Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

I suppose having the same mindset as Germany (being ready for War) was not in the books for the Italians. So, I wanted to propose that the Italians should have payed Germany to produce their tanks for them. It would have meant less tanks. Because Italy didn't have the financial means to have great number of tanks.. But, Mussolini must have seen that quality Germany was producing was far superior to the Italian production.

Also the Infantry, "if" they were equipped with as well as the German units (better weapons) their overall performance would have been better. Which could have meant the Germans not having to buoy-up the Italian forces in Africa. Freeing, up German troops for other fronts.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: demyansk

Agree, stay neutral.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status

Really? How about the United States? The USS Yorktown escorting convoys? The Reuban James?

Ships could with questionable cargoes could have loaded/unloaded in Spain, then transferring it to the other side bypassing the Rock.

Some of that cargo could have been used by Italy so how can the British tell?

Would Britain want to antagonize Italy into going to war and being perceived as an aggressor nation by the US? If Britain did antagonize Italy into going to war, then what would have stopped Italy from having an immediate air/sea invasion of the Rock as well as Malta?

BTW, Spain was doing some but not all of that.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs would the War outcome been significantly different?

My, answer is Yes! the war may have actually been won by the axis side. In the least, it would have carried on for some years more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status

Really? How about the United States? The USS Yorktown escorting convoys? The Reuban James?

Ships could with questionable cargoes could have loaded/unloaded in Spain, then transferring it to the other side bypassing the Rock.

Some of that cargo could have been used by Italy so how can the British tell?

Would Britain want to antagonize Italy into going to war and being perceived as an aggressor nation by the US? If Britain did antagonize Italy into going to war, then what would have stopped Italy from having an immediate air/sea invasion of the Rock as well as Malta?

BTW, Spain was doing some but not all of that.

warspite1

Really? Yes really - unless we are talking about different things I don't understand where you are coming from.

Are you comparing the USA with Italy? The USA were assisting the British as much as Roosevelt could - whereas Italy was a member of the Pact of Steel that bordered Germany. I don't know what Yorktown or Reuben James has to do with the point of whether the British would allow unrestricted imports to Italy by sea.
The USS Yorktown and its escorts violated the US Neutrality act by escorting British convoys. That was against US Law.
The Reuban James was harassing a U-Boat - which then launched torpedoes and the Reuban James sank. Said harassment was an act of war. It was US policy under Roosevelt to do so.
There were many other instances of the US violation of the Neutrality Act which could have constituted acts of war. That would not have sat well with the US public.

Re Spain, yes there was some export of goods to Germany (through France) but do you know of the diplomatic pressure that was put on Spain not to ally with Germany by both the British and US?
True, Spain did not ally with Germany. But the Spanish Blue divisions did serve on the Eastern front, U-Boats were rearmed and refueled in Spain.

How would the British know? You were talking of flocks of Kates and Emilys.... Yes, I think they'd know, not to mention intelligence and Ultra. And YES Italy (and Spain) acting like would not be the actions of a neutral country. Ships coming from Japan would not be allowed to simply enter Spain or go through Suez or Gib unchecked.
Those were aircraft of types that the Germans either did not have or have enough of. Plans, tools, dies, and a few examples were all that would have been needed. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Japan might but probably would not have sent them that way. Of course, the items for the Kates could have been sent before the war.

You think Italy had the capability to seize Malta - and Gibraltar?
Yes, by surprise. It has been discussed elsewhere but think of it happening within minutes of the declaration of war. A ship or three disembarking highly trained soldiers right onto the docks . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The USS Yorktown and its escorts violated the US Neutrality act by escorting British convoys. That was against US Law.

The Reuban James was harassing a U-Boat - which then launched torpedoes and the Reuban James sank. Said harassment was an act of war. It was US policy under Roosevelt to do so.

