1943 US/UK launch invasion of the Balkans

Whatever the case, We tied down an entire German division in Greece by making the Germans think we were going to invade the Balkans.

Quite. Whatever the case, we are not discussing Operation Mincemeat. We are discussing "What if the Allies had Invaded the Balkans". In this scenario, there would be no attempt to draw German forces into the Balkans. Mincemeat would have been different, and thus has absolutely no bearing upon the original post.
 
Germany wasn't "beginning to collapse" in late 43. Their strategic situation didn't fall apart until the double blow of Overlord and Bagration in June of 1944, and even then the Wehrmarcht remained a cohesive fighting force until the last weeks of the war.

An invasion of the Balkans would accomplish very little IMO: for one thing it would give the allies responsabilities for dozens of petty ethnic disputes which the soviets could exploit in a post-war scenario. Such an invasion is very risky and likely to fail; note that there aren't many times Europe has been successfully invaded through the Balkan route (the Ottomans managed a couple of times, but that's all I can think of). Add to all that the Balkans were a massive sink for German resources to fight the Partisans and guard against invasion feints.
 
To get back to the original post:

I see an invasion of Greece, and possibly Albania, to be the best option.

Hopefully, the Italian forces in the area will fight with the Allies, against the Germans. A thrust north into southern Yugoslavia (now Macedonia) could link with Tito's partisans giving the Axis even more headaches.

IIRC, Bulgaria had annexed swathes of Macedonia, and the Allies will probably be on 'Bulgarian' soil. This could see the government in Sofia toppled by pro-allied factions, or simply switch sides.

It may also be possible to keep more of Europe out of the USSR's sphere of influence. If the Balkan front is going well by Yalta, the US and UK could be less accomodating of Stalin.

That might keep Hungary out of the Warsaw Pact. There's a possibility of Prague, but I can see a Soviet Slovakia as a counterweight.

So, IMHO: Bulgaria, Hungary and possibly Bohemia and Moravia (OTL Czech Republic) could be 'western'.

In my mind, Tito will likely decide what happens in Yugoslavia (as long as the invasion is after the Tehran conference), regardless of what the Big Three may have planned.

IMHO I really think any invasion of Greece would be a horrible idea for the Allies. I wouldn't want to be the general in charge of attacking a country that looked like this:

greece.jpg


It's my belief that invading Greece would end up being another sideshow for the European theater, much like the Italian front was in OTL. Which is sad, because I think a successful invasion of the Balkans would be an excellent idea when we think about the encroaching Cold War.

Would Tito's partisans fight with the West? AFAIK they were supplied by the Soviets and Communist-allied organizations. I'd be afraid that the Americans and British would be forced to get involved in the Tito-Chetnik bloodletting, which would both slow down the invasion and be a big headache for the Allies.
 

Markus

Banned
A few weeks ago I finished "The Fall of Greece" by K.H. Golla. The road net was really, really bad. It was a major PITA for the Germans, imagine the problems the Allies with their higher demand of everything are going to face.

northern Italy->Slowenia/Croatia->Hungary->Austria is geographically far less complicated and closer to Germany.

edit: Tito got almost everything from the west. The USSR did not have much and was hardly next door. The west had and was.
 
It may also be possible to keep more of Europe out of the USSR's sphere of influence. If the Balkan front is going well by Yalta, the US and UK could be less accomodating of Stalin.

That might keep Hungary out of the Warsaw Pact. There's a possibility of Prague, but I can see a Soviet Slovakia as a counterweight.

So, IMHO: Bulgaria, Hungary and possibly Bohemia and Moravia (OTL Czech Republic) could be 'western'.
You guys are repeatedly making the same mistake called "post-knowledge". The way Allies saw it before Summer 1945 (1st nuclear test), they will need numerous and ferocious Red Army to fight fanatical Japanese, entrenched all over Pacific. Losses were estimated in millions, and West was anxious to make to so Soviets will bear brunt of the Japanese defensive fanaticism. Churchill and Roosevelt were not weak-kneed liberals who sold Eastern Europeans to Stalin for peanuts, they were cold calculating SOBs willing to sell Polacks and Gypsies to Stalin to save WASP lives. Your plans to cut Soviet from EE by attacking Germans from South will bring two immediate results: (1) force Allies to fight best German troops, not units recovering from the Eastern Front, as IOTL Normandy and Italy, (2) sink any hope of using Soviets against Japanese in deepest sinkhole on Earth. Very, very realistic.

In my mind, Tito will likely decide what happens in Yugoslavia (as long as the invasion is after the Tehran conference), regardless of what the Big Three may have planned.
Again, I think you're guilty of the post-knowledge. I don't think Allies saw Tito as omnipotent ruler of post-WWII Yugoslavia. Much more likely they hoped to pull Kostunica on him (use less evil Commie monster to fight Nazi monster and then discard Commie once no longer needed). He out-witted everybody, but I don't think that many analysts could predict in in Spring 1943.

Whatever the case, We tied down an entire German division in Greece by making the Germans think we were going to invade the Balkans.
I think this statement is good illustration of deep lack of knowledge of what could Allies expect if they would try to take German army head on. Entire German Division could be fearsome fighting force on Western Front, making expensive and complicated deception operation worthwhile, but for the Eastern Front it was chump's change, negligibly small part of German forces tied by guerilla war (waged by barely literate peasants with rifles of 1893 vintage). In frontline duty, it was 10 to 50 kilmeters of thousand-miles long frontline. So guys, are you still anxious to throw good British and American boys into this kind of carnage to save Poles from Ruskies?
 

