What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

No mate the German Merchant Marine had a surprisingly huge presence in the Mediterranean. They did most of the heavy lifting for Sonnenblume.


That's not the same thing as supply runs between Tunis and Sicily under allied air superiority.

More detailed information here.

I make it about 12 German and German seized ships of no more than 60,000 tonnes available in aggregate and used continuously in about 7 lifts before the Italians take over the main effort. Remarkable KM improvisation.
 
This was the ability of the Russians to power project in WW1:
M_115_carte_de_la_Perse_front_Caucase.JPG



And the WW2 invasion of Iran in 1941:
iran3.jpg



And the OTL Soviet study into invasion plans for the Middle East:
iran2.jpg

1. The Turks stopped the Russians cold and rolled them back. Nobody stopped the British.
2. Staff studies versus actual operations, really?
3. In Iran, the British did the real heavy lifting (again). the Russians only invaded cautiously after the British neutered most Iranian resistance.

I'd ask you to prove they had good relations first since you made the positive claim.

4. I suggest that this is a rhetorical trick seeking deflection, since it was previously claimed in the general discussion that the French would be regarded with hostility by acting in Moslem territories, when it was alleged the French risked opprobrium. Why should I have to prove they were not guilty, when it was suggested, first, that they were?

But a lot of the French troops who gave the British trouble during the Vichy period were Syrian, Djibouti, Algerian and Moroccan. Right up until Torch, the "indigenous populations" supplied much of the Vichy regime's colonial military. They remained loyal, only switching allegiance when their French officers and civil administrations went Free French. They remained loyal to the FRENCH. The British had to deal with India, Iraq and Iran. (See above.) Even today, the French (and this includes Algeria and Syria) maintain better relations than the British or Americans with their former colonies. One does not see Algeria aiming missiles at Paris. Whereas, one must count up to six times since WW II that the British and the Americans have had trouble with Iraq and Iran. Who is aiming missiles at London? And trying to aim them at Washington?^1

^1 Note that Iran and Iraq, from an Iranian and/or Iraqi PoV, has justified reasons for taking self defense measures as any nation would given their respective histories. I am careful when I describe the RTL conditions at work. Algeria, once the French were kicked out, found out she could still do business with her former colonial governing nation. I note the difference.


??? 8 machines, 2 crashed, 3 turnbacks, 1 shot down by own side's fighters and 4 "might" have bombed Berlin.

For the rest of their history, no more than 18 machines participated in a single major operation, because no more than 18 were in existence at any given moment of their operational service during the war. One needs to measure that against the 1000 plane raids the RAF mustered in 1941 to obtain a true grasp of the situation.

Production difficulties, mainly duralumin shortages and engine problems limited the total production run to 98 machines. Less than the equally disastrous Heinkel He-177 and with less results to show for it.


Yeah, because the Axis didn't roll over the Balkans like it was nothing? I don't know what point you're arguing here? The Allies could have done the same in reverse with Italy on side since their naval projection ability and land connections would allow them to use the infrastructure in place just the same.

Uh, no. Yugoslavia was more or less a pushover because of the dare I say it; "Balkanized" nature of its internal politics and so forth. Rumania was Pro-German. Hungary, with its insane admiral, ditto. Bulgaria was in no position to offer much of a fight, which leaves Greece.

Greece put up one hell of a fight.

BUT... rolling in, and pacifying are two different issues. Outside of Hungary and Rumania, the Balkans were a transportation and logistics nightmare just to police. If the Yugos and the Rumanians were really trying, and in the case of the Russians, they would be, it would be a tough proposition, just to invade as in 1945 it was. It was not easy in any case in 1941 or 1944. I point out, that the Russians managed a "political" with Rumania and that they mostly stayed in Hungary and north where the going was "good".

Yugo was a "Tito and British" event. Ditto Greece. Bulgaria was a postwar mop-up. RTL indications are what I use to show me possible ATL results. YMCV, but don't bet against terrain, logistics, politics, or historical past indicators.
 
Last edited:
"Mussolini? Well he made the trains run on time. But..."

Begs a question... what if the Moose had really gone completely off his rocker like the Berlin maniac did not in this specific example and tried gas warfare against the British in Egypt? (or the Germans in Slovenia and Brenner Pass?). He did gas the Ethiopians with Mustard or rather his general, Graziani, did, after the Moose signed off on it.
Rome, October 27, 1935. [telex] To His Excellency Graziani. The use of gas as an ultima ratio to overwhelm enemy resistance and in case of counter-attack is authorized.

