No Greco-Italian War

I don't see how the lack of the invasion of Yugoslavia changes Stalin's perception of all the intelligence reports he was getting about the German build up.

For one thing there's nowhere else the Germans would be building up to attack, and Stalin is not a drooling idiot. He knows 3 million men massed on his borders won't be dancing around the Maypole strewing flowers over the landscape. For another, the initial German date was May 15 when he ordered the Red Army on full military alert. Fortunately for the Germans their attack was delayed over a month.
 
well, stalin was this idot 4 weeks later...

sorry, it is really laughable how strange the arguments of the russian-wankers are...

1.) the germans could have attack 4 weeks earlier (with no mud), but not much earlier... so 4 weeks are perfectly possible
2.) the russian army will be destroyed at the border like it was 4 weeks later
3.) this will help a bit - say leningrad could be taken (this improve the german situation) or moscow, but not hold later on (this will make the german position worse, but if they damage russian infrastructure in this, it will cost the russians a lot, too), the crimea could be taken - this could help the germans in winter, but again, it is no warwinner...
4.) in the end - with the same evil and wrong treatment of the liberated areas (yes, liberated, the germans were seen as liberators from sovjet dictatorship in the beginning) - it will change nothing. some more area (but not enough to beat russia) and so maybe more room to give in the retreats... but no victory for germany

but the "russia will defeat the germans in 1941"-arguments aren´t helpful, because they would have been true 4 weeks later, too. but 4 weeks later the germans destroyed the better part of the red army... at last this happend in otl...;)
 
well, stalin was this idot 4 weeks later...

sorry, it is really laughable how strange the arguments of the russian-wankers are...

1.) the germans could have attack 4 weeks earlier (with no mud), but not much earlier... so 4 weeks are perfectly possible
2.) the russian army will be destroyed at the border like it was 4 weeks later
3.) this will help a bit - say leningrad could be taken (this improve the german situation) or moscow, but not hold later on (this will make the german position worse, but if they damage russian infrastructure in this, it will cost the russians a lot, too), the crimea could be taken - this could help the germans in winter, but again, it is no warwinner...
4.) in the end - with the same evil and wrong treatment of the liberated areas (yes, liberated, the germans were seen as liberators from sovjet dictatorship in the beginning) - it will change nothing. some more area (but not enough to beat russia) and so maybe more room to give in the retreats... but no victory for germany

but the "russia will defeat the germans in 1941"-arguments aren´t helpful, because they would have been true 4 weeks later, too. but 4 weeks later the germans destroyed the better part of the red army... at last this happend in otl...;)

1) I say this because the original German plan was to attack on 15 May. This is according to German documents which anyone that bothers in the least to read about the origins of Barbarossa would already know. Those that don't or won't bother with basic reading on the subject will of course not know, and incidentally 15 May is about five weeks ahead, not four weeks.

2) Not in the same way. Not at all. The Germans have to actually fight and not gun down people too surprised to shoot back. It's easy to look awesome when your enemy's not authorized to shoot back, a lot harder to crack past those too-far-forward positions when they are allowed to shoot back.

3) It will help the situation....for the Soviet Union. At a bare minimum German casualties are going to be higher, far higher, than OTL at the start and the Luftwaffe will need to work to knock down the Red Air Force, not get it all on the first day, which will be distracting it from close ground support. Lots of obsolete airplanes are still a shitload of airplanes that have to be taken down the hard way.

4) Only in the Soviet territories annexed in 1939, and in the Baltic states those areas naturally tilted to Germany anyway. This factor is sorely overestimated, as Stalinist terror was very, very good at removing any and all serious opposition and had been doing this since the mid-1930s.

5) Yes, the mighty Wehrmacht slaughtered people who weren't allowed to shoot back. Such a testament to German skill and daring to use heavy firepower on unarmed people. :rolleyes:
 
1) I say this because the original German plan was to attack on 15 May. This is according to German documents which anyone that bothers in the least to read about the origins of Barbarossa would already know. Those that don't or won't bother with basic reading on the subject will of course not know, and incidentally 15 May is about five weeks ahead, not four weeks.

