WI: Pro - Axis Greece??

[NOMISYRRUC]

Malta is interesting though. One of the reasons that Benny attacked Greece was because he needed to do something. Malta fits that bill too. But it's difficult. If we assume that an attack on Malta happens around the same time as Greece was invaded - late October - then this is also the time that Taranto is due to happen.

Any invasion will have to have naval support. The Italian fleet is powerful, with six battleships before Taranto. However only the two modern ones appear to be any good - the Cavours and Andrea Dorias, with 12.6" guns and 11" armour, look decidedly inferior to an R or QE except in terms of speed - and if they're having to defend a beachhead or convoy, that won't come into it much. The deficiencies in the battleships' torpedo defence systems and nightfighting are also well known, as is the ineffectiveness of Italian bombers at this point.

Really, the Italians will have to take Malta quickly before the RN arrives. If not, their fleet will be driven off at best or routed and driven off at worst.

3 of the 6 Italian battleships were put out of action for at least 6 months at Taranto. Therefore assuming that there was no equivalent to the Battle of Mapatan they would have had the Vittorio Vento and 2 old battleships available to support an invasion of Malta in May 1941. They would also have had the 3 cruisers and 2 destroyers that were sunk at Matapan IOTL, but as that battle doesn't happen ITTL they are still afloat in May 1941. However, they might not have enough fuel to deploy all the serviceable warships. So I agree it would probably be a repeat of the Battle of Calabria a year earlier.

However, that does not allow for the Luftwaffe. Fligerkorps VIII decimated the British Mediterranean Fleet during the invasion of Crete:

-3 cruisers and 6 destroyers were sunk;
-The only aircraft carrier, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers were damaged beyond local repair;
-3 cruisers and 6 destroyers were less seriously damaged.

ITTL all the aircraft in Fligerkorps VIII will be sent to reinforce Fligerkorps X in Sicily. It is very likely that the British Mediterranean Fleet will suffer even heavier losses. The Germans will have more aircraft; Malta is further away from Alexandria than Crete so it will be harder to tow the cripples home; and that is if they are not picked off by the Italian Fleet.

 

[pattersonautobody]

If Greece remains neutral or declares war on Great Britain how does that effect Yugoslavia? Does the pro-allied coup still happen? Even if it does are they less of a threat to Hitler's southern flank? Would the Germans still invade?

According to the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers the Germans had 612,000 troops in the Balkans in November 1943, but if both countries were neutral ITTL the men could be fighting on other fronts. Probably Russia where the same source says the Germans had 3.9 million men facing 5.5 million Russians. But they could also have been sent to Italy where there were only 412,000 men, used to man more anti-aircraft guns in Germany or sent back to German industry.

If Greece and Yugoslavia were neutral would the WAllies respect their neutrality. US bombers based in Egypt and later Southern Italy had to fly over their territory to bomb the Romanian oil fields.

I don't know how accurate those numbers are, because if they were it shows how badly Hitler screwed the pooch is declaring war on the US. Many men in the Balkans were used as a deterrent against an Wallied invasion. Without a Wallied deterrent that pits 4.9 million Axis troops against 5.5 million Soviet ones. Being that kill ratios always were in favor of the Axis, it shows that without Wallied support the USSR could not win it alone.

 

[Insider]

It means Yugoslovia is either neutral or more likely pro-Axis. Either way we are talking about a war in the East that is a fair bit tougher for the Soviets from 41 on.

Is it? The Yugoslovia entry to the war wasn't as much because of calculated action, but because of successful military coup.

The Royal Hellenic Navy <snip>

You should add a modern cruiser Elli which was torpedoed by "unknown submarine" in peace time. The unknown submarine was Italian "Delfino" and entire thing was the worst guarded secret of the war.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't know how accurate those numbers are, because if they were it shows how badly Hitler screwed the pooch is declaring war on the US. Many men in the Balkans were used as a deterrent against an Wallied invasion. Without a Wallied deterrent that pits 4.9 million Axis troops against 5.5 million Soviet ones. Being that kill ratios always were in favor of the Axis, it shows that without Wallied support the USSR could not win it alone.

