On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:13:11 +0100, "Michele"
wrote:
>>>That is a possibility and worse failures might spur a replacement of the
>>>Duce... but the replacement isn't necessarily to be friendly with Germany.
>>>On top of that, by denying help to Italy, the Germans are presenting the
>>>British with a series of victories instead of a series of defeats and
>>>mini-Dunkirks. I'm not sure it's good in the long run.
>>
>> When did Germany ever attempt a "Dunkirk" in the Mediterranean? Tunis?
>> Uh - not really. Sicily - the German evacuation wasn't seaborne but
>> they did get a lot of troops out of Sicily under grim circumstances.
>> Where else?
>
>A misunderstanding here. I was not talking about German evacuations.
>That said, you don't get out of Sicily if not by sea - even if it's a 3-km
>travel.
>
>No, the British suffered, in OTL, a series of defeats and mini-Dunkirks in
>the Med - and that was because the Germans arrived and helped the Italians.
>The British were in full swing towards Tripoli, and were beaten back,
>besieged in Tobruk, and so on and so forth, basically because the DAK had
>arrived. On the continent, they had to evacuate continental Greece first,
>then Crete and other isles, again because the Germans came in. On the sea,
>the presence of the Luftwaffe changed the game. The British clung to Malta,
>but only at a heavy price, again because of the Luftwaffe and U-Boote more
>than because of the Italians.
OK thanks for the clarification. I know the history of the last days
of mainland Greece, the south coast of Greece and otherorted
evacuations.
One hypothetical battle discussed ad nauseum in wargaming circles but
largely ignored in SHWI is Malta - do you think Germany ever had the
chance to take it? I would argue that the best chance was shortly
before Second Alamein though that makes Alamein itself less likely -
and by September 1942 both the balance of forces and the logistics
were heavily against Rommel.
Certainly taking Malta makes supplying PanzerArmee Afrika much much
easier but by the summer of 1942 do the Axis have enough shipping to
capitalize on it before they get "Torched"? (I'm skeptical)
Are we agreed that Morocco and Algeria are there for the Allies to
take if they want it? (My personal view is that December 42 -> May 43
was pretty much the best case scenario for Germany and that Rommel
could have been bagged somewhere near the Tunisian - Libyan border had
the Allies shown the degree of tactical skill shown in the summer of
1944 which I don't think was all that extraordinary - Falaise and
Arnhem weren't exactly feats of strategic brilliance after all!)
>So if Germany does not provide help to Italy, all of that doesn't happen.
>It's not a given the British take Tripoli on the run, anyway; it is possible
>that they have to besiege it, and it is possible, although mor eunlikely,
>that they do not even succeed in the siege, with the Italian achieving a
>losing stalemate there.
Question:uming no German support, is Mussolini facing a coup if he
loses both Abyssinia and Libya? (Does the answer depend on what
happens in Albania / Greece?)
What would have been required to overthrow Mussolini in 1941-42?
>Let'sume that the British, seeing no German involvement, decide to risk
>causing it by overtly helping the Greeks too. Now the Italians are fighting
>the Greeks _and_ the British in Albania.
>Likewise, it is possible the Italians are not thrown into the sea in
>Albania; the British-Greek reinforcements there have to deal with similar
>logistical problems as those that crippled the Italians. But in the best
>case, it will be a losing stalemate for the Italians, there, too.
I dunno - having the RAF able to operate either in the Peleponesus or
western Macedonia makes southern Italy (and Albania of course) highly
vulnerable - and without German support I don't see the Italian air
force coming out on top. Obviously the disaster at Bari (early
December 1943) was serendipity for the Allies but had something like
that happened with the Duce in control he would have had some trouble.
>If the Germans do not intevene in the Balkans, Yugoslavia goes pro-British
>and remains so. The British can supply them through Thessaloniki, of course.
>They can base heavy bombers in Greece and, as soon as Romania goes to war,
>they can violate the Yugoslavian airspace (with the tacit consent of the
>Yugoslavians) and bomb Ploesti.
I don't know about that - the politicians of Yugoslavia went for the
Axis and were overthrown by a pro-Allied coup - I don't see that as
foreordained. I see the main effect of no German support of Italy
being that Hungary and Rumania might not join the Axis which does not
in my opinion cripple Barbarossa.
>There is a reason if Hitler felt compelled to support Mussolini, and it
>wasn't just good PR. The best solution to this morass is Italy remaining a
>German-friendly neutral. But you need, as mentioned, someone else than
>Mussolini.
Actually I'd say almost ANYONE other than Mussolini means Italy is a
pro-Axis neutral rather than an active German ally. No Mediterranean
front means the British army would be doing SOMETHING - maybe they
hold or throw back the Japanese in Malaya (which they might have done
in any case with someone other than Percival) which would have
interesting knock-on effects... (I don't see anything in a 'neutral
Italy' scenario that butterflies away Pearl Harbor) |
