|
Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (8/10/2020 3:34:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
The biggest frustration with these debates is not the different views – that’s the fun, and let’s face it, we are all entitled to our opinion and none of us can ever be proved wrong! – the problem is that there is often little effort put in. Example:
quote:
Postpone Barbarossa a year. Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain. Gibraltar and Suez fall. The Med is an Axis lake. Plus, when Barbarossa finally kicks off, there is a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku. Plus the benefits to Barbarossa from an extra year of production.
Well, okay, but instead of just marching armies to all points of the compass, how about putting some detail on that? Timeframe, political context, forces required, some examples to support? So at what point do you propose Hitler makes this massive volte-face? Why does he do so? Where does the historical meet the “What-if”?
1940. The fall of France has taken the whole world – Hitler included – by complete surprise. Lebensraum however is his thing and preparations start in August 1940.
Meanwhile, Britain won’t surrender much to Hitler’s disbelief, so preparations for an invasion are made. But no invasion can happen without air superiority. The Luftwaffe can’t do this and suffer losses in trying that they never recover from.
Eventually, in September, Sea Lion is postponed (although not cancelled until February 1941). But in the meantime, in addition to German own war plans stalling (Franco has rebuffed Hitler too by presenting impossible requirements for entering the war), Italy’s military – has made an arse of itself. Attacking Greece in a fit of pique, in October, Mussolini’s troops are soon stopped, surrounded and then pushed back. A month before, the great Italian push into Egypt starts… and then stops just a few miles inside Egypt… Worse follows as the British launch their own limited raid which sees them destroy the Italian 10th Army and kick the Italians out of Cyrennaica. And so as the German army are preparing for Barbarossa, at the start of 1941 everything is suddenly going Pete Tonge.
Hitler has no choice but to help his ally. Gibraltar is forgotten about and limited air and land forces are sent to North Africa/Sicily. Then with the coup in Yugoslavia, Hitler decides the Balkans needs fixing before he can turn on the USSR. By May 1941 the situation is stabilised. Yugoslavia and Greece are defeated, the British are kicked back to Egypt (Tobruk excepted) and Malta is no longer available to the RN.
So at what point in all this do you propose Hitler decides to simply “blitz through Turkey and Spain” and confidently state that Barbarossa is “postponed for [just] a year”? Are these operations simultaneous? Separate? Where are the few German specialised anti-shipping squadrons to be allocated? Malta? Spain? Turkey? They can’t all be in different places at once and unless the Germans can neutralise the RN, Gibraltar is going to be a tougher nut to crack and the Bosphorus/Black Sea is a potential killing ground for Soviet Black Sea subs and RN forces. Again, this isn't some theoretical mumbo-jumbo - THIS HAPPENED. When X Fliegerkorps were in Sicily, the RN couldn't operate from Malta. Move them elsewhere (as the Germans were compelled to) and guess what? The Malta Striking Force comes to play. German resources are limited. So when you propose all these things, it would help if you could provide some detail.
quote:
I don't see the terrain in Turkey as worse than in Yugoslavia or Greece.
Well you may not and you may be right – though I suspect that is not quite true. But have a look at a map. Forget terrain for a moment. Where is Belgrade distance-wise from Hungary? Where is Athens from Bulgaria? Now look at Turkey. Now look at the distance involved in reaching the capital. Look at the terrain that the army has to move over and supplies run through.
quote:
there are rail lines to the East.
a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku
Not sure anything involving attacking the Soviet Union was easy or “quick” and I’d like to see those rail lines. To the extent there were any, I suspect the volume was low and could easily be knocked out of action. How is a German army going to be readily supplied along the length of Turkey – it sure as hell isn’t going to be done by sea.
How are the Germans going to garrison Spain and Turkey? One of the reasons it suited Hitler to have the Vichy French defending their own colonies was that German troops didn’t have to. The Germans have enough trouble with manpower but at the stroke of a pen, you have magnified those problems. As said, I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to expect some serious partisan warfare in these two countries. But you got around that with this bland statement:
quote:
Once Gibraltar is taken, Franco can have Spain back, with Gibraltar as the peace bribe.
