WI: Germany Doesn't Aid Italy in the Balkans

[Grimm Reaper]

One has to wonder how French North Africa would respond once the British have seized Libya and destroyed the Italian Navy, probably followed by landing on Sardinia or Sicily(or both).

Not to mention Greece as an actual British ally in Europe and Albania freed.

Given the rugged terrain in northern Greece, plus a few divisions the Brits can spare AFTER taking Libya(perhaps a corps of 4 divisions?), plus British arms to Greece along the lines of many anti-tank guns and air support, it would likely take 20-25 German divisions to have a chance at victory.

And with neutral Yugoslavia as a shield, except this Yugoslavia has had a year or more to get into better military shape...

Historical note: The bulk of the Greek Army was tied down in Albania when Hitler attacked, something 15 divisons of men.

Interesting to consider Italy being forced to sue for peace due to Mussolini's overthrow. Would it help the British, perhaps convincing Turkey or French North Africa to join up, or would it help Hitler on the grounds that now the British can't achieve anything without going head to head with the Wehrmacht?

 

[benedict XVII]

One has to wonder how French North Africa would respond once the British have seized Libya and destroyed the Italian Navy, probably followed by landing on Sardinia or Sicily(or both).

Not to mention Greece as an actual British ally in Europe and Albania freed.

Given the rugged terrain in northern Greece, plus a few divisions the Brits can spare AFTER taking Libya(perhaps a corps of 4 divisions?), plus British arms to Greece along the lines of many anti-tank guns and air support, it would likely take 20-25 German divisions to have a chance at victory.

And with neutral Yugoslavia as a shield, except this Yugoslavia has had a year or more to get into better military shape...

Historical note: The bulk of the Greek Army was tied down in Albania when Hitler attacked, something 15 divisons of men.

Interesting to consider Italy being forced to sue for peace due to Mussolini's overthrow. Would it help the British, perhaps convincing Turkey or French North Africa to join up, or would it help Hitler on the grounds that now the British can't achieve anything without going head to head with the Wehrmacht?

Interesting situation in French Norht Africa indeed. It is now surrounded from all sides, and the precedent in the Levant doesn't bode too well for them. Noguès has a vacillating loyalty, Juin and several generals are in contact with de Gaulle. My best guess is, the colonial government would turn coat within 3 days of an initial attack, bringing about 300,000 additional troops of superior fighting ability (though poorly equipped) to the Free French. De Gaulle would surely push to risk it, and I would think the Brits would not want to give the Germans a chance to get a foothold back in Africa.


You could then send an additional 4-5 Free French divisions to Greece, very well-trained for mountainous warfare! After all, it was the same troops who defeated the Germano-Bulgars in 1918.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Perhaps as a result of the British landing in Corsica, and the likely followup where the French fleet either sails to Gibralter or scuttles itself.

 

[benedict XVII]

Perhaps as a result of the British landing in Corsica, and the likely followup where the French fleet either sails to Gibralter or scuttles itself.

As long as Darlan is Admiral, la Royale will not join the Brits. He had kept too much of a gripe after Catapult / Boomerang.

de Gaulle would insist on liberating Corsica with Free French troops. Would think knocking French North Africa out would be a higher priority, though. Massive propaganda campaign by de Gaulle (which the Brits didn't dare to do in the Levant, Madagascar or Torch, actually - but they won't be impeded by Roosevelt in TTL), Free French attacks on Tunisia and Niger, British bombardment and of Algiers, Oran and Bizerte, with troops diembarking on those 3 points. Everything should be over in 3 days; 2 weeks at most if Vichy generals really stupid because huge desertions of colonial NCO's by that time to the Free French.

 

[Wozza]

1. The cause of the change in the Barbarossa timetable is unclear

2. The effect this has is also unclear.

3. It is arguable whether conquering the USSR is within German capabilities at all

4. It is arguable that the Soviets have enough strength to stop them even so.

5. No clear reason is given for the Japanese to attack Vladivostok.

6. This TL is remarkably similar to that in the alternate history fiction book Hitler Has Won. A mediocre piece of literature, my main memory of which is the one armed German officer hero finding his girlfriend naked with another girl "and one of those objects one reads about in smutty books."

