A Blunted Sickle - Thread II

[kung Zog]

OK; however, Italy's military is rather weak in comparison to the Soviet military, no?

My take is that the goal for Romania is not to have Italian troops beat an invading USSR army, but rather through the Italian entanglement force a potential conflict to be a outdrawn European conflict. A conflict in which Germany (no chance!) or the Entente might be drawn into. If Italy wasn't there a potential invasion would soon become a fait accompli - Italian troops might give Romania enough time to become a European issue.

It is a desperate attempt at national safety, but better than nothing.

 

[What if]

" the British only abolished their own participation in the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 during the Napoleonic wars."

As opposed to Napoleonic France which brought back slavery?

The point isn't the British were worse but rather as pdf said

And yet his men still followed him, out of loyalty and not compulsion.
.

With the person in question Napoleon and the topic being the Corsican Ogre. There isn't meant to be a border discussion of morality in that time rather pointing out that the Corsican Ogre was exaggerated.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Napoleon isn't a villain figure in history like Hitler or Stalin because his legacy is much more mixed. He betrayed the ideals behind the French Revolution, but those ideals had already been betrayed and paradoxically he also managed to embrace and spread many of them. But in spreading those ideals, he also sparked terrible wars that killed many. He was a gallant leader of men who helped revolutionize warfare... yet also found himself with a Hitlerian level of not knowing when to stop. In sum, when speaking of Napoleon's legacy I'm reminded of that one Communist leader, he was either Chinese or Vietnamese, in the 60s who when asked what he thought about the legacy of the French Revolution said "It's too soon to tell."

 

[naraht]

Also, out of curiosity--does France ever give any parts of French Indochina to Thailand in this TL in order to improve Franco-Thai relations?

No.

 

[Shanghai61]

Part of Italy's problem is that it rearmed earlier than most, so was stuck with a lot of semi-obsolete weaponry - notably its aircraft and armour - that it couldn't afford to replace.

 

[Shanghai61]

Napoleon isn't a villain figure in history like Hitler or Stalin because his legacy is much more mixed. He betrayed the ideals behind the French Revolution, but those ideals had already been betrayed and paradoxically he also managed to embrace and spread many of them. But in spreading those ideals, he also sparked terrible wars that killed many. He was a gallant leader of mem who helped revolutionize warfare... yet also found himself with a Hitlerian level of not knowing when to stop. In sum, when speaking of Napoleon's legacy I'm reminded of that one Communist leader, he was either Chinese or Vietnamese, in the 60s who when asked what he thought about the legacy of the French Revolution said "It's too soon to tell."

It was Mao, and it was a misunderstanding. He was actually referring to the Paris student uprisings in 1968, not to 1792. He took it, not unreasonably, as a question about the influence of his own Cultural Revolution on recent events in Europe.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

It was Mao, and it was a misunderstanding. He was actually referring to the Paris student uprisings in 1968, not to 1792.

This prompted me to check and actually it was Zhao EnLai, not Mao, but you are correct that it appears to be a misunderstanding between Nixon and him. Still, I do feel it's somewhat appropos to the discussion.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Part of Italy's problem is that it rearmed earlier than most, so was stuck with a lot of semi-obsolete weaponry - notably its aircraft and armour - that it couldn't afford to replace.

It's main issues were poor NCOs, daft senior ranks and it's equipment was good on paper poor in reality, a lot of very underpowered engines or weak guns. All coupled with a war most of its population didn't give two shits about.

If they send observers to the western front they can remedy the kit, maybe. If they are attacked it may help boost the popularity of the war. There's also the possibility of the allies sending them engines and weapons in trade if the Soviets attack.

They are pretty much stuck with the NCOs and strategic issues unless they sort themselves out via a long grinding war and a complete change in education and class attitudes.

 

[Shanghai61]

This prompted me to check and actually it was Zhao EnLai, not Mao, but you are correct that it appears to be a misunderstanding between Nixon and him. Still, I do feel it's somewhat appropos to the discussion.

Ah, it was indeed Zhou Enlai. The misunderstanding and its context remain.

 

[lukedalton]

To some extent, this is true. However, there was already evidence of Italy's military weakness during this time--for instance, Italy needed to use chemical weapons to win its war in Ethiopia. Also, Italy had trouble defeating Austria-Hungary in World War I as well as defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1911-1912 and couldn't even defeat Ethiopia back in 1895-1896.

