The question to ask about The Italians

[Zovs]

All I am going to say about that is that as the second best tank driver in the platoon, I got the short end of the straw and was the LT's tank driver. I can say I listened more to my gunner the Corporal (name withheld to protect the innocent) and my loader more than I did the LT while driving, he tended to get us into some doozies otherwise...[:D]

Now back the the Italians with PzKw IV's and Mussolini granting Hitler access to Albania via Greece, and Germany invading Spain and Turkey....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!

warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Can we get back to the second question, again?

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?

warspite1

Can you clarify please Zovs old boy?

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Can we get back to the second question, again?

Warspite could you capture that one post you wrote after trying to turn the ship around again?

warspite1

Can you clarify please Zovs old boy?

Yes, at one point you posted a great summation of an outline that described the general hypothetical scenario and asked a great bunch of questions or starting points. I can't recall if it was on page 35, 25 or what, lol.

Anyway, I thought it was a great summary for discussion and you led it off nicely.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay, no point flogging a dead horse so I'll give it one more try to see if there is any interest out there.


I will jot down a Med First counterfactual and would welcome thoughts and insights so that we can come to a consensus on what we think may have been possible (recognising that our knowledge is necessarily limited (we are not historians!) but that, as war gamers with a keen interest in what we play, many of us will have at least some knowledge to impart).

I'll make a start on it and see what, if any, interest it attracts.

The essentials will be:

- Hitler is persuaded to employ a Mediterranean-First strategy to weaken the British (or ideally get them to surrender) before an assault on the Soviet Union is made in the Summer of 1942.

- This plan will involve the taking of Gibraltar and Hitler will be so persuaded by the plan, that he will - as a last resort - even be prepared to invade Spain

- A second prong of this scenario is a declaration of war against Turkey (if she can't be brought into the Axis camp) and thus a pincer move to take Egypt from the west and north.

- Moving Hitler's thinking in this way is a pretty big alteration to reality so I think we need to sensible in terms of trying to ensure we keep other key players in the scenario acting in line with their character. This doesn't mean everyone is hidebound to do what they did in WWII obviously - everyone can react to changing circumstance - but we just need to be sensible.

Hopefully this will be a bit of fun and I would like to think that there are enough war gamers in our community with WWII knowledge that would be happy to join in and give their 2 cents, or GBP 0.02 or Euro 0.02. Probably need 4-5 minimum contributors to make it viable. Who knows? Someone might even make a war game from it [;)]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.

Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

b) it also governs what Hitler may or may not have ordered during his time of indecision after France surrenders.

So that's my thoughts, but what do others think? So when, realistically, do we think Hitler would have had his light-bulb moment? To be clear this is simply when Hitler decides that a Med First solution is to be planned and not when the planning is finalised - that comes next....

warspite1

Okay so I'm going with what I think is the realistic situation. Hitler and his staff have NO thoughts whatsoever in 1939 about Gibraltar. Frankly he has too many more immediate concerns such as the British guarantee to Poland, then getting the NS Pact signed, then taking his biggest gamble to date - Case White.

This goes well and the British and French fail to react. Poland is beaten and, thanks to his 'pact with the devil' Hitler no longer faces a two front war.

But he is impatient. No sooner has Poland fallen than he turns to the not inconsequential matter of defeating France. No hindsight allowed. This is going to be tough and many of his generals think its madness to even try. But Hitler is not waiting around and wants this campaign begun in the autumn.

Again there is no time to be thinking about operations in places he's not even considered. Mussolini refused to join the war, there is no Mediterranean theatre.

Hitler is potentially saved by the weather and the assault on the French doesn't happen. His army was in no state to undertake such an operation so soon after Poland. Then, in early 1940 his attention is taken away by events on his northern flank - and this is brought to a head by the Altmark affair. Hitler prepares to deal swiftly with this problem ahead of the campaign in the west. Again he has no time to be thinking about issues that aren't even on his radar; and given practically no one is expecting a win in France anytime soon, the Mediterranean is not on any one else's mind either.

But... not only does Hitler's audacious move in Scandinavia prove successful, but he throws a double six - repeatedly - in the French campaign. So much so that, after the BEF are removed from the continent and Germany is well into the next phase - Case Red - Mussolini starts to fear he's going to be left out.....

On the 10th June 1940 the Duce takes his country to war. He has no plan, there are no thoughts of quick victories against key targets while he has surprise on his side. His 'thinking' is simply that, the war is essentially over and in order to claim the prizes, he needs to be in the game.

And so now, for the first time, with France being routed and a Mediterranean front opened up, I think its the very earliest opportunity for any consideration to be given to Gibraltar.

But given the personalities involved, given the way Hitler and Mussolini work, what is possible here? (Remember the only key alteration at this point is that Hitler can and will be persuaded to adopt a Med-first strategy. But how, realistically could this have come about?

- When?
- From whom?
- What about Spain?

Remember to that at this point, Italy has simply entered the war and Germany do not yet know what France will do.....So from 10th June 1940 how does the early summer pan out?

[loki100]

You can add more delays to the decision making loop I think.

Not only does the possibility of a Med vs the British Empire strategy emerge in June for the first time there is a secondary question of what will attract Hitler to it.

Or in other words ... what rocked his boat?

In economic terms he wasn't aiming for complete control over the conquered nations (sticking to the West here), but complete subservience to the needs of Germany. Equally, he engaged in very few territorial adjustments. Yes every state was ruled by a sympathetic regime but Stahel's edited book Joining Hitler's Crusade is interesting on the tensions that existed even in the most pro-Nazi parties in the occupied countries and the Germans (& most were governed/administered by more conventional fascist/nationalist right individuals).