Mussolini


Mack Smith, D. (1983) [1981]. Mussolini. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. pp; 231, 417
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

1. The Turks stopped the Russians cold and rolled them back. Nobody stopped the British.
You confused the Turks and Russians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_campaign#1916
It was only in 1917 with the political collapse in Russia that the Ottomans had any significant success, since their opponents effectively melted away during the Revolution, until then the Russians held Ottoman territory.

And the Brits got stopped repeatedly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Gaza

2. Staff studies versus actual operations, really?
I posted two maps of actual operations and one staff study the mirrored the actual operations during the invasion of Iran. Even if we say the invasion of Iraq would be preempted by British moves in Iran to stop them, then the fighting in Iran and the Brits have to dedicate heavy forces to the region to keep the Soviets at bay, while the Soviets are close to their own supply bases and still would have control of the Caspian and shipping to Iranian ports, which then were connected to Tehran by rail, which in turn was connected to Iraq and the Persian Gulf ports, i.e. the route of Persian Corridor L-L IOTL.

3. In Iran, the British did the real heavy lifting (again). the Russians only invaded cautiously after the British neutered most Iranian resistance.
And? The Soviets projected force in the region and the British would have to send troops to at very least check their advance, which means troops not available for use elsewhere, and same with equipment and supplies, not to mention a butt load of shipping.

4. I suggest that this is a rhetorical trick seeking deflection, since it was previously claimed in the general discussion that the French would be regarded with hostility by acting in Moslem territories, when it was alleged the French risked opprobrium. Why should I have to prove they were not guilty, when it was suggested, first, that they were?
That is a serious case of projection you have there. You started by making the positive claim without evidence and issued a challenge to have someone prove your unsupported statement as wrong. That's not how things work, if you're going to make a claim you have to support it with evidence before you can expect someone to produce evidence to counter your claim.

Who claimed when that the French would have issues outside of Syria? A quote to reference what you're talking about would be helpful.

But a lot of the French troops who gave the British trouble during the Vichy period were Syrian, Djibouti, Algerian and Moroccan. Right up until Torch, the "indigenous populations" supplied much of the Vichy regime's colonial military. They remained loyal, only switching allegiance when their French officers and civil administrations went Free French. They remained loyal to the FRENCH. The British had to deal with India, Iraq and Iran. (See above.) Even today, the French (and this includes Algeria and Syria) maintain better relations than the British or Americans with their former colonies. One does not see Algeria aiming missiles at Paris. Whereas, one must count up to six times since WW II that the British and the Americans have had trouble with Iraq and Iran. Who is aiming missiles at London? And trying to aim them at Washington?^1

^1 Note that Iran and Iraq, from an Iranian and/or Iraqi PoV, has justified reasons for taking self defense measures as any nation would given their respective histories. I am careful when I describe the RTL conditions at work. Algeria, once the French were kicked out, found out she could still do business with her former colonial governing nation. I note the difference.
Ok? Volunteers that were willing to serve in the French army were willing to fight for France. What does modern relationships have to do with WW2? Decolonization saw extremely nasty wars in the French colonies.


??? 8 machines, 2 crashed, 3 turnbacks, 1 shot down by own side's fighters and 4 "might" have bombed Berlin.

For the rest of their history, no more than 18 machines participated in a single major operation, because no more than 18 were in existence at any given moment of their operational service during the war. One needs to measure that against the 1000 plane raids the RAF mustered in 1941 to obtain a true grasp of the situation.

Production difficulties, mainly duralumin shortages and engine problems limited the total production run to 98 machines. Less than the equally disastrous Heinkel He-177 and with less results to show for it.
Yes, they're called combat losses and accidents, something that happened to every model of combat aircraft ever and IOTL the Soviets faced extremely difficult circumstances due to the damage the surprise invasion inflicted on them.

IOTL with Barbarossa the USSR couldn't afford the cost of strategic bombers and outsourced the job to the British and Americans, while ITTL that would not be the case as there is no Barbarossa in 1940 or likely at all if the join the war as an active belligerent against the Allies. So they can continue to build them out perhaps even with German assistance if they are coming in against the same enemies.

The RAF didn't muster a 1000 aircraft raid until 1942 and after L-L kicked in and only that by using everything at their disposal, including training aircraft/crew and IIRC coastal command units.

Without Barbarossa guess what the Soviets don't have? Aluminum shortages. And may well have help from their allies to get the aircraft into service against the British, as they did with the Italians IOTL. The He177's issues were well known and not something that would impact the Soviet aircraft, especially if they use Jumo engines instead of their own AM-35.