Italian troubles against A-H are called fighting WWI in the second most horrible terrain for offensive present in Europe and the use of chemical weapons on Abyssinia just speed up the process...the real problem was that the place was at the very end of the italian logistical line

Well, yeah, obviously an alliance with Italy would be better than nothing. However, even so, it could end up being temporary--with Britain and France resuming their role as Romania's main allies after the end of World War II.

THe overall problem for this is that Italy, at least, at put troops on the ground while the Entente basically sacrified the Czech and the Poles...meaning that an alliance with them is not the bone that was before the rise of Germany; not only that by historically Italy in this period started to be involved in the Romanian economy but this was stopped by the M-R Pact and the Soviet ultimatum and following German dominance but ITTL the situation is very different and the italian economic penetration will continue. Plus it's very probable that Italy at the moment it's supporting the Polish rebels in the communist occupied part of Poland.

yes, but we only know that in hindsight. At the time no one could have guessed that Italy's military was the paper tiger it was and would have assumed that it could put up a fight.

Would you rather be a target hard enough that the Soviets would have to send a large portion of their army to deal with you, or one they could roll over in a weekend?

Italy in this situation, while still weaker than the URSS still had much less problem than OTL WWII, she is not cut out by the worldwide market, at most she can concentrate all her effort in a single front and this kind of war will be at least more popular than the OTL intervention at the side of Germany (plus the mainland don't fear any type of repercussion in this case as the Soviet don't have this kind of capacity) and the best unit can be sent in Romania where the general climate is less problematic than the desert (tank and aircraft needed anti-sand filter that deteriorate the already non spectacular performances)

 

[pdf27]

Italy in this situation, while still weaker than the URSS still had much less problem than OTL WWII, she is not cut out by the worldwide market, at most she can concentrate all her effort in a single front and this kind of war will be at least more popular than the OTL intervention at the side of Germany (plus the mainland don't fear any type of repercussion in this case as the Soviet don't have this kind of capacity) and the best unit can be sent in Romania where the general climate is less problematic than the desert (tank and aircraft needed anti-sand filter that deteriorate the already non spectacular performances)

The main point about Romania was that Stalin didn't really want a war - he was just grabbing what he could. Get the Italians involved and it's just too big a mouthful to chew on - and the Soviets agree to split the difference with the Italians. This, of course, suits Italy who gets to stay on in-country to "protect" Romania from the Soviets, without having to fight an actual war. The Romanians are less enthusiastic - the Italians are better than the Soviets, but not what they really want...

 

[pjmidd]

Anti-Communisium is a much easier sell to the Italian public as is defending a country rather than a offensive war. Given that neutrality means an economic boom at home and Romania ( and the other Balkan nations ) is not only paying for the support but stroking the Italian ego ,then it will be a popular policy

 

[Graffoset]

Snip

All of this activity on the part of the Germans is indeed only just in time, because in Paris Blanchard gives the final approval for the planned attack towards the Ruhr to be launched by Billotte and Bourret's men at dawn. In fact, he goes further than this and orders Pretelat's men in the south to prepare and carry out an advance as soon as possible. Echoing Foch twenty-two years previously, he finished the staff meeting with the statement “Now is the time. The Boche are on the verge of collapse, and we can finish them. Get everybody into the battle.”

For the ease of proofreading the final version, I presume you meant twenty-three years? Unless Foch was keen for round two in 1919 & I hadn't read about it.

The Winter Ice in the Baltic would be forming in this period (it usually begins from October to November, 1941 was a cold year), I would guess that's changing calculations in Sweden? Oct 1st 1943 was both the date of Allied demands for Sweden to halt the Lejdtrafiken with Germany (implying a perception that Sweden would be relatively safe from German retaliation by that time?) & the day of Hitlers order for the Danish Jews to be rounded up (implying a perception that the window of opportunity to threaten Sweden into non-resistance to that was rapidly closing?).

 

[DrakonFin]

The Winter Ice in the Baltic would be forming in this period (it usually begins from October to November, 1941 was a cold year), I would guess that's changing calculations in Sweden? Oct 1st 1943 was both the date of Allied demands for Sweden to halt the Lejdtrafiken with Germany (implying a perception that Sweden would be relatively safe from German retaliation by that time?) & the day of Hitlers order for the Danish Jews to be rounded up (implying a perception that the window of opportunity to threaten Sweden into non-resistance to that was rapidly closing?).

The winter of '41-'42 was exceptionally severe, to the extent that by February '42 the entire Baltic Sea was frozen - a very rare occurrence. However, seeing as the Gulf of Finland would be entirely frozen only in December, I'd say that the Baltic waters south of Gotland could be used for naval warfare and transporting troops and materials at the very least until late November '41, entirely or partially. On the other hand, I'd definitely say that anything north of Gotland on both the Swedish and Finnish sea areas would be realistically unreachable for the Germans by ship between mid-December '41 and late April '42.