So that’s how it works? Thanks for invading my country? Thanks for yet more deaths and suffering (food shortages are already an issue) and making my country a war zone (how much collateral damage do you think there is going to be from the British defending Gibraltar?). Thanks for proving that the wishes of the Spanish people are unimportant and that I am your puppet. Yes, give me Gibraltar and everything is fine. Seriously? Where does giving me Gibraltar give me food which sure as hell isn't now coming from the US?
quote:
Franco would be expected to join a coalition that consisted entirely of Antifascists.
Except of course he didn’t when he had the chance, but now, when Spain is attacked – he will happily sign up?? Please, how do you possibly reconcile what actually happened in real life in October 1940 with what you've suggested??
quote:
Turkey would be expected to join a coalition that…..
Really? As said in post 41, if the Germans are successful and turn the Med into an Axis lake then I can see them being swayed. But happily joining with a country that attacks them? You do seem to have a very simplistic notion of the way people behave. Turkey wasn't persuaded to join the Axis (frankly she was too scared of the USSR) but in this scenario all Turks happily move to the German side when they are attacked by said Germans?
quote:
And the Germans could offer the Turks plenty of Greek and Slavic territories - Cypress and areas in Yugoslavia for example.
Again, simplistic. If you start to look at the problems Hitler had with Spain joining the Axis (the need to keep Spain/Italy and Vichy happy and not rock the boat - essentially 3 into 2 doesn't go) then you have similar issues with Turkey and the Balkans and the former Ottoman lands to the south of Turkey. Hitler already had Hungary and Romania for allies - and they were two countries that would prefer fighting each other than the Soviets - he didn't need more.
quote:
Syria? The Allies invaded it without any consequences elsewhere. Why wouldn't that apply to the Axis?
Sorry but I think you should read about Vichy France. Once again everything appears so simple on paper. “Nothing happened when the Allies invaded”. What has the Allies invading got to do with the Germans marching through Vichy territory? That is a very naïve statement and you seem to be completely disregarding the tightrope Petain was walking; he's created Vichy to save France and her empire. If the French Empire is being walked over by Germany then that facade kind of crumbles pretty quickly....
What losses are you predicting for these campaigns? You say the extra year can be used to boost production – but any boost comes only when losses have been made up…. and losses to experienced airmen and troops isn’t going to be.
And you’ve assumed everything is going to be so straightforward and easy. But what if its not? What if there is a reverse or two along the way?
What is Stalin doing in the meantime? And pact or no pact, you think he’s just going to accept a German invasion of Turkey?? How many divisions did Germany use for the conquest of Greece/Yugoslavia? How many do you think they are going to need for Turkey?
So come on Curtis Lemay - give us some detail here. Make a proper case.
Gonna bury me in verbiage as usual.
First: This is a hypothetical. I don't have to have Hitler's approval to investigate it. Just assume this was the German plan all along.
Second: Terrain in Turkey, and the level of resistance to expect from them (and the Spanish): I'll just state that every historical simulation I've ever seen on the subject makes said conquests on the easy side. That means I've got some very famous founding fathers of this industry on my side. Absent real evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with them. And they model Turkey with an extensive rail net.
Third: You misunderstood about Franco and the Turks being happy about joining coalitions. I was castigating their joining the ALLIES not the AXIS. They are not going to be happy to do that - and that will weaken any resistance capability.
Fourth: Syria is a colonial possession. It is not France. If nothing happened when the Allies took it, why would anything happen when the Axis did the same. I would point out that an Axis ally (Japan) took French Indochina in 1941. Nothing happened to Vichy.
Fifth: The Soviet Union preemptively going to war with Germany is not the same as the historical Soviet Union of WWII. It's going to more closely resemble Tsarist Russia. For one thing, it would be a clarion call to anti-Soviet elements to revolt - no mass patriotism. For another the lessons of Barbarossa aren't going to be learned, the crap leaders aren't going to be replaced, and the frontier forces are going to build up to the point that when the Blitzkrieg finally comes, it will fatally compromise them. Stalin didn't attack in 1940 when an even better opportunity presented itself. He's not likely to under this scenario either. I think a year is plenty of time to get both operations done. But, I don't think an extra year would be a problem either.
|
|
|
|