For the record the full figures were:

3,900,000 Eastern Front plus 283,000 Axis-Allied Troops
177,000 Finland
486,000 Norway and Denmark
1,370,000 France & Belgium
612,000 Balkans
412,000 Italy

6,957,000 Total Germans

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Probably not. If the Italians have more transport, then they can push further into Egypt, but this doesn't help them. Their camps were attacked individually by superior armour, likewise. It might make a difference at Beda Fomm though, if they can break through the roadblock before the pursuing forces can catch up. But I suspect that the difficulties of supplying additional forces forward would mean that things would play out similarly.

In June 1940 the Italian garrison of Albania consisted of a corps of 5 divisions one of which was the Centuaro armoured division. By April 1941 it had been expanded into the 9th and 11th Armies, but I don't have the number of divisions.

The sea passage from Italy to Tripoli and Benghazi is longer than Italy to Albania, but I don't see why a significant proportion of the men and material sent to Albania between June 1940 and April 1941 can't be sent to Libya instead.

Furthermore most of the Regia Aeronautica forces used in the Greek Campaign can be sent to Libya or the Dodecanese Islands instead.

Before anybody replies - THE LIBYAN PORTS YOU IDIOT! - How much better were the Albanian ports and inland transport system?

 

[thaddeus]

maybe Greece gets the same treatment Romania got?

a pro-Allied (pro-British) monarch attempts a coup or other actions, territorial concessions forced on them (Bulgaria occupies areas it occupied IOTL) and remaining military government aligns with Axis?

(the areas occupied by Italy would be Axis Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_occupation_of_Greece#/media/File:Triple_Occupation_of_Greece.png)

What about Bulgarian ambitions on the Greek northeastern Agaean coast and Macedonia, as well as Salonika and a possible island in exchange for fighting the Greeks with British, Soviet and Turkish help?

Bulgaria was firmly in Axis camp and Turkey determined to remain neutral unless invaded or war nearly over?

what if Italy remains neutral but does invade Greece from Albania to make territorial "adjustments" maybe including Aegean Islands (again), probably suffer same defeat at hands of Greece?

ITTL Yugoslavia coup and British arrival in Greece occur? Germans invade to protect their oilfields pretty much as IOTL? with Bulgaria occupying pretty much the areas they did.

basically Italy kicked out and a "Vichy Greece"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yugoslavia is going to be surrounded by Axis or Axis friendly territory ITTL with even less chance of British help than IOTL. Perhaps the people who organised the pro-Allied coup IOTL decided that the best thing to do ITTL was to play the "long game."

That is they let the existing government remain in power and allow Yugoslavia to join the Axis. However, they do not declare war on the British Empire and USSR.

They can mount the coup and change sides when the fortunes of the Allies have sufficiently improved. In the meantime they can strengthen their defences.

 

[thaddeus]

Yugoslavia is going to be surrounded by Axis or Axis friendly territory ITTL with even less chance of British help than IOTL. Perhaps the people who organised the pro-Allied coup IOTL decided that the best thing to do ITTL was to play the "long game."

if Germany moves into Greece BEFORE coup yes, but I was speculating before and in fact would be additional reason for Germans to move.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

if Germany moves into Greece BEFORE coup yes, but I was speculating before and in fact would be additional reason for Germans to move.

My post was on the basis of points A and B in the thread. That is Greece is a neutral country friendly to the Axis or Greece declares war on the British Empire in October 1940 instead of being attacked by Italy.

I think it's more likely that Greece would remain neutral and in the long term that would suit the Germans best.

 

[King Augeas]

ITTL all the aircraft in Fligerkorps VIII will be sent to reinforce Fligerkorps X in Sicily.

You're presuming an attack in Spring 1941, but that isn't set in stone.