Unless assisted by Union or Soviet icebreakers, of course. But then even with icebreakers, there are definite limits to what you can do.

(Incidentally, while checking sources on this, I came upon the claim that the Germans IOTL thought the winter so severe that they suggested running a narrow-track railway connection from the Estonian coast to Finland over the Gulf of Finland sea ice at this time. The idea was rejected by the Finnish sea ice expert Dr. Risto Jurva as too risky, but it does give us some inkling as to how Berlin saw the situation. IOTL, in fact, Finnish icebreakers were sent south to help the Germans in March and early April. As late as on April 8th '42, German cargo ships needed the help of the icebreaker Sisu around the port of Libau!

Another example of the severe winter is the fact that the Finns IOTL recaptured the island of Suursaari [Hogland] on the Gulf of Finland via an attack across the sea ice as late as the last week of March '42. The operation consisted of 3500 men, most transported to the area by trucks and horses on roads built on the sea ice.)

 

[Cuchulainn]

There were OTL a theory that no nation could resist strategic bombardment, that a few hundred ton of bombs over their cities would force nations to surrender and that the bombers were unstoppable. OTL and ITTL that was proven wrong - Paris, London and Rotterdam were all heavily bombed, yet none of the nations of those cities surrendered..

Didn't OTL Nederlands give it up & flee for foreign shores very shortly following the flattening of Rotterdam by the Luftwaffe ?

 

[avernite]

Didn't OTL Nederlands give it up & flee for foreign shores very shortly following the flattening of Rotterdam by the Luftwaffe ?

Yup. The more proper point, IMO, is that strategic bombardment can work to convince a losing power to give up (see also Japan), not that it makes an otherwise okay-to-fight power suddenly give up.

 

[DrakonFin]

Yup. The more proper point, IMO, is that strategic bombardment can work to convince a losing power to give up (see also Japan), not that it makes an otherwise okay-to-fight power suddenly give up.

The OTL also shows that this might not work. In February 1944 the Soviets tried it on Finland, the idea was to flatten Helsinki with overwhelming force and make Finland see the desperate nature of its position and give up. The result was, due to different reasons (but mostly the success of the Finnish air defence and the less-than-stellar performance of the Soviet ADD), an ignominious failure in terms of the resources used and the results achieved.

 

[von Adler]

For the ease of proofreading the final version, I presume you meant twenty-three years? Unless Foch was keen for round two in 1919 & I hadn't read about it.

The Winter Ice in the Baltic would be forming in this period (it usually begins from October to November, 1941 was a cold year), I would guess that's changing calculations in Sweden? Oct 1st 1943 was both the date of Allied demands for Sweden to halt the Lejdtrafiken with Germany (implying a perception that Sweden would be relatively safe from German retaliation by that time?) & the day of Hitlers order for the Danish Jews to be rounded up (implying a perception that the window of opportunity to threaten Sweden into non-resistance to that was rapidly closing?).

Ledjtrafiken was the three-party deal where Sweden was allowed a certain number of vessels through both the German minefields and the British blockade of the North Sea.

Permitenttrafiken was the name of the deal that OTL allowed the Germans to transport unarmed soldiers on leave heading to Germany or back to Norway through Sweden. The Swedes informed the Germans that they would not allow it anymore on the 31st of July 1943 and the last German travelled through Sweden on the 20th of August 1943.

Maybe you are thinking about the iron ore export, which Sweden cancelled on 31st of October 1944 (the last ship leaving for Germany in October).

 

[naraht]

With Winter Ice in the Baltic, if an order to seize the Danish Jews were given at the coldest part of the Winter, would that affect in either direction the ability for Danish Jews to be evacuated covertly to Sweden? I don't know if the need for icebreakers would make the small ships that did the evacuations impossible to get out of port (or even to the non-port areas where they picked up iOTL) or OTOH, would it be possible for the Danish Jews to cross the channel without boats?

Also, would the cold winter make it easier or more difficult for the Guerilla efforts in Norway?

Note, the removal of Quisling puts Josef Terboven front and center earlier. iOTL, Terboven declared Martial Law in several cities including Oslo, Asker, and Bærum in September of 1941 and Trondheim in October of 1942 (Trondheim's let to the roundup of the Norwegian Jews as well). The Guerilla efforts might be enboldened relative to OTL as well.

 

[Asian Jumbo]

Withdrawal symptoms starting to get REALLY baaaaad.....! Can we have some more please...?