americans, and the war in the Balkans will wind up in an Axis occupation of Greece.

Quote

2/ Opening the Med to trade  - so mopping up the Italian islands (Panellerea ete), then turning on Sicily either neutralize from the air or actually invade. 

I'm sure the Luftwaffe would be delighted to tee off on British convoys attempting the run past Sicily.  It would be a race between that and the U-boats as to who was sinking more.   IMO, the British will not use the Med route for shipping until they'd secured Sicily and Tunisia, and both of these would require the Americans.

Quote

4/ Japan likely thinks twice about getting froggy 

The Germans have done slightly better in Russia because of the concentration of more forces there.  The Japanese will jump into the tiger pit on that basis.  The fall of Libya will have no impact on their calculations, IMO.

Edited January 28, 2024 by glenn239

[JWB]

19 hours ago, Rick said:

But went instead to Russia, any noticeable difference in the outcome of the war against Russia? And, while we're at it, no U..S. ;Lend-Lease to the Soviets. My uniformed guess is no, would have just taken a little longer. 

From memory, I think aspects of this was covered in the past?

 

Strongly depends on whether or not Mussolini declares war on the USA.

[JWB]

44 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Italians will be out of Libya in 1941, but the British did not have the shipping, air forces, troops, or the logistics to threaten Sicily ....

Again this depends on what happens with M. H sent forces to NA to prop up Bennie. What does H do if M is toppled and Italy switches to the Allies?

[Pavel Novak]

52 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Italians will be out of Libya in 1941, but the British did not have the shipping, air forces, troops, or the logistics to threaten Sicily without the Americans, and the war in the Balkans will wind up in an Axis occupation of Greece.

I'm sure the Luftwaffe would be delighted to tee off on British convoys attempting the run past Sicily.  It would be a race between that and the U-boats as to who was sinking more.   IMO, the British will not use the Med route for shipping until they'd secured Sicily and Tunisia, and both of these would require the Americans.

The Germans have done slightly better in Russia because of the concentration of more forces there.  The Japanese will jump into the tiger pit on that basis.  The fall of Libya will have no impact on their calculations, IMO.

Could the British invade Tunisua same as Syria? There would be no axis resistance though I don't know how much Vichy troops would resist here.

[Markus Becker]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

Because it would probably delay fall of Germany enough for nukes to be ready, and when they are ready they will be used.

IMO not very likely. The initial force was tiny. It won't make a big enough difference in the invasion of the USSR in 41. 

The post Torch reinforcements were substantial but if Italy get's kicked out of Libya in 41 that's going to leave them vulnerable to the British to some degree and there's Vichy possessions in North Africa. 

They would be a low hanging fruit the British could easily grab. That would most likely have the same effect as Torch had. The Vichy French become Free French and Germany occupies Southern France. 

 

Berlin being nuked could have some very interesting effects after the war. And probably not positive ones for NATO. 

Edited January 28, 2024 by Markus Becker

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Again this depends on what happens with M. H sent forces to NA to prop up Bennie. What does H do if M is toppled and Italy switches to the Allies?

Italy will not switch sides with the entire German army breathing down their necks.  Once the Germans are far into Russia?  Maybe.  

Edited January 28, 2024 by glenn239

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Pavel Novak said:

Could the British invade Tunisua same as Syria? There would be no axis resistance though I don't know how much Vichy troops would resist here.

An all out British effort without the Americans?  Maybe, once the Germans are balls deep in Russia.  Once the 8th Army takes Tripoli, it seems at least possible, if not entirely likely.   The British could run convoys from Egypt to Tripoli under RAF air cover throughout Libya.  Once a buildup had been completed, they could invade Tunisia from the south, and Morocco, simultaneously.

Edited January 28, 2024 by glenn239

[Rick]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

Because it would probably delay fall of Germany enough for nukes to be ready, and when they are ready they will be used.

Just my opinion, but I don't the the U.S.A.A.F. would have nuked Berlin. The atom bomb was used on Japan due to the tenacious "fighting spirit" of the Japanese. They would not readily surrender no matter what the odds or circumstances while the Germans would. Invading Japan would resulted in massive casualties for civilian and military due to the psychological nature the Japanese.  

[Ssnake]

Truman would have both countries nuked.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I could see a circumstance where if we hadn't liberated France, we would have nuked Berlin to keep the Soviets from heading further west.

[Markus Becker]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Italy will not switch sides with the entire German army breathing down their necks.  Once the Germans are far into Russia?  Maybe.  

IRL they didn't dump Benny after loosing Libya, so why would they now? Though long term prospects don't look good for him.

When Barbarossa starts Benny's position get's imo more secure because if Germany wins this, Italy is still on the winning side overall. After the US entry into the war and the Russian winter counter offensive his number is up. And the Germans aren't in a position to do much about it. 

[Markus Becker]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

I could see a circumstance where if we hadn't liberated France, we would have nuked Berlin to keep the Soviets from heading further west.

Like that is going to even slow them down. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Like that is going to even slow them down. 

Sure it would, if they thought the next one might be on Moscow. After all they backed down in Iran and the Berlin airlift after the US deployed B29s to the UK. They didn't have a lot that could stop a B29 in 1945.

[Markus Becker]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure it would, if they thought the next one might be on Moscow. After all they backed down in Iran and the Berlin airlift after the US deployed B29s to the UK. They didn't have a lot that could stop a B29 in 1945.

Why would they think that if you are still allied? They'd probably thank you for softening up that though nut and then point out to the occupied Germans that they had nothing to do with that horrific weapon. 

[Angrybk]

At the risk of thread-jacking, one of my professors at grad school (German guy! very competent) had a big theory that the A-bomb project was largely driven by pissed-off Jewish immigrants, which I don't think the stuff I've read really plays out.