2) Not in the same way. Not at all. The Germans have to actually fight and not gun down people too surprised to shoot back. It's easy to look awesome when your enemy's not authorized to shoot back, a lot harder to crack past those too-far-forward positions when they are allowed to shoot back.

3) It will help the situation....for the Soviet Union. At a bare minimum German casualties are going to be higher, far higher, than OTL at the start and the Luftwaffe will need to work to knock down the Red Air Force, not get it all on the first day, which will be distracting it from close ground support. Lots of obsolete airplanes are still a shitload of airplanes that have to be taken down the hard way.

4) Only in the Soviet territories annexed in 1939, and in the Baltic states those areas naturally tilted to Germany anyway. This factor is sorely overestimated, as Stalinist terror was very, very good at removing any and all serious opposition and had been doing this since the mid-1930s.

5) Yes, the mighty Wehrmacht slaughtered people who weren't allowed to shoot back. Such a testament to German skill and daring to use heavy firepower on unarmed people. :rolleyes:

Well, people who are not interested in discussions often try to make themself knowing more as others... mostly these people have only a single minded opinion

but here we have a discussion about a plot... the greco-italian war is missing and germany attack earlier

the germans could have attack 4 weeks earlier... 5 was the plan, but this plan could not be done. So 5 weeks with a delay of one week is 4 weeks, right? :rolleyes:
2.) the russians will be destroyed 4 weeks earlier the same way they will be destroyed 4 weeks later. If you have evidence that the russians have "orders" to not shoot back, you are welcome... but beside some obscure russian-nazi (or how you want to label ultraultrarightwinger russians that deny historical facts?)-sources nobody discuss the historical truth:
german troops with their "new" advance method and combined arms effect destroyed in the german strongpoints the enemies, flooded with local superiority the keypoints and with this they destroy the inflexible and low moral troops of the russians. THe lack of professionality that hampered the russian army will be the same 4 weeks earlier (no, 4 weeks earlier it will be less experience)...
3.) the red airforce sucked... they sucked more as the iraqi airforce sucked against the american one in 2003...so no red miracle will happen.
german air against russian air 1:0. Period. again, 4 weeks do nothing.
4.) the germans were welcomed in all areas that aren´t core russian... so the first weeks of the war will be the same... if you deny it you should try to inform you (but ignore the ultraultrarightrussian-websites). This changed very fast, but the warm welcome was true. Partisan acitivity was very low in the beginning. but maybe you mentioned my words? i said - as long as the nazis do not change their evil illtreatment, these 4 weeks will not improve their situation significant.

so short way:
russian army sucks, 4 weeks more or less do no different
russian airforce sucks, 4 weeks more or less do no different
german army has 4 weeks more to advance, but this will not win the war

also - more as 4 weeks isn´t possible, cause the german forces will not be ready and the weather do not allow it to start earlier...

thank you for reading

oh, one last thing:
stalin didn´t belive that hitler will attack him with four more weeks recognizing the german troops... but you think that he will change his opinion if germany start 4 weeks earlier :D:D;) sorry... just think about your own words, maybe you will find something to correct?
 
Well, people who are not interested in discussions often try to make themself knowing more as others... mostly these people have only a single minded opinion

Indeed, the single-minded opinion that Germans are Gods and Slavs are barbarians, and any evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed with personal attacks. You are quite right that there are people who are blatantly ignorant masquerading as knowing much. :)

but here we have a discussion about a plot... the greco-italian war is missing and germany attack earlier

We have discussion not about a plot, that is a storyline or a conspiracy, but about a different course of events from Italy not attacking Greece in October of 1940.

the germans could have attack 4 weeks earlier... 5 was the plan, but this plan could not be done. So 5 weeks with a delay of one week is 4 weeks, right? :rolleyes:

Given this is the Nazis we're talking about, a little thing like reality and the weather would not be allowed to interfere with Hitler's little twisted cult of the will. He'd order the invasion weather be damned and sack all the generals that didn't go along with him as was his wont.

