Soviet collapse, can W.Allies invade though the ''Soft Underbelly''

Wallet

Banned
Inspired by this thread
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...defeated-the-ussr.437329/page-2#post-16545290

Its assumed that if the Soviets collapsed, the Germans would have heavily fortified Western Europe and the French coast. An invasion of France would have been much harder. OTL, the western allies only faced a small percentage of German troops, most were on the Eastern front.

Churchill OTL favored attacking southern Europe though Italy. He drew a map of Nazi Europe as an alligator, with its snapping mouth as Normandy, meaning attacking though here had the most risk. He wanted to attack the ''soft underbelly'', which was Italy and Greece. He though the quickest way to Berlin was crossing the Alps and attacking though Bavaria (southern Germany). He also wanted to attack though the Balkans from Greece, to avoid Soviet occupation. He also assumed that German forces in Western Europe would collapse with the taking of Berlin, or help defend Germany allowing Allied forces to land in France.

In the event of an Soviet collapse on the eastern front, is an invasion though Southern Europe still possible? And would it be better than an invasion of France? And with extra troops, can the Germans fortify Italy enough to stop an invasion?
 
How many divisions equipped for mountain warfare did the Allies historically have? I would think that the Axis forces would be superior to them in this regard. Slogging through the mountains of Italy or SE Europe would last quite a long time.
 
IOTL, the "soft underbelly" proved to be anything but: the Germans were able to hold off overwhelming WAllied forces with relatively small commitments. IATL, the Germans have more resources. The math suggests it would be harder then OTL, not easier.

The WAllies would be better off focusing on hammering their way ashore through France... assuming their political establishment can stomach the casualties.
 
Top