Reason for raising this is that conquest of Spain is an odd departure. Ignore Gib it raises the question why? Its not peopled by ethnic groups the Nazis believed should become proper Germans (Scandinavians/Dutch etc), its not a historic foe that its always nice to trample on (France) and its not particularly resource rich (& what is there is tradeable). We know he had hopes of some sort of partnership with the British Empire (clearly with a change of who was the dominant partner) - picking up on German late 19C thinking.

We know he felt that a direct invasion of the UK was the needed step to bring a recalcitrant UK to heel.

So its a huge reframing of the decision to decide the way to bring the UK to heel is via Gibralter (I doubt he played much World in Flames). That sort of process takes time - never mind the need to then turn the idea into military plans.

Or ... to stress, any acceptance of Med first means Hitler is convinced that Gib can be taken and will get the UK where he wants it. He also probably knows that Spain has a long history of tieing down large armies of occupation - and we can assume he's not suddenly decided that Bolshevism is a fun idea and he wants to share the world with Stalin.

So lets assume these decisions are seen to be worth making, are framed, are put together, are converted into operational plans. We are easily into late autumn 1940 - not a good time to invade Spain. So operational delays may well push the whole thing into Spring 1941?

[truch1984]

Thanks a lot for this wonderful information. It was really helpful.

[loki100]

You can add in what floats Mussolini's boat as he is going to have a say.

He had no beef with Franco, as conventional fascists they found much readily in common on an ideological basis.

If Mussolini had a grand strategy (debateable) it was around reclaiming previous Italian dominated regions (& some vague idea of recreating the Roman Empire). Versailles gave Italy some of this - all those odd ex-Venetian enclaves along the Adriatic. He had an obsession with undoing the Italian defeat in Libya in 1919 - this dominated his military actions from say 1923-33 (& he had a large problem holding down a very restive region). His invasion of Ethiopia can be framed as putting right historical wrongs so there is a theme here.

If this came together into some sort of vision, it was Italy as an E/C Med power - Tripoli from France (to repay the historic French power grab there), coastal Yugoslavia, islands, Egypt. The 1940 invasion of Greece was as much about getting control of what had been Venetian/Genoan in the middle ages, whether he aimed for territorial control over mainland Greece after winning is debateable.

I don't think there was any focus on Spain as a target (either the core state or its colonies), so again to turn to Spain as an operational target is a huge shift in decision framing - and, again, these things take time.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: truch1984

Thanks a lot for this wonderful information. It was really helpful.

I think that this spammer is referring to Curtis Lemay . . . [8|]

[RangerJoe]

Actually, Spain would be even more of a liability to the Germans even though some Germans did settle in what is now Spain. Those were the Vandals, and probably others, but the Vandals were the ones invited to attack Rome through North Afrika by the governor there.

But after taking France, German did not have enough fuel for the French agricultural sector and milk spoiled because it was not collected from farms.

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages ... FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamThe ... y_djvu.txt

[Zovs]

Thanks to both Warspite1 and Loki100, these both are very interesting views into this discussion. I need to chew on both of your comments for a few days, not sure I have much to add, but thank you.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Thanks to both Warspite1 and Loki100, these both are very interesting views into this discussion. I need to chew on both of your comments for a few days, not sure I have much to add, but thank you.

The best way to chew on comments is with alphabet pasta:

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Actually, Spain would be even more of a liability to the Germans even though some Germans did settle in what is now Spain. Those were the Vandals, and probably others, but the Vandals were the ones invited to attack Rome through North Afrika by the governor there.

But after taking France, German did not have enough fuel for the French agricultural sector and milk spoiled because it was not collected from farms.

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages ... FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamThe ... y_djvu.txt

Here is a downloadable pdf:

https://ia800102.us.archive.org/14/item ... conomy.pdf

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Apparently it was for the Germans!

No, not necessarily.

Just to summarize, are you suggesting that the German invasion of Greece was supplied through Albania?

Not at all. In fact, I expect the German rail head was much further back into Yugoslavia - which they had just blitzed through. And, let's note that the Greeks had a rail line - all the way to their northern border.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So can you give me some (quality) sources that call Sweden, Spain and Vichy France German allies please?

For Vichy France, I did: Petain was sentenced to life, and his cronies were labeled collaborators.

Once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Fourth Request

Where would I have needed to? Are you seriously claiming that there is no difference between members of the Axis who have not entered the war, and those that have? Japan is an Axis Ally (large "A") once she signs into the alliance. She doesn't, historically, become a belligerent till 12/7/1941. Same with Italy: Ally upon signing up. Belligerent upon invading France.

You remain so desperate to justify your vile insult. Here's a suggestion: Stop hurling insults!!!!!!!!!!

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Apparently it was for the Germans!

No, not necessarily.

Just to summarize, are you suggesting that the German invasion of Greece was supplied through Albania?

Not at all. In fact, I expect the German rail head was much further back into Yugoslavia - which they had just blitzed through. And, let's note that the Greeks had a rail line - all the way to their northern border.

The Germans were very short of rolling stock and I don't think that capturing Western Europe completely fixed that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

It has been explained to you that Franco could have turned to both the Commonwealth and the Americas. There would never be a Vichy Spain since Vichy is in France and the Spanish government would not relocate there.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?



Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.



Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.



Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.