Italo-Greek war what-ifs

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Metaxas lives through the beginning of 1942 instead? Does it change Greek strategy or any outcomes, at least in the short-term?

What if the Italians invaded Crete and or the Ionians at the beginning of the war or within a week or two of its start? Per the ever--reliable wikipedia analysis,:) "Another notable failure of the Italian offense is the lack of any attack on the Ionian Islands or Crete, which were obvious and relatively undefended targets and could have provided Italy with strong forward naval and air bases."

What would a good Italian plan to invade Greece in autumn 1940 have looked like?

Could the Greeks and British have seized Rhodes and the Dodecanese from the Italians between October 1940 and May 1941?

What's the hardest possible time the Axis could have in Greece, with any PoD after October 1940?

What if the Italians decided one war, the one against the British, was already too much, and refrained from Balkan aggression?
 
What if Metaxas lives through the beginning of 1942 instead? Does it change Greek strategy or any outcomes, at least in the short-term?
Nope. Why should it?

What if the Italians invaded Crete and or the Ionians at the beginning of the war or within a week or two of its start? Per the ever--reliable wikipedia analysis,:) "Another notable failure of the Italian offense is the lack of any attack on the Ionian Islands or Crete, which were obvious and relatively undefended targets and could have provided Italy with strong forward naval and air bases."
Corfu was to be invaded, but bad weather and the ncessity of reinforcements in Albania made it impossible. Thus in order for tge Italians to be able to invade Corfu, you need to make them more successfull in Albania.
Crete is ASB in my humble opinion. The Royal Navy would have intervened and butchered the Italians. There was 1 Greek division in Crete ar the beginning of the war, which was later sent to Albania.

What would a good Italian plan to invade Greece in autumn 1940 have looked like?
A lot more troops, double the amount in OTL. Which was itself not possible, due to Italian commitments in N. Africa and logistic reasons.

Could the Greeks and British have seized Rhodes and the Dodecanese from the Italians between October 1940 and May 1941?
The British could have done this, instead of landing troops in mainland Greece. This would have the interesting result of not giving te Germans a plausible excuse for invading Greece.

What's the hardest possible time the Axis could have in Greece, with any PoD after October 1940?
Probably ASB, but:
The RN shuts down the shipping lanes to Italy from Albania, the Italians run out of ammo and are overrun by the Greeks with Yugoslav support in early 1941. the Germany steps in...

What if the Italians decided one war, the one against the British, was already too much, and refrained from Balkan aggression?
Happy times for Greece and possibly Yugoslavia. A lot less deaths,
Operation Compass steamrolls the Italians in N. Africa.
G. Britain may get the Dodecanese after the war, unless the Greeks decide to try for themselves in 1943 (or so).
German paratroopers dropped on Malta of Baku.
No Greek civil war. Yugoslavia is part of NATO?
Jewish community in Greece left intact and possibly grows with influx from occupied countries.
Barbarossa may start 10 days earlier, net result's probably the same.
 
What if Metaxas lives through the beginning of 1942 instead? Does it change Greek strategy or any outcomes, at least in the short-term?

Not that I see.

What if the Italians invaded Crete and or the Ionians at the beginning of the war or within a week or two of its start? Per the ever--reliable wikipedia analysis, "Another notable failure of the Italian offense is the lack of any attack on the Ionian Islands or Crete, which were obvious and relatively undefended targets and could have provided Italy with strong forward naval and air bases."

Corfu, maybe. But for what the air and sea parts of the campaign mattered,
that's not all that useful. Crete, no. There isn't the strategic capability
to support such a long-ranging operation. The Greeks would have little to
oppose the first-day operations, but then it would just be up to the
weather, distances, shortage of logistical lift, and British submarines.


What would a good Italian plan to invade Greece in autumn 1940 have looked like?

Well, not starting with that few troops in Albania to start with; but having
a sufficient number of troops means substantially boosting Albania as a
logistical platform. Building up port handling capacity, military bases, and
above all roads. You just can't do it with the Italian annexation of Albania
on its actual date.

A landing not on Corfu but on the mainland Ionian coast, say at Igoumenitsa,
would have been a good idea; but not a quick war-winner, considering, once
again logistical constraints (small port, bad road leaving it etc.). It
would have given the Greeks more of a headache.
Naturally to do that, you probably also have to land on Corfu.
Such naval operations require, of course, time to prepare, which the
Italians lacked in OTL.

Could the Greeks and British have seized Rhodes and the Dodecanese
from the Italians between October 1940 and May 1941?

No. The British however are likely to bomb it at will one day or another,
making a propaganda point mostly.

What's the hardest possible time the Axis could have in Greece, with
any PoD after October 1940?

The Germans don't intervene and the Italians remain stalemated and
humiliated more or less where they were at the end of their largely
unsuccessful March 1941 counteroffensive. For this to happen, Yugoslavia has to be German-friendly. The British might also not intervene save in sending the Greeks war materiel. That has a kncok-on in North Africa, with the Italians probably pushed back all the way to Tripolitania. I don't think
that even in this case Tripoli falls, but Tripolitania remains the only
African bridgehead in Italian hands by the end of 1941.

What if the Italians decided one war, the one against the British, was already too much, and refrained from Balkan aggression?

Well, good idea. However, it's not really as good as it might seem because of the usual very well known problem: forward ports in North Africa had roughly the same insufficient handling capability as the Albanian ones. So it's not as if all the divisions that were used in Greece can all of a sudden be shifted to North Africa and make a difference at to preventing the Compass debacle.
Some of them, however, can reinforce Tripolitania, thus confirming the outcome I mentioned above; the British advance a lot into Libya but don't wipe out the Italians from it.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gents in the event of no war with Greece -

what fraction of the forces and vehicles and air craft and supporting engineers that went to the Albanian Greek front could have made it through the Med to reinforce Libya?

As discussed, both Albania and Libya had major port and overland mobility limitations. Libya had the limitations plus a greater distance. But the Italians did did send several times for units and vehicles to Albania than to Libya. Were they already at the maximum they could get to Libya, regardless of Greece?
 
probably the most useful thing for North Africa would have been the two companies of M13/40s that were in Greece in November 40. Those could at least do a fair fight against the British cruiser tanks.

The British wern't stopping much going across the med in 1940 time frame so they probably would have gotten across.

However, not much the Italians have stops a Matilda tank regardless, and I don't know what extra CR42s flown in are going to do against Hurricanes.
 
Top