Balkans 1944

In a respected Alt history forum like this I bet this scenario has been already discussed and ticked off as 'Implausible' or 'Plausible'.:)

As we know Churchill suggested a Balkan Invasion in 1944 instead of the OTL Normandy landings. He proposed it mainly to prevent the Soviets from getting satelitte states (except maybe Poland) but also to bring Turkey out of neautrality.
The initial landings were supposed to attack through Greece and drive north to cut off the Soviet advance. This is one ATL.

But WI the Allies decided Greece was unsuitable and landed in the Istria Peninsula in Yugoslavia?
Would this have suceeded in cutting off the Soviet Advance?

I have marked off some pros and cons to this scenario :
Pros
1. The Yugoslav partisans under Tito were an army of their own
Cons
1. Terrain unsuitable for tanks
2. Easily defended terrain

Feel free to add some more
 
Anybody interested?

Sure, but I don't really know enough to comment. This would certainly be a surprise for the Germans, who would be expecting forces in France. However, given the geography of the region, would this not simply be another Northern Italy for the Allies: i.e. a very hard slog through terrain made for defence?
 
Yep, main problem would be geography and the distance between the Italian front isn't all that long. The Germans might reinforce the Balkans thru Italy.

Of course what we need is a bolder Italian campaign.
 
It seem to me that you're landing right at the confluence of Axis power - and the geography doesn't make this the best route into Axis territory. You would have to slog across mountains, whereas the Germans have the benefit of rail.

A landing in Greece might have been interesting - if Turkey could have been brought in that might have spared a lot of the Balkans communism.
 
It seem to me that you're landing right at the confluence of Axis power - and the geography doesn't make this the best route into Axis territory. You would have to slog across mountains, whereas the Germans have the benefit of rail.

A landing in Greece might have been interesting - if Turkey could have been brought in that might have spared a lot of the Balkans communism.

Bomb em'.
I wonder how they could bring Turkey to the Allies? Orwellian Doublespeak?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Balkans are Italy, just worse. There was a reason that Tito was able to keep an ARMY in the field after the Germans "conquered" the place. It is supurb defensive ground, the sort of region where a company can hold up a division for a month.

Worse, even a victory in the Balkans does nothing to win the war. It keeps the Soviets away from the Med, which was why Churchill liked it, but it's a sideshow.
 
The Balkans are Italy, just worse. There was a reason that Tito was able to keep an ARMY in the field after the Germans "conquered" the place. It is supurb defensive ground, the sort of region where a company can hold up a division for a month.

Worse, even a victory in the Balkans does nothing to win the war. It keeps the Soviets away from the Med, which was why Churchill liked it, but it's a sideshow.

It doesn't do nothing. If Overlord can't be launched in 43 anyway, invading the Balkans takes some pressure off Russia, could bring in Turkey, and diverts troops from France. Still, Italy was a better use of the troops.
 
Wouldn't cutting off the Soviet advance have angered Stalin? Thus worsening relations that weren't that great to begin with?

The relations were already bad. Stalin was especially suspicious if Churchill would influence Roosevelt.

What we need to do is a more aggresive Italian campaign. This will make the Balkans Campaign more chance of success. Paratroops anyone?
 
Top