There were many other instances of the US violation of the Neutrality ACt which could have constituted acts of war. That would not have sat well with the US public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But the Spanish Blue divisions did serve on the Eastern front

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
U-Boats were rearmed and refueled in Spain

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Those were aircraft of types that the Germans either did not have or have enough of. Plans, tools, dies, and a few examples were all that would have been needed. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Japan might but probably would not have sent them that way. Of course, the items for the Kates could have been sent before the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, Italy could have pulled what the Germans did for Norway, ships loaded with troops. A passenger steamer with apparent civilians to be seen while soldiers in uniform get ready to disembark. Seize the dock area while a passenger plane or three is landing with soldiers on board to grab an airport while more aircraft are getting ready to land. If done at done at night, there already could be "tourists" landed going to prepositioned weapons, ammunition, uniforms, and other supplies needed to then take predetermined objectives.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

I was referring to Both the Germans and Italians. If the Germans could have held back an not given signals it was ready for war. In other words disguise their intentions. England, Russia, France, would have no fear thus no ramp-up for war policy from those three.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?

I was referring to Both the Germans and Italians. If the Germans could have held back an not given signals it was ready for war. In other words disguise their intentions. England, Russia, France, would have no fear thus no ramp-up for war policy from those three.

warspite1

I understand your point about the British and French not ramping up as much. After all neither wanted war and, as leaders of democracies, they had to balance the books and unlimited spending on the military wasn't ever an option. BUT....

....and there is a big but (and for the purposes of the debate we'll ignore that waiting was simply not possible for Hitler). The Germans couldn't simply sit around for a year spending more and more on their armed forces. The economy could not be ignored even by Hitler. He had to pay for the resources that the military spending was using up, and he could not afford to turn off production of consumer goods without risking severe internal unrest. All this continued activity isn't going to go unnoticed in London, Paris, Moscow and Warsaw and they are not going to stop their own re-armament plans - remember, Munich has happened, Hitler goals are clear - even if Allied re-armament is not as ramped up as it would have been.

And as said, Germany can't do all this and spend money, time and most importantly resource on Italy.

I think Hitler waiting (even if it was in that man's DNA) would not have served Germany much (if any) better than going to war in 1939. At the very least, the RN would be stronger, the French air force would be stronger and both the French and British armies would also be in a better position (although quite how much is difficult to say).

quote:

warspite1

I understand your point about the British and French not ramping up as much. After all neither wanted war and, as leaders of democracies, they had to balance the books and unlimited spending on the military wasn't ever an option. BUT....

....and there is a big but (and for the purposes of the debate we'll ignore that waiting was simply not possible for Hitler). The Germans couldn't simply sit around for a year spending more and more on their armed forces. The economy could not be ignored even by Hitler. He had to pay for the resources that the military spending was using up, and he could not afford to turn off production of consumer goods without risking severe internal unrest. All this continued activity isn't going to go unnoticed in London, Paris, Moscow and Warsaw and they are not going to stop their own re-armament plans - remember, Munich has happened, Hitler goals are clear - even if Allied re-armament is not as ramped up as it would have been.

And as said, Germany can't do all this and spend money, time and most importantly resource on Italy.

I think Hitler waiting (even if it was in that man's DNA) would not have served Germany much (if any) better than going to war in 1939. At the very least, the RN would be stronger, the French air force would be stronger and both the French and British armies would also be in a better position (although quite how much is difficult to say).

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs would the War outcome been significantly different?

My, answer is Yes! the war may have actually been won by the axis side. In the least, it would have carried on for some years more.

quote:

uote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

quote:

uote:

ORIGINAL: nicwb

There are actually a lot of arguments in favour of the idea that Hitler committed far too early

warspite1

The production ramping up in 1943 includes the resources plundered from conquered countries, the moving of the economy to a total war footing and of course masses of slave labour.

To suggest that Hitler had time to play with is against everything I've ever read and so I'd be very interested to see a source or two for that. Can you let me know of any books/authors you have read that have expressed that point of view please?

Many thanks.

In respect to the German economy and Hitler's opportunism I would suggest Prof Richard Evans "The Third Reich in Power" and the "Third Reich at War" -they are not fully on topic but do cover the economic situation well. In the run up to the war Germany was essentially in real difficulties financing rearmament. Once they solved that the problem became man power shortages (and this is before the war). Mobilisation only made the shortages more acute.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805