Uh, no. Yugoslavia was more or less a pushover because of the dare I say it; "Balkanized" nature of its internal politics and so forth. Rumania was Pro-German. Hungary, with its insane admiral, ditto. Bulgaria was in no position to offer much of a fight, which leaves Greece.
Horthy was not pro-German, he was strong armed into the situation by the fact that the Hungarian economy was entirely dependent on German sales, as they lacked a port and the Nazis sweetened the strong arming with supporting their territorial demands against the neighbors. Romania only became pro-German when Stalin came knocking for territory and the Allies were pushed off the continent. Bulgaria with the Allies next door in Greece can offer a fight against the Axis, especially if the Romanians side with the Allies over Stalin and Hungary's territorial demands.
Yugoslavia could potentially be an ally or at least strong armed into letting the Allies use their territory because of the consequences of saying no, plus the benefits of saying yes and letting the Allies do all the fighting for them.

Greece put up one hell of a fight.
Against Italy out of Albania, not against the Germans or Brits.

BUT... rolling in, and pacifying are two different issues. Outside of Hungary and Rumania, the Balkans were a transportation and logistics nightmare just to police. If the Yugos and the Rumanians were really trying, and in the case of the Russians, they would be, it would be a tough proposition, just to invade as in 1945 it was. It was not easy in any case in 1941 or 1944. I point out, that the Russians managed a "political" with Rumania and that they mostly stayed in Hungary and north where the going was "good".
Given the positive relations the Allies had with Yugoslavia, I doubt the Yugoslav people would resist them as they were willing to do against the Germans. The Romanians were pretty pro-French above all else and wouldn't resist them, if anything they be glad to avoid dependency on Germany or the USSR. IOTL they'd have been rolled over very quickly in 1944 if not for the German 6th Army, as the Romanian army was on the Don in 1942 at Stalingrad. The Soviet 3rd Ukrainian Front rolled into Yugoslavia in 1944, so they were very critical to the liberation of that country, so there wasn't an issue of them actively avoiding Yugoslavia, in fact the country wouldn't have been liberated without their Front doing the heavy lifting. Partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece were an issue, but never an existential threat and were only as much of a threat as it was due to how much external material support they got from the Allies; really to get to the point that they became nearly as dangerous as they were from 1943-45 was due to the Allies getting bases in Italy to make supply to the Partisans easier; I don't see Germany or the Soviets really being all that able to supply that level of support to Communists in the area and Fascists were only willing to fight alongside the occupiers once they had been set up and backed up by the physical presence of Axis troops in country; they would not likely be behind the line guerrillas themselves.

Yugo was a "Tito and British" event. Ditto Greece. Bulgaria was a postwar mop-up. RTL indications are what I use to show me possible ATL results. YMCV, but don't bet against terrain, logistics, politics, or historical past indicators.
I mean, sure? If the Allies are moving in to the Balkans history showed they were more pro-Allied than pro-German, with relatively minor exception with the Croats. Siding with the Allies means they are protected from both the Germans and Stalin for the time being barring major collapse of the Allies, which is unlikely if the Allies get in there first, though their plans for a mass movement of Balkan states to their side to do the heavy lifting for the Allies is a pipe-dream of Parisian generals and politicians. But moving on the Balkans removes a major raw material source for Germany, which they had built up through economic strong arming in the 1930s, and could arguably convince the Romanians not to sell oil to Germany, which would have pretty major consequences assuming Stalin doesn't make up the difference, which he might well do to keep Germany in the war even before/without Operation Pike bringing the USSR into the war as a German co-belligerent or ally.

Begs a question... what if the Moose had really gone completely off his rocker like the Berlin maniac did not in this specific example and tried gas warfare against the British in Egypt? (or the Germans in Slovenia and Brenner Pass?). He did gas the Ethiopians with Mustard or rather his general, Graziani, did, after the Moose signed off on it.
But why? Gas means gas can be used against the Italians, which hurts them as the attacker in the Brenner, especially with persistent mustard gas saturating the exact route they'd need to run supplies and troops through. The Allies would disavow immediately.
If he did it against the Brits...well seeing as how the fighting went for the Italians against them IOTL gas warfare would turn against them extremely badly very quickly.
 