2.) the russians will be destroyed 4 weeks earlier the same way they will be destroyed 4 weeks later. If you have evidence that the russians have "orders" to not shoot back, you are welcome...

I do indeed. The delay from 15 May-22 June and a number of war scares prior to that led Stalin to decide that Hitler was trying for another big bluff ala 1938, so he issued orders to his troops not to fire or to attack or strike back, lest this be a local provocation on the part of the Nazis. This will not apply in a May attack and the Germans will have to actually work for a living, not be "heroes" butchering people surprised and unable to shoot back at pain of Lubyanka.

but beside some obscure russian-nazi (or how you want to label ultraultrarightwinger russians that deny historical facts?)-sources nobody discuss the historical truth:
german troops with their "new" advance method and combined arms effect destroyed in the german strongpoints the enemies, flooded with local superiority the keypoints and with this they destroy the inflexible and low moral troops of the russians. THe lack of professionality that hampered the russian army will be the same 4 weeks earlier (no, 4 weeks earlier it will be less experience)...

Indeed it will, but the Germans won't be gunning down people unable to shoot at them and being "heroes" thus. They'll have to translate all their superiority in experience and firepower into victories, which they will, but which will be much more difficult if every single Soviet general is working like Kirponos to stop them and knows they're not going to be sent to GULAG if they shoot back. The Germans will break through, it will take more time, and in Barbarossa and German concepts of war, time is the most precious commodity.

3.) the red airforce sucked... they sucked more as the iraqi airforce sucked against the american one in 2003...so no red miracle will happen.
german air against russian air 1:0. Period. again, 4 weeks do nothing.

I never said otherwise, I just said the Luftwaffe will be sinking them in the air, not on airfields from the surprise-that-won't-be-there. One of those is not the same as the other.

4.) the germans were welcomed in all areas that aren´t core russian... so the first weeks of the war will be the same...

Not all. They were welcomed in what had been the independent Baltic states and Poland, not elsewhere in the USSR. There any slight sign of dissent against Stalin had already been rooted out in his Terror. If there was one thing Stalin was good at it was removing the least sign of opposition to himself.

if you deny it you should try to inform you (but ignore the ultraultrarightrussian-websites). This changed very fast, but the warm welcome was true. Partisan acitivity was very low in the beginning. but maybe you mentioned my words? i said - as long as the nazis do not change their evil illtreatment, these 4 weeks will not improve their situation significant.

To be sure partisan activity didn't work much, partially because Stalin had purged partisan units like he had everything else, and partially because the speed of the Nazi advance left the Soviets struggling to respond. The absence of partisan activity has nothing to do with the point we're discussing which is that Barbarossa without surprise is going to be very painfully unpleasant for the Germans.

so short way:
russian army sucks, 4 weeks more or less do no different
russian airforce sucks, 4 weeks more or less do no different
german army has 4 weeks more to advance, but this will not win the war

Soviets not surprised, the result is very different. Don't get me wrong, the Germans will break through at this point, their qualitative advantage in terms of firepower and experience is too much for the Soviets to counter. Against an army of 3 million ready and waiting for their three million that will be both history's largest battle ever and one which will be an ugly, inelegant, slugging match.

also - more as 4 weeks isn´t possible, cause the german forces will not be ready and the weather do not allow it to start earlier...

You do realize this is Hitler we're talking about and that he didn't care about weather IOTL and won't in this one? His generals will, but he won't, and if he doesn't and they do, he wins, not them.

oh, one last thing:
stalin didn´t belive that hitler will attack him with four more weeks recognizing the german troops... but you think that he will change his opinion if germany start 4 weeks earlier :D:D;) sorry... just think about your own words, maybe you will find something to correct?