7. Actually I quite like the Timeline but it is not thought through - you have not said why the Germans change their actions, other than your own hindsight. Nor have you thought through Anglo-American reactions to such a German victory, they will not sit around and wait for the end.

 

[Deflare]

1. The cause of the change in the Barbarossa timetable is unclear

I was taught that the delay of the invasion was caused by Germany's distraction in the Balkans, trying to support Mussolini's position in Greece. Using this assumption, I had Germany be more concerned with the upcoming invasion and leave Italy to its fate.

2. The effect this has is also unclear.

In OTL, the German advance wasn't stopped until December, when winter and Soviet mobilization brought the German advance to a halt in the suburbs of Moscow. With another month of movement before winter set in, it seems possible to me that the Germans could have at least encircled Moscow before winter made further advance impossible. The rest of the timeline is based on the German capture of the Soviet capital.

3. It is arguable whether conquering the USSR is within German capabilities at all

Granted. However, without Moscow, the Soviet task would have been made much more difficult; with a little luck on the part of the Germans, conquest could have been possible.

4. It is arguable that the Soviets have enough strength to stop them even so.

The Soviets still had a lot of manpower left, it's true. However, that strength is useless if it can't get to the front. Moscow was a transportation hub; the Soviet war-making capacity would have been greatly harmed by its capture.

5. No clear reason is given for the Japanese to attack Vladivostok.

In OTL, the Japanese were planning to move in one of two directions: East against the US, or north against the USSR. With Germany in control of Moscow and the Soviets apparently knocked off-balance, the Japanese may have decided that they should glean what they can from the falling giant, rather than take on the sleeping giant of the USA. That the Japanese were going to attack somebody is not in doubt; in this case, they may have decided to stay on their side of the Pacific.

6. This TL is remarkably similar to that in the alternate history fiction book Hitler Has Won. A mediocre piece of literature, my main memory of which is the one armed German officer hero finding his girlfriend naked with another girl "and one of those objects one reads about in smutty books."

Never heard of it; my AH literature experience consists mostly of Turtledove and a few other authors.

7. Actually I quite like the Timeline but it is not thought through - you have not said why the Germans change their actions, other than your own hindsight. Nor have you thought through Anglo-American reactions to such a German victory, they will not sit around and wait for the end.

I'm not an expert on history; I'm only a kid with a passing interest. I'm sure there are others who could look at the thoughts and actions of the German leadership and determine why they made the decisions they did and how they could change. I, however, do not have the patience or resources for this. Instead, I will use a change in decisions and run with it, without worrying about the cause of that change.

I'll admit, I didn't think much about what the British would do. Save some miracle in Italy in the form of competent military leaders taking over in Greece, it seems that the Italians would have been driven out of the Balkans, causing the peninsula to become a base for the British, who may try to drive into Germany's belly through the southern Axis members. This course would also have caused the Italian effort in North Africa to collapse. Yugoslavia would likely have remained neutral, to serve as a shield against direct invasion of Germany; would Bulgaria and Romania have been able to hold back the British? I don't know; I also don't know if the Germans would have the strength to help them if necessary while continuing the war against Russia.

Britain may have decided to invade and occupy Italy. Historically, this caused Mussolini to be overthrown; with the Wehrmacht tied up in Russia, Germany may not have been able to take over as it did historically. Would this have been a great loss? Vichy France was still neutral, as was Switzerland; the only method Britain would have had to invade Germany would be through the Alps. Germany may have been capable of holding that route with a few divisions- after all, the Alps aren't very easy to invade through.

In this altered scenario, my timeline would have to be bumped ahead up to a year while Germany cleans up in Europe. However, I think the gist of the TL is still possible.