But why? Gas means gas can be used against the Italians, which hurts them as the attacker in the Brenner, especially with persistent mustard gas saturating the exact route they'd need to run supplies and troops through. The Allies would disavow immediately.
If he did it against the Brits...well seeing as how the fighting went for the Italians against them IOTL gas warfare would turn against them extremely badly very quickly.
Quick question i am a bit confused with the writing around brenner. Why would they be attacking to my knowledge italy at this point controled the pass. If you meant attacking out of the pass then I retract and am sorry to bother. However I completely agree with you at the subject at hand.
 

Deleted member 1487

Quick question i am a bit confused with the writing around brenner. Why would they be attacking to my knowledge italy at this point controled the pass. If you meant attacking out of the pass then I retract and am sorry to bother. However I completely agree with you at the subject at hand.
Even if controlling the pass they would need to fight out of a bottleneck into terrain beyond. Look at pictures and maps of it, the terrain is very restricted. Plus any attacking army would be advancing into Tyrol, the most mountainous region of Austria. Having been there, that isn't a place you would want to fight your way into and through. Especially starting in September when the next couple of months is going to mean you're stuck in enemy mountains in winter.

Carbone_tedesco_per_il_Brennero.jpg
 
You confused the Turks and Russians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_campaign#1916
It was only in 1917 with the political collapse in Russia that the Ottomans had any significant success, since their opponents effectively melted away during the Revolution, until then the Russians held Ottoman territory.

I confused no-one.

Islamic Army of the Caucasus. End result was Russian defeat.


Again... end result after Allenby got finished in the trans Jordan and Maude dealt with Khalil Pasha

I posted two maps of actual operations and one staff study the mirrored the actual operations during the invasion of Iran. Even if we say the invasion of Iraq would be preempted by British moves in Iran to stop them, then the fighting in Iran and the Brits have to dedicate heavy forces to the region to keep the Soviets at bay, while the Soviets are close to their own supply bases and still would have control of the Caspian and shipping to Iranian ports, which then were connected to Tehran by rail, which in turn was connected to Iraq and the Persian Gulf ports, i.e. the route of Persian Corridor L-L IOTL.

This is utter fantasy. Infrastructure means the Russians cannot stay unless they are supplied across the Caspian. Road nets from the Caspian ports are non existent. This is not hard to figure out. YOU HAVE TO BRANCH OFF the railroad network and it does not have the tonnes per kilometer/day capacity to support the Russian incursion. Nor do the Caspian ports have the receivership capacity or the transshipment capacity nor do the Russians have the shipping. The Russians move because they know the British will supply them from the south, as it happened RTL.

And? The Soviets projected force in the region and the British would have to send troops to at very least check their advance, which means troops not available for use elsewhere, and same with equipment and supplies, not to mention a butt load of shipping.

RTL, the British did. With predictable results. Oil to British armies and fleets (Mediterranean). Oil to American armies and fleets (Pacific). Good investment. Never given due credit for Allied WW II success.

That is a serious case of projection you have there. You started by making the positive claim without evidence and issued a challenge to have someone prove your unsupported statement as wrong. That's not how things work, if you're going to make a claim you have to support it with evidence before you can expect someone to produce evidence to counter your claim.

I will ignore (^^^) the obvious misstatement of the record which still remains in black and white and I will stick to what I posted. I provided evidence and not all the claims to the contrary changes that record. Refute it, if possible. THAT is how discussion works. The French historical diplomatic record as cited and their military performance in region (good) remains the RTL obstacle that must be refuted. It has not been at all, so I must conclude that the contrary assertion put forth is "not proven". Therefore I will move on to the next point.

Who claimed when that the French would have issues outside of Syria? A quote to reference what you're talking about would be helpful.

You did.

Soviets invade the Middle East and dismantle the British empire, while supplying Germany will all the raw materials it needs to fight the war, no eastern front for Germany, French belligerence in the Balkans doesn't exactly make them popular in the neutral world,

In the mish mash of that handwavium, ignoring the sheer problems the Russians, Germans and Wallies have in mounting these unobtainable lunacies and assertions of nonexistent capability which even the United States at her peak would be hard pressed to achieve, there is that germ in red.

Now as I read the implications, the neutral world here means, uninvolved nearby states. Looking at a map, that means THE MIDDLE EAST. Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia at the minimum. These are problem nations for the UK, not France. Might want to remember that I notice these things and extrapolate forward the meanings and implications thereof.

Ok? Volunteers that were willing to serve in the French army were willing to fight for France. What does modern relationships have to do with WW2? Decolonization saw extremely nasty wars in the French colonies.

