"Soft Underbelly" strategy in WWII?

Is it plausible for the allies to continue on their Southern Europe approach. As we all know, the invasion of Italy was only a partial success which was in part aided by Italian bumbling and it took until 1944 to get to Rome. A Balkans invasion was dismissed by the US against the likings of Churchill but as much as he wanted to, the British couldn't do that alone.

Suppose someone else is in charge of the US army and they decide on an invasion of Greece or Albania or perhaps even the Yugoslavian coast at Dalmatia, using Italy as a staging ground. An immediate fact might be that we get a split Yugoslavia (if it succeeds) with Croatia and Slovenia being liberated by Anglo-US troops in 44/45 while Serbia goes commie.

Regardless of whether it would happen or not, how would this alt-D-day turn out, considering the differences in terrain but also weaker Axis garrisons than on the Atlantikwall and support from the locals? Would the W Allies by able to liberate the Balkans and prevent communist rule there or would they get stuck, leaving us with Soviets on the Rhine? And where would the western allies and the Red Army meet? Perhaps Czechoslovakia could be split between a communist Slovakia and a capitalist Czechia and a different sized East germany (depending on the failure or success of the invasion). I'm quite sure the W Allies would renege on their promises to Stalin (Tehran) since he can't force them into anything because the US will still have A-Bombs.

What are your thoughts? Discuss ;):)
 
I'm thinking that most of the Balkan nations are going to be hard pressed to stay in the war against the UK and USA--they were largely strongarmed by Germany and may be willing to fold quickly if the UK and USA approach.

Moving against the Balkans could really work. Given the possibility of outright defection of axis members (as happened OTL), Germany may lose everything south of the Alps without much of a fight.

The real race is going to be things like Romania and Hungary, which are about equidistant from both the Soviet Union and the Allies. We would probably see a larger Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany and maybe a Soviet Denmark, but there would probably be a Allied Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary, with either a partitioned or split Czechloslovkia and Romania.

This would lead to a very different Cold War--one that might be "diagonal" with the Soviets running everything from Moldavia to Schlewig Holstein. Denmark and a larger DDR for Yugoslavia, Hungary and Bulgaria? Might be about the same, and probably something that Stalin would sign off on.
 
Would Denmark be occupied by the Soviets? Until 1943 democratic processes were still being enacted in the country. The King was still in charge. I think a larger DDR would be quite possible, but a communist Denmark is pushing it a bit, it was never even occupied or liberated by the Allies. Indeed, if German troops are being directed to the Balkans, the already flourishing resistance movement might get even stronger.
 
You would need to change something from the Yugoslavian guerillas, mostly Josip Broz Tito, to get a non-communist Yugoslavia. Either he changes his ideology or he dies, leaving the way for a non-communist leader. And that's even with the Soft Underbelly strategy.
 

Markus

Banned
I think the balkan nations would have changed sides faster than Italy and the Balkan was a major or sole source of oil, copper and bauxite but the Allies could hardly have done it even if they wanted to.

They simply lacked the troops. The offensive in Italy came to a standstill after some divisions were withdrawn for the invasion of southern France.
 
Tito was first and foremost an opportunist. If he feels that switching ideology is in his benefit, then he will.
 
At this 'time' - no. But if the decision making had been joined up earlier - maybe. And, if there was a realisation that though the Italian military might have been the 'soft under belly' - the geography of Italy didn't make it so.
Therefore if the US and the British agreed to attack Italy for the purpose of knocking it out of the war, not necessarily to occupy all of it, but to use it as a springboard to other things. - then.

Sicilly is invaded earlier - but with a smaller force e.g. Monty, to fix the German's attention. Airfields are captured, Allied air power moves in, but German resistance is heavy. Then, with the support of aircraft carriers Patton lands at Tarranto - which is barely defended, the landing is assisted by a parachute drop outside which secures the important crossroad north and west. While the port is made safe, US forces fan out - link with the Paras. One branch goes north to take Brindissi, to other goes west and reaches the coast - blocking the road to Messina.

Sicilly surrenders, Allies go north take the airfields at Foggia. Meanwhile the French take Sardinia and Corsica.

Where next ?
 
How Early though? Unless they put more effort into Africa and secure it faster, then the July landings are about as early a possible, considering the axis surrendered in May. For that to work it needs a earlier POD such as agreeing to the Mediterranean strategy at Casablanca or the Second Washington Conference of June 42' where it was a topic of discussion.
 
Top