The Soft Underbelly
- Thread starter NapoleonXIV
- Start date
A Cold War with a 'Warsaw Pact' Scandinavia and a Western Allied controlled Balkans would be interesting. Maybe a North/South Germany instead of East/West
Look at how much trouble the Allies had in Italy. Invading through Greece and Yugoslavia would be just as bad if not worse. Imagine the Germans defending Thermopylae with WWII weaponry. Then you had the logistical problem of sending troops across the entire Mediterranean. Maybe you could call in troops from other parts of the British Empire, but it'd still be hard as hell.
I agree with Carlton. It would be 1948 before the Western Allies got to Berlin.
I agree with Carlton. It would be 1948 before the Western Allies got to Berlin.
Meh, your extrapolating incorrectly.
Italy stalled for several reasons, but the main one was the fact that priority was shifted (argueably for the Americans it was always ever thus) for the all important landings and subsequent campaign in France.
Any successful Allied push has to fundamentally be an American operation. By 1944 they are going to provide bulk of the soldiers and equipment and if they are not (as in Italy) the attack is being performed only half-heartedly. In OTL they were dead-set on the French route. They were convinced (with reasonable accuracy) that Churchill was more concerned about Soviet intrusion into Britain's sphere of influence than ending the war as quickly as possible.
So in order for this to be attempted the French option has to be quashed. That seems unlikely to happen. A possibility might be if the USA recognised the USSR for what she was earlier but even that seems unlikely.
Regardless if the Allies were of one mind and the choice was Yugoslavia, then the attack could and probably would have been successful. It would be lunacy to say that Yugoslavia (let alone Greece) in 1944 was defended with anything like the resources that Germany had to defend France.
As for
Italy stalled for several reasons, but the main one was the fact that priority was shifted (argueably for the Americans it was always ever thus) for the all important landings and subsequent campaign in France.
Any successful Allied push has to fundamentally be an American operation. By 1944 they are going to provide bulk of the soldiers and equipment and if they are not (as in Italy) the attack is being performed only half-heartedly. In OTL they were dead-set on the French route. They were convinced (with reasonable accuracy) that Churchill was more concerned about Soviet intrusion into Britain's sphere of influence than ending the war as quickly as possible.
So in order for this to be attempted the French option has to be quashed. That seems unlikely to happen. A possibility might be if the USA recognised the USSR for what she was earlier but even that seems unlikely.
Regardless if the Allies were of one mind and the choice was Yugoslavia, then the attack could and probably would have been successful. It would be lunacy to say that Yugoslavia (let alone Greece) in 1944 was defended with anything like the resources that Germany had to defend France.
As for
welcome to the wonderful world of air supremacy.
The Sandman
Banned
You do know there was a major battle there during the German invasion in OTL 1941, right? And that the pass is currently anywhere from one to three miles wide?
MrP
Banned
It's very pretty, incidentally. Well, it was last time I visited. I believe they put the rowing facilities for the last Olympics smack bang across the battlefield.
Though in fairness to the Greeks, the place is so small that everywhere's full of archaeology. Time Team would never have a failed dig there.
The factors you mention certainly put Italy on the back burner, but nevertheless the logistics, the road, and rail network, the port handling capabilities, were all worse there than in France. In the Balkans, they are worse.
I'm not saying anything about enemy opposition here.
Your points are all valid, but there are a couple more.
Italy is a horrible place to fight if you are on the offensive & the further North you go, the worse it gets. The Wermacht was a superb defensive force (when Hitler allowed it) especially from prepared positions such as the Gustav line and later the Gothic line. A good argument can be made that the Allies would have been wise to stop at the Winter line and simply made ongoing demonstrations to pin the Heer forces in place. Taking Rome, while politically expedient, was far from critical to the war effort, and was almost certainly not worth the losses suffered by the Allies. It would have been much wiser to keep the Wermacht in place and beat the snot out of it with airpower and artillery, inflicting casualties while freeing up serveral very good allied divisions.
The other problem was the Clark Factor. Clark made some, well, interesting decisions both immediatly following the breaching of the Winter Line and later as Theater Commander.