Markus

Banned
You guys are repeatedly making the same mistake called "post-knowledge". The way Allies saw it before Summer 1945 (1st nuclear test), they will need numerous and ferocious Red Army to fight fanatical Japanese, entrenched all over Pacific. Losses were estimated in millions, and West was anxious to make to so Soviets will bear brunt of the Japanese defensive fanaticism. Churchill and Roosevelt were not weak-kneed liberals who sold Eastern Europeans to Stalin for peanuts, they were cold calculating SOBs willing to sell Polacks and Gypsies to Stalin to save WASP lives. Your plans to cut Soviet from EE by attacking Germans from South will bring two immediate results: (1) force Allies to fight best German troops, not units recovering from the Eastern Front, as IOTL Normandy and Italy, (2) sink any hope of using Soviets against Japanese in deepest sinkhole on Earth. Very, very realistic.

:confused: Who was screaming bloody muerder in 1942 because he could not get a "second Front" soon enough? Stalin!
So the west decides to give him what he wants when he wants it and attacks where the Germans don´t expect it.
 
You guys are repeatedly making the same mistake called "post-knowledge". The way Allies saw it before Summer 1945 (1st nuclear test), they will need numerous and ferocious Red Army to fight fanatical Japanese, entrenched all over Pacific. Losses were estimated in millions, and West was anxious to make to so Soviets will bear brunt of the Japanese defensive fanaticism. Churchill and Roosevelt were not weak-kneed liberals who sold Eastern Europeans to Stalin for peanuts, they were cold calculating SOBs willing to sell Polacks and Gypsies to Stalin to save WASP lives. Your plans to cut Soviet from EE by attacking Germans from South will bring two immediate results: (1) force Allies to fight best German troops, not units recovering from the Eastern Front, as IOTL Normandy and Italy, (2) sink any hope of using Soviets against Japanese in deepest sinkhole on Earth. Very, very realistic.

Again, I think you're guilty of the post-knowledge. I don't think Allies saw Tito as omnipotent ruler of post-WWII Yugoslavia. Much more likely they hoped to pull Kostunica on him (use less evil Commie monster to fight Nazi monster and then discard Commie once no longer needed). He out-witted everybody, but I don't think that many analysts could predict in in Spring 1943.


I think this statement is good illustration of deep lack of knowledge of what could Allies expect if they would try to take German army head on. Entire German Division could be fearsome fighting force on Western Front, making expensive and complicated deception operation worthwhile, but for the Eastern Front it was chump's change, negligibly small part of German forces tied by guerilla war (waged by barely literate peasants with rifles of 1893 vintage). In frontline duty, it was 10 to 50 kilmeters of thousand-miles long frontline. So guys, are you still anxious to throw good British and American boys into this kind of carnage to save Poles from Ruskies?

This really, really missues the point, as well as containing some dubious generalisations. Churchill certainly did want to intervene in Eastern Europe, Roosevelt did not feel it was an issue. Ultimately the main issue was military, it's a silly way to invade Europe.
 

Markus

Banned
This really, really missues the point, as well as containing some dubious generalisations. Churchill certainly did want to intervene in Eastern Europe, Roosevelt did not feel it was an issue. Ultimately the main issue was military, it's a silly way to invade Europe.

:confused: Invading where the enemy is strongest and waiting two years before doing it does also looks pretty stupid to me.
 
:confused: Invading where the enemy is strongest and waiting two years before doing it does also looks pretty stupid to me.

Invading where is in range of a significant part of your forces is the issue. They are strongest there because the Allies can be strongest there most easily. The Germans are working on interior lines and can be strong pretty much wherever they need to be in whatever strength they need to be.
 
:confused: Who was screaming bloody muerder in 1942 because he could not get a "second Front" soon enough? Stalin!
So the west decides to give him what he wants when he wants it and attacks where the Germans don´t expect it.
Remember that OP was talking about late 1943-early 1944 invasion, and by this time Stalin understands pretty well that he's the main fighting force of coalition and he wants to be rewarded accordingly.

This really, really missues the point, as well as containing some dubious generalisations.
I translate it "I don't understand what you're saying but I don't like it".

Churchill certainly did want to intervene in Eastern Europe
Yes, but was his desire (fueled by yearning for sanitary cordon separating Reds from the Europe) enough to sactifice hundreds of thousands or millions of young Brits?
 

Markus

Banned
Remember that OP was talking about late 1943-early 1944 invasion, ....

Yes, like I wrote: It starts with Torch in late 1942, Italy is invaded in early 43, taken quickly and in the second half of 43 the Allies cross the Adriatic into northern Yougoslawia. Although I admit advancing into southern France is also a good option, because it´s the best way of supporting a cross-channel invasion.
 
I translate it "I don't understand what you're saying but I don't like it".

Cut the obnoxious tone. Your text was full of crude assertions, unsophisticated language and little in the way of fact. Your attempt at a Rankean approach was fundamentally flawed by your own prejudices and show little understanding of diachronic relations.

I understand it, I don't like it, and it's not really true, or at least heavily distorted. They were after all prepared to sacrifice thousands of lives in Western Europe.

Yes, but was his desire (fueled by yearning for sanitary cordon separating Reds from the Europe) enough to sactifice hundreds of thousands or millions of young Brits?

Considering the expectations of casualty rates from any European ground war the question is rapidly revealed to be irrelevant. They were prepared, although unwilling, to risk casualties to defeat Germany. Stopping the USSR remained a secondary objective. The notion of "not sacrificing our boys for the Poles" to imitate your own misleading vernacular was not really a question on the agenda.
 
Top