 

[Wozza]

I'm not an expert on history; I'm only a kid with a passing interest. I'm sure there are others who could look at the thoughts and actions of the German leadership and determine why they made the decisions they did and how they could change. I, however, do not have the patience or resources for this. Instead, I will use a change in decisions and run with it, without worrying about the cause of that change.

The great thing is you do not need to be an expert on history!
However you should be able to think things through and apply some critical thinking to what you here - you do not need to be a genius and/or a walking encyclopedia, you just need to be very sceptical about everything you read.

Example:
The importance of the Balkan campaign as a cause of the failure of Barbarossa tends to be discounted these days. However, what is far more interesting is the origin of this myth - German generals who had nothing better to do after the war than comment on how the Fuhrer was an amateur and all the great things they could have achieved. A lot of timelines - e.g. "no Dunkirk halt order" have a similar origin.

What these generals are not telling you about of course is their own errors, the logistic weakenesses of the German army and the skills of their opponents.

People say the winners write history - not for world war II.


Plenty of timelines on here are not particularly plausible, I'm just naturally picky about these things and no offence is intended.

 

[Deflare]

The main problem with being skeptical about everything you hear/read, of course, is that you never gain any information because you don't believe any of it.

It seemed logical to me that the redirection of a number of divisions into the Balkans would have delayed their use in Barbarossa, which needed every man available. It seems strange to me to think that it didn't have an effect in delaying the invasion.

Admittedly, the premise of the TL was mainly "What if Barbarossa had started earlier and taken Moscow?" more than anything else.

 

[Faeelin]

In OTL, the Japanese were planning to move in one of two directions: East against the US, or north against the USSR. With Germany in control of Moscow and the Soviets apparently knocked off-balance, the Japanese may have decided that they should glean what they can from the falling giant, rather than take on the sleeping giant of the USA. That the Japanese were going to attack somebody is not in doubt; in this case, they may have decided to stay on their side of the Pacific.

Consider, if you would, the motivations for the attack on Pearl Harbor: To neutralize the US while the Japanese grabbed oil supplies.

There's oil in Siberia; but it's not really being exploited at this point, and is not on the Pacific Rim in anywhere near the quantities the Japanese need.

So, how does attacking Siberia help the Japanese?

 

[LordKalvan]

People say the winners write history - not for world war II.

This might have been written as a joke, but it is not even a funny one.
If there is a war which has been described and interpreted by professional apologists and propagandists according to four [sorry, make it 6 or 7. But the major ones are 4] different political agendas, that is WW2.

Maybe in 200 or 300 years time a serious researcher will de-bunk all the propaganda on which we have been engorging for almost 7 decades.

 

[Deflare]

Consider, if you would, the motivations for the attack on Pearl Harbor: To neutralize the US while the Japanese grabbed oil supplies.

There's oil in Siberia; but it's not really being exploited at this point, and is not on the Pacific Rim in anywhere near the quantities the Japanese need.

So, how does attacking Siberia help the Japanese?

Note that Japan is also going after SE Asia, which was the real objective of the December 7th operations; that's where the oil is. The push into Siberia would have essentially consisted of the Japanese gleaning what they could from the crumbling giant; my understanding is that there are vast resources in Siberia that could keep Japanese factories satisfied for material for years.

In addition, striking against the Soviets makes Japan look good to the Germans, who, in this scenario, look like they're about to become the greatest power on Earth. The Japanese leaders may have considered it a good idea to get into Germany's good graces before it was too late... not to mention get some buffer territory between the aggressive Germans and the Home Islands.

With all these factors in place, the Japanese leadership may have been persuaded that irritating the US was a tremendously bad idea for Japan, and so concentrate on their hemisphere- the Soviet Union, like the Russian Empire before it, was a constantly looming threat in all Asian affairs.

 

[Max Sinister]

@Kalvan: Which political agendas are those?