Italy invaded Greece in late October, partially as a response to German intrusion into Italy's perceived sphere of influence. Hence, if Mussolini decides against invading Greece, then the need to do something to show that Italy isn't just a useless dead weight in the Axis remains, and hence Malta in October-November is a reasonable alternative. In this case, it is likely that no Luftwaffe support is available, as Fligerkorps X didn't arrive in Sicily until early December 1940.

 

[thaddeus]

My post was on the basis of points A and B in the thread. That is Greece is a neutral country friendly to the Axis or Greece declares war on the British Empire in October 1940 instead of being attacked by Italy.

I think it's more likely that Greece would remain neutral and in the long term that would suit the Germans best.

agree that would suit Germans best but they had three allies with designs on Greek territory (Italy, Bulgaria and putative ally Yugoslavia)

difficult to see Italy not invading if they are in Axis (i.e. at war), but it was fairly close decision on Italy becoming involved in war? (a neutral Italy preserves neutral Greece)

of course if Italy is neutral (albeit friendly to Axis) it leaves British free to attempt move on oilfields of Romania. which would have to be from Greece or Turkey?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

agree that would suit Germans best but they had three allies with designs on Greek territory (Italy, Bulgaria and putative ally Yugoslavia)

difficult to see Italy not invading if they are in Axis (i.e. at war), but it was fairly close decision on Italy becoming involved in war? (a neutral Italy preserves neutral Greece)

of course if Italy is neutral (albeit friendly to Axis) it leaves British free to attempt move on oilfields of Romania. which would have to be from Greece or Turkey?

I think Benny would have been better off using the resources expended in the war with Greece to reinforce Libya. He won't be able to send all of them due to the longer sea passage, but if he can first sent all the RA units and then transport and artillery to support the army the first British offensive will have less chance of succeeding (but if it still does they loose even more precious trucks, artillery pieces and trained specialised personnel).

I know next to nothing about Greek-Italian and Greek-German relations between the world wars. However, I doubt that the Greeks would want to be allied with the Italians in the first place due to the Corfu Incident and Italy's possession of the Dodecanese Islands.

Even if their government was Axis-friendly I the reason why they would remain neutral rather than declaring war on the British Empire is that there wasn't enough in it for them.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You're presuming an attack in Spring 1941, but that isn't set in stone.

Italy invaded Greece in late October, partially as a response to German intrusion into Italy's perceived sphere of influence. Hence, if Mussolini decides against invading Greece, then the need to do something to show that Italy isn't just a useless dead weight in the Axis remains, and hence Malta in October-November is a reasonable alternative. In this case, it is likely that no Luftwaffe support is available, as Fligerkorps X didn't arrive in Sicily until early December 1940.

Yes I am. It isn't set in stone, but if I was Mussolini I would have used the forces used to invade Greece to strengthen the forces in Libya for the projected invasion of Egypt.

In spite of all the logistical difficulties of getting them to Libya, the ports and the transport infrastructure the British only had about 80,000 men in Egypt, Palestine and the Sudan in June 1940. The RAF and SAAF only had 29 squadrons with about 300 aircraft for the whole of the Middle East and Mediterranean. By the end of the year that had only increased to 41 squadrons, although ITTL 4 of them would not have been in Greece.

I'm not saying that the Italians would be able to take Egypt if they had concentrated on that front, but it is a lot less likely that the British offensive would have been such a spectacular success, if they had attempted it in the first place.

 

[Insider]

agree that would suit Germans best but they had three allies with designs on Greek territory (Italy, Bulgaria and putative ally Yugoslavia).
If Yugoslavia does it's crazy volta in 1941, Germans can sate their allies. Greece would get Macedonia. Bulgaria and Hungary would divide eastern parts of OTL Serbia. Italy would expand into OTL Slovenia and ancient Illiria, vasalise Montenegro. Chroats would rule the rump state, guided by german overseer.

difficult to see Italy not invading if they are in Axis (i.e. at war), but it was fairly close decision on Italy becoming involved in war? (a neutral Italy preserves neutral Greece)
They just in war with the biggest empire on Earth. Surely they could easily spare money, troops and equipment to attack neutral neighbour possesing nothing precious. Did Benny did drugs or Rome still has those lead water pipes?
of course if Italy is neutral (albeit friendly to Axis) it leaves British free to attempt move on oilfields of Romania. which would have to be from Greece or Turkey?