You've provided nothing to refute my statement beyond the usual poorly-worded personal attacks. I stated that the Soviets were ready and waiting on 15 May, which you did not refute. I stated that the Germans would have to actually fight an enemy ready and waiting, not one they jumped, which you did not address. I noted that the Germans had qualitative advantages but this fight would be much bloodier by far than anything seen IOTL at this point, which you stubbornly and willfully refuse to even acknowledge. When you're ready to address my actual points in lieu of the usual mixture of ad hominem and strawmen, then we'll actually discuss the topic at hand, not what you think the topic is.
 
No UK units pulled to Greece / No Italians in Soviet Union

OP What if the Italians hadn't invaded Greece during the Second World War?

OTL Feb 1941 UK units pulled to Greece. No Italian Greek in late '40 into '41 means more fighting in North Africa between UK and Italy without Rommel.

West Force under O'Connor/ Mideast Wavell vs the Italians means more Italian losses long term. OTL Op. Compass is gone, but the strategic and equipment weaknesses of the Italians remain.

British win in North Africa with greater Italian losses than OTL.

RE Barbarossa / Eastern Front
1) 1941 June or 41 May = Soviet loss at border same as OTL.

2) Corpo di Spedizione Italiano is NOT sent to Russia given the greater than OTL losses in East and North Africa. Hitler did not want them anyway (in 1941 at least... in OTL this changed)

3) No German Crete paradrop and overall less German Hitler focus on the Med. Perhaps no Rommel plus 2 Divisions to desert in this timeline.
 
RE Barbarossa / Eastern Front
1) 1941 June or 41 May = Soviet loss at border same as OTL.

No, no, not at all. The Germans will translate their qualitative superiority into victory over a Soviet army in a poor position with mostly-obsolete equipment, but the costs and sacrifice of strategic surprise + more time to move Soviet industry east of the Urals and A-A line will mean the Germans have less resources to misuse pathetically than IOTL. Defeating a poorly-positioned and worse-equipped Soviet army in one of the greatest pitched battles in human history is not remotely the same as the complete strategic and tactical surprise gained by OTL's five-weeks delay.
 
If the paratroopers are not lost and Greece stays neutral, the Italian held Dodecanese are bound to come under extreme pressure from the British. If the North Africa campaign draws on, the Germans may be inclined to try taking Malta with their paratroopers. If they do it early enough, they stand a good chance of succeeding.
 
If the paratroopers are not lost and Greece stays neutral, the Italian held Dodecanese are bound to come under extreme pressure from the British. If the North Africa campaign draws on, the Germans may be inclined to try taking Malta with their paratroopers. If they do it early enough, they stand a good chance of succeeding.

yes - with greece staying neutral, malta has to fall - the italians will try it in 1940, maybe - if failed, ask hitler for the paras?

but i doubt that the italians will fail, at last i remember i read that if the italians had done their plan they had succsessed, cause the defence was too weak.

with malta in italian hands, the german support (if at all germans send troops to africa) will be much better... less sunk ships, higher british losses (german airforce can attack british surface ships from malta, subs can refill and have less british planes to fear, etc...).. interesting option
 
3) No German Crete paradrop and overall less German Hitler focus on the Med. Perhaps no Rommel plus 2 Divisions to desert in this timeline.

Frankly, I think Italian Lybia wouldn't be there if no British deployment to Greece. I think that instead of being in Greece, British forces would just continue towards Tripoli instead of stopping at El Agheila as they did in OTL.
 
Frankly, I think Italian Lybia wouldn't be there if no British deployment to Greece. I think that instead of being in Greece, British forces would just continue towards Tripoli instead of stopping at El Agheila as they did in OTL.


well, logistics are true for both sides... so far away the brits will not assault much more... and hitler will be still asked to help

with malta in italian (or german) hands in spring 1941 they can pump a lot troops with less troops in africa, fighting exhausted brits at the end of a logistic nightmare, againt german air superiority, with german bombers sinking british ships etc?

no - if the brits advance their fate will be similar to otl... at last in 1941 and early 1942... maybe worse. But taking africa isn´t realistic, only if mussel is to stupid... but this guy was many things, but he knew how to ask if he had to. so no, no british victory in africa in 1940/41...
 