Oh, and one point why Hitler probably wouldn't leave Mussolini alone: Italians also fought in Russia - several divisions. I don't know how much they helped, but I guess with the war in Africa and on the Balcan still going on, Mussolini couldn't send them to Russia.

 

[Wozza]

The main problem with being skeptical about everything you hear/read, of course, is that you never gain any information because you don't believe any of it.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term sceptical.

 

[Wozza]

This might have been written as a joke, but it is not even a funny one.
If there is a war which has been described and interpreted by professional apologists and propagandists according to four [sorry, make it 6 or 7. But the major ones are 4] different political agendas, that is WW2.

Maybe in 200 or 300 years time a serious researcher will de-bunk all the propaganda on which we have been engorging for almost 7 decades.

It is not a joke, it is profoundly if subtlely true.

I do not mean the political side. I mean the military side. For the Eastern Front these have overwhelmingly been histories from the German point of view - as for fourty years the Soviet source material was unavailable.
I suggest you read Manstein's memoirs, you will find them shockingly unrevealing and unoriginal, they have already been used extensively as a source by a vast number of historians.

The German generals' viewpoints were gathered extensively at the end of the war as an intelligence exercise by figures like Liddell Hart and Milton Schulman.
This material has coloured the historiography ever since - as is quite visible on this site, arguably from this very thread.

 

[Deflare]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term sceptical.

Nyet, I understand the word skeptical quite well in this context- it means you are wary of using something as a source until it is supported. However, if we are to read everything skeptically, what evidence can we take as support? What is the baseline? How do we know that we're seeing the truth?

We don't. All we can do is go with the claims most repeated and consistent. Again, I'm not a historian; I don't read much on history outside of school and games. As such, I generally don't try to check and double-check everything I hear about the war; instead, I compare it to my past knowledge and common sense to see if it sounds right.

Using this approach, and using my knowledge of German supply problems and limited strength, it makes sense to me that having to rush divisions and supplies into the Balkans, then having to rush them back up to the Soviet border or establish garrisons in Greece could have significantly delayed Germany's actions. As for Italy- it seems entirely possible that Hitler would decide that taking out the Bolsheviks now was the most important things, and that helping Mussolini get back on his feet could wait till later.

 

[LordKalvan]

@Kalvan: Which political agendas are those?

.

Well, it should be obvious: there are 3 main agendas which come from the winners (USA, URSS, last - and least - UK). The 4th main agenda is promoted and cultivated by the Catholic Church. The 2 lesser agendas are the french and the german ones: with an interesting reversal of roles, since the German agenda is more internationally accepted (and is rocking less the boat) than the French one. There are obvious reasons for it: Germany became immediately more important than France given th less than friendly relations among the winners after the conclusion of the war; so Germany must on one side be the source of all evils (which neatly justifies all the action of the Allies), but at the same time it cannot be punished as they would have deserved if they were as guilty as stated (otherwise no strategic barrier against the divisions of Uncle Joe). Which brings out the legends of the German resistence, and the oh-so-nice-and-useful dychotomy between the Wehrmacht and the Nazi.
Well, I might go on (in particular in terms of the Catholic church agit-props and so on), but it might become quite a long (and possibly sterile) exercise.
It should be enough to say that the world order in 2005 stems out directly from the actions (and the lack of actions ) of the two real winners. And that there cannot be a minority report, promoting a different version.

 

[Earling]

Surfice to say the general view of "Germany would have won the war without Hitler" held by many post the war is false.
But then any view of history is usually political. You can explore what happened, but any attempt to explain why must include the political influences and innate biases of the time.

 

[LordKalvan]

Surfice to say the general view of "Germany would have won the war without Hitler" held by many post the war is false.
But then any view of history is usually political. You can explore what happened, but any attempt to explain why must include the political influences and innate biases of the time.

Quite true. But WW2, the Nazis, the Cold War and so forth up to the last events is portrayed in a way to satisfy the power that be. It is no different from the times of Tacitus: if any, the propaganda machine nowadays is more widespread, much more subtle and professional