I no next to nothing about Greek-Italian and Greek-German relations between the world wars. However, I doubt that the Greeks would want to be allied with the Italians in the first place due to the Corfu Incident and Italy's possession of the Dodecanese Islands.

The relations with Italy weren't bad. 4 of Greek destroyers, and Elli were Italy-made. Their army armored regiment had some Italian tiny tanks. Italians wouldn't arm their neighbour whom they planed to invade?

They woudn't, right?

The Dodecanese would be surely a sore point, but the longer Italy keeps them, the fewer voices would complain. The Greeko-Italian relations don't have to be rosy. But there is a lot of intermediate types of diplomatic relations between "an ethernal alliance" and "war"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The relations with Italy weren't bad. 4 of Greek destroyers, and Elli were Italy-made. Their army armored regiment had some Italian tiny tanks. Italians wouldn't arm their neighbour whom they planed to invade?

They woudn't, right?

There's nowt so queer as folk. [Translation: There is nothing more strange than human beings.]

AKAIK the invasion of Greece was a spur of the moment decision, much like the declaration of war on France and the British Empire in June 1940.

Again AFAIK Italy was desperate for raw materials. It's Government would sell arms to anyone for the foreign currency it needed to buy raw materials or directly barter arms for raw materials. For example earlier in 1940 Caprioni had sold hundreds of aircraft to the British, but the war began before any were delivered. There was also a huge arms deal with Sweden in 1940 which included the sale of 4 destroyers and over 100 aircraft.

 

[MattII]

If the Italians don't attack Greece it allows them to concentrate on Libya. Would that prevent the British from taking Cyrencia in 1941?

Given they got their asses handed to them OTL, no, though it may slow them down slightly.

If anything it would allow the invasion of Malta.

Unless the British have reinforced it by this point, at which point it's Crete 2.0, with the added disadvantage that the British aren't withdrawing because they don't have anywhere to withdraw to.

Although that isn't a large force, the British Mediterranean Fleet would still miss the support it provided. Cunningham was always short of destroyers. For example he only had 20 destroyers in June 1940. According to Roskill the Queen Elisabeth and Valiant should have been at sea escorting a Malta convoy when they were sunk by Italian human torpedoes, but they had to remain in harbour for want of destroyers to screen them.

Possibly almost made up for by the ships the British wouldn't lose supporting the troops on Crete.

ITTL all the aircraft in Fligerkorps VIII will be sent to reinforce Fligerkorps X in Sicily. It is very likely that the British Mediterranean Fleet will suffer even heavier losses. The Germans will have more aircraft; Malta is further away from Alexandria than Crete so it will be harder to tow the cripples home; and that is if they are not picked off by the Italian Fleet.

However, you're attacking a small, heavily fortified island garrisoned by prepared troops, not a large, lightly fortified one garrisoned by a mismatch of troops that were somewhat hastily evacuated and are thus missing significant quantities of equipment. You might make it with an amphibious assault, but a parachute one will get chopped to pieces.

In June 1940 the Italian garrison of Albania consisted of a corps of 5 divisions one of which was the Centuaro armoured division. By April 1941 it had been expanded into the 9th and 11th Armies, but I don't have the number of divisions.

The sea passage from Italy to Tripoli and Benghazi is longer than Italy to Albania, but I don't see why a significant proportion of the men and material sent to Albania between June 1940 and April 1941 can't be sent to Libya instead.

Furthermore most of the Regia Aeronautica forces used in the Greek Campaign can be sent to Libya or the Dodecanese Islands instead.

Before anybody replies - THE LIBYAN PORTS YOU IDIOT! - How much better were the Albanian ports and inland transport system?