The assumption that Malta will magically fall, just because, can't be made.

If the German paratroopers aren't expended on Crete, then they will be expended during Barbarossa, as that is the German priority, and still won't be available for an attack on Malta.

Without the very substantial British deployment to Greece, they have more military strength as well as much more in the way of logistical assets than iOTL, and if the Italian collapse continues, are much more capable of using coastal shipping from Alexandria to support their continued assault than the Italians were with Malta in the way.

With Crete neutral, then the British also have an easier time supplying and reinforcing Malta, and as soon as the Germans are committed to Barbarossa there's not much they can do if Greece goes Allied. With Crete as a base, the Italian Docedanese are very vulnerable, and are unlikely to hold on long, but the doomed Italian attempt to resupply them will consume large amounts of shipping better used to supply North Africa.
 
The assumption that Malta will magically fall, just because, can't be made.

If the German paratroopers aren't expended on Crete, then they will be expended during Barbarossa, as that is the German priority, and still won't be available for an attack on Malta.

Without the very substantial British deployment to Greece, they have more military strength as well as much more in the way of logistical assets than iOTL, and if the Italian collapse continues, are much more capable of using coastal shipping from Alexandria to support their continued assault than the Italians were with Malta in the way.

With Crete neutral, then the British also have an easier time supplying and reinforcing Malta, and as soon as the Germans are committed to Barbarossa there's not much they can do if Greece goes Allied. With Crete as a base, the Italian Docedanese are very vulnerable, and are unlikely to hold on long, but the doomed Italian attempt to resupply them will consume large amounts of shipping better used to supply North Africa.


Well, you can´t support more men, at last this was the thing i heared all the thime in this forum...

the italians asked in late 1940, so the germans will send troops, these troops will still be enough to STOP the british advance (i do not say "throw back")... the italians had plans for malta - with a frontline so near to tripolis, the need to take it is high...
the germans, in february 41 in africa need a secure supply line... so they can use their paras in march-may 1941... if they use em, malta will fall (in this time fray)
i never said that it will be easy, i bet the paras will take a lot losses... BUT the supply situation is much better, the german airforce is much nearer (southern italy and sicily), so malta isn´t a stronghold like crete was... the germans have shorter supply-routes as in crete and the decision will be faster...
the chance to take it is 70%, still they could fail - but normally the germans with the italians will take malta, if they want to take it in 1941...

in 1942, as kesselring suggested it, it is much difficultier... but in spring 1941?
 
Well, you can´t support more men, at last this was the thing i heared all the thime in this forum...

The question is, why can't you support more men? It's because you can't move the supplies to the front, because you don't have enough shipping, trucks and fuel. If the British don't go into Greece and loose large amounts of all three, they won't be as limited.

the italians asked in late 1940, so the germans will send troops, these troops will still be enough to STOP the british advance (i do not say "throw back")... the italians had plans for malta - with a frontline so near to tripolis, the need to take it is high...

Why should the fact that the Greeks aren't humiliating the Italians mean that the latter are more likely to ask for and receive aid from the Germans earlier than they did iOTL?

the germans, in february 41 in africa need a secure supply line... so they can use their paras in march-may 1941... if they use em, malta will fall (in this time fray)
i never said that it will be easy, i bet the paras will take a lot losses... BUT the supply situation is much better, the german airforce is much nearer (southern italy and sicily), so malta isn´t a stronghold like crete was... the germans have shorter supply-routes as in crete and the decision will be faster...
the chance to take it is 70%, still they could fail - but normally the germans with the italians will take malta, if they want to take it in 1941...

What are you talking about? The Battle of Crete IOTL started on the 20th of May 1941, so if they were going to use them against Malta in March - May 1941, they would have done, because they hadn't been shattered and discredited at that point. They didn't, so this is pretty much a second PoD.