Two parts:
1) The Italian port capacity was already near its maximum, so unloading more troops means those troops will be even less prepared than the ones already there.
2) The British beat the Italians to a pulp in Compass with 1/4 the troops, less than 1/10 the guns, probably a similar number of tanks (Italian numbers list Tankettes, which don't really count), and not quite 1/2 the aircraft. And that was a force they were already struggling to supply.

I'm not saying that the Italians would be able to take Egypt if they had concentrated on that front, but it is a lot less likely that the British offensive would have been such a spectacular success, if they had attempted it in the first place.

Until the British deploy Matilda IIs, against which only Heavy AA guns have any effect. Oh maybe some extra aircraft could help, but again, logistical issues come up if you try to force more in.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Matt I wish you'd read my posts properly before commenting on them.

 

[MattII]

I did. That you actually denounce the biggest limiter on troop numbers as being unimportant is no fault of mine. Let me put it simply: you can't put more troops into North Africa on the Libyan port capacity and expect them to do better, simply because they were struggling with the number of troops they actually had there. It might actually be better to put in fewer troops, so they can be better supplied.

 

[Romanos]

Some points to consider:

• 1. After 1913, Greece had no territorial ambitions to its North. No one was desiring any portion of Yugoslavia or Bulgaria.
  
• 2. After 1923, Greece had no territorial ambitions on Turkey.
  
• 3. There can be no realistic pro-Axis neutrality for Greece. It is either strict neutrality (which lasted OTL until the Italian ultimatum), or open pro-British policy. Even the most ardent Germanophile systemic players in the country (including the King, the Royal Family, Metaxas etc), when forced by circumstance, changed the latter over the former. The Royal Navy dominating the Mediterranean, there would be no sparing Greece should it choose to side with the Axis and provided it with supply routes, raw materials and other military concessions. Therefore, unless and until the Germans reach Cairo or Moscow, Greece will choose the Brits over the Germans in almost any plausible scenario.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some points to consider:

• 1. After 1913, Greece had no territorial ambitions to its North. No one was desiring any portion of Yugoslavia or Bulgaria.
• 2. After 1923, Greece had no territorial ambitions on Turkey.
• 3. There can be no realistic pro-Axis neutrality for Greece. It is either strict neutrality (which lasted OTL until the Italian ultimatum), or open pro-British policy. Even the most ardent Germanophile systemic players in the country (including the King, the Royal Family, Metaxas etc), when forced by circumstance, changed the latter over the former. The Royal Navy dominating the Mediterranean, there would be no sparing Greece should it choose to side with the Axis and provided it with supply routes, raw materials and other military concessions. Therefore, unless and until the Germans reach Cairo or Moscow, Greece will choose the Brits over the Germans in almost any plausible scenario.

I agree. The Greek Government wouldn't join the Axis because there's nothing in it for Greece.

However, if Greece did declare war on the British Empire in 1940 and that led to the Axis performing better in the Mediterranean to the middle of 1941 might it create a domino effect? Something like:

1) Greece declares war on the British Empire;
2) The Yugoslav coup doesn't happen because the plotters realise that it would precipitate a German invasion that Yugoslavia had no chance of defeating. Furthermore the country was totally isolated and there was absolutely nil chance of outside help;
3) The Iraqi Revolt was happening at about the same time. ITTL might there be a wider Arab Revolt against the British in the Middle East. Crucially in Egypt?
4) Then at the other end of the Mediterranean Franco might be encouraged to declare war on the British Empire if it looks as if the British position in the Middle East and Mediterranean is on the verge of collapse.

Though having said that Yugoslavia was virtually isolated IOTL and there was virtually nil chance of them receiving help from the British and Greeks but the coup still happened. Furthermore after Rommel "liberated" Cyrencia and the Germans invaded Yugoslavia and Greece the British position in the Middle East and Mediterranean seemed to be on the point of collapse, but the Egyptians didn't revolt against the British and Franco kept Spain neutral. Therefore it would probably take a lot more than Greece and Yugoslavia joining the Axis to encourage Egypt and Spain to follow suit.