The Germans had planned to use their paratroopers in Barbarossa, and only used them against Crete because leaving it in British hands was a dagger held at the throat of Polesti, which is critical to the German war effort. Malta isn't. Given this, the paratroopers won't be used on Malta, as they weren't iOTL before Barbarossa happens, and then they will be used up against the Russians and become unavailable.
 
I am not entirely certain Operation Compass will be the huge success it was OTL if the Italians only have Libya to focus on (since focusing on East Africa is nearly impossible). Considering the amount of resources the Italians spent in Albania/Greece from late September 1940, one could ask how the Italian forces in Libya would look if they were the recipients of said resources.
 
The question is, why can't you support more men? It's because you can't move the supplies to the front, because you don't have enough shipping, trucks and fuel. If the British don't go into Greece and loose large amounts of all three, they won't be as limited.



Why should the fact that the Greeks aren't humiliating the Italians mean that the latter are more likely to ask for and receive aid from the Germans earlier than they did iOTL?



What are you talking about? The Battle of Crete IOTL started on the 20th of May 1941, so if they were going to use them against Malta in March - May 1941, they would have done, because they hadn't been shattered and discredited at that point. They didn't, so this is pretty much a second PoD.

The Germans had planned to use their paratroopers in Barbarossa, and only used them against Crete because leaving it in British hands was a dagger held at the throat of Polesti, which is critical to the German war effort. Malta isn't. Given this, the paratroopers won't be used on Malta, as they weren't iOTL before Barbarossa happens, and then they will be used up against the Russians and become unavailable.

Hm, i don´t know... i just answerd your questions...

a.) you mentioned the ongoing succsess of the brits...
i said, you can´t cause the brits have not the ability to bring in more supply. Ships aren´t the problem, the distance it is. The tanks of o´conner couldn´t move farer. for this you need a changed plot with maximum concentration in africa... but here the plot is set in 1940, so it is to late. Also it would be a brit-wank.
b.) malta was planned by the italians. with german support they can take the island
c.) the germans supported the italians in greece with transport planes - because the italians asked
d.) in africa, the germans helped with troops cause the italians asked.
why should they not ask, if the brits move ahead? Do you say "historical the italians cried for help" with a slower advance of the brits, now, with a faster advance they do not ask?
e.) if they ask the germans, they need to take malta to bring in supply
the strategic situation for the germans to take malta is much easier as to take crete... right? So why should they not do it?
f.) if you look at the timetable, the germans will be asked even earlier or around the same time the italians did in otl. so the germans (because the brits cannot advance more if the germans bring in airforce (as they did otl, but this time with the brits nearer at tripolis the brits are much more hampered, cause they are in better range for the germans)
g.) malta will fall - i said 70% chance, maybe 80-90... with the loss of malta the brits are in a worse situation... similar to the one of rommel in august 1942... i also mentioned that the paras will have high losses so they will not be part of barbarossa...

please explain how the brits solve their supply problem with a plot in 1940 - with more troops their problem will be larger as otl... so the chance for rommel to destroy the whole british army is even larger in this plot.

greece and yugoslavia are still independent and do not need troops to hold em... esp. the second nation is important in this.

it is really funny that all "britwankers" explain that it is impossible for the axis to move farer as elalemain, but do not crucify you for an ongoing assault of the british forces (even if they could not be supplied with the ressources the brits had)
 
If its true that no Greco-Italian war would mean no coup in Yugoslavia then they would join the Axis no doubt. Perhaps the Yugoslavs would attack Greece themselves?

.
The coup didn't have connections with Greece.

It was an pro-Britain officers coup d'ettat.

It woukd happen anyway, the Serbs, who were 99% of generals,and most of the officers, were pro-Britain,and anti-German
 

abc123

Banned
The coup didn't have connections with Greece.

It was an pro-Britain officers coup d'ettat.

It woukd happen anyway, the Serbs, who were 99% of generals,and most of the officers, were pro-Britain,and anti-German

No way that Yougoslavia would attack the Greece. Prince Paul explicitly refused German offers in that direction. They even didn't want to allow transit of German troops across Yugoslavia to attack Greece.
 
Top