Volunteers in the French "colonies" came from colonies with populations that did not rebel until post WW II. The British had trouble (a lot of it) during WW II, especially in India and Malaysia. As for decolonization, postwar, the only nation that got out "clean" was the United States. The French had their nasty bits in Indo China and in Algeria, but well after WW II and that was a bit of misjudgment on their part. Eventually their relations stabilized to fair to good as their former colonies were agreeable to business as usual under a new nomenclature. *(Example; West Africa today.)

Pe-8
Yes, they're called combat losses and accidents, something that happened to every model of combat aircraft ever and IOTL the Soviets faced extremely difficult circumstances due to the damage the surprise invasion inflicted on them.

It is called incompetence and engineering overreach. I note (with intense sarcasm) the difference between RTL results and the claims asserted for the aircraft made.

IOTL with Barbarossa the USSR couldn't afford the cost of strategic bombers and outsourced the job to the British and Americans, while ITTL that would not be the case as there is no Barbarossa in 1940 or likely at all if the join the war as an active belligerent against the Allies. So they can continue to build them out perhaps even with German assistance if they are coming in against the same enemies.

The Russians wanted to bomb Berlin. They TRIED to bomb Berlin. They lacked the fuel, doctrine, training, infrastructure, targeting information, crews, maintenance and TECHNOLOGY to do it. Not to say that they could not achieve it eventually (Tu-4) but they had to steal and reverse engineer two decades of Western technology to pull it off and the result was still a deathtrap by American standards; and all postwar, when their program was as huge as America's (during the war) to produce the B-29 in the first place. They cannot do it before they see how it is done. They are not very good at systems of systems work. (Modern example: shipbuilding, the Mistral (French) was clearly beyond their naval tech base, and they so desperately wanted one to catch up to the West.)

If the Anglo-Americans bombed Berlin, it was because they could and wanted it, not because the Russians outsourced anything.

The RAF didn't muster a 1000 aircraft raid until 1942 and after L-L kicked in and only that by using everything at their disposal, including training aircraft/crew and IIRC coastal command units.

March 1942. Timing is irrelevant to the point I made which is that the Pe-8 was a non-effect and a miniscule presence in the Allied air war and not some "strategic asset".

Prior to Cologne... August 7, 1940. The Jules Verne did more damage than the Russians did. France achieved it by the way with a CRAPPY aircraft.

The first real bombing raid on Berlin would not occur until August 25, 1940, during the Battle of Britain. Hitler had placed London off-limits for bombing, and the Luftwaffe was concentrating on defeating the Royal Air Force in preparation for a cross-Channel invasion. But on the night of August 24, a German plane dropped bombs on London, probably by accident, on its way home from a raid. Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately ordered the RAF to retaliate with a raid on Berlin. That same night, a force of 81 Vickers Wellingtons and Handley Page Hampdens headed for Berlin. Only about half of them reached the capital, which was obscured by dense clouds. Little damage was done, but one bomb killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo.

The British kill that elephant. Made a Meier out of Fatso (Goering.).

Without Barbarossa guess what the Soviets don't have? Aluminum shortages. And may well have help from their allies to get the aircraft into service against the British, as they did with the Italians IOTL. The He177's issues were well known and not something that would impact the Soviet aircraft, especially if they use Jumo engines instead of their own AM-35.

Hah. Did you read about the shared radiator and cooler circuits the Pe-8 engines had? Engine explosions and fires in mid-air. Never solved. Jumo engines are not going to fix THAT problem either. It is a cooling circuit issue and not solvable unless the whole circuit is torn out and replumbed independent to each engine. Good luck with that bolo.

Horthy was not pro-German, he was strong armed into the situation by the fact that the Hungarian economy was entirely dependent on German sales, as they lacked a port and the Nazis sweetened the strong arming with supporting their territorial demands against the neighbors. Romania only became pro-German when Stalin came knocking for territory and the Allies were pushed off the continent. Bulgaria with the Allies next door in Greece can offer a fight against the Axis, especially if the Romanians side with the Allies over Stalin and Hungary's territorial demands.

Nonsense. Horthy did pursue a catlike policy with regards to the Germans but anyone who was in his situation should have seen the future better. He clearly was not some Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.

Rumania had WW I grudges to settle. Not going to be a friend to the Wallies if Russia is on their side. Not going to be a friend to the Berlin maniac if Russia is on his side. This is their RTL behavior by the way.

Bulgaria's internals are so mish mashed, that she is like Yugoslavia, which comes next.

Yugoslavia could potentially be an ally or at least strong armed into letting the Allies use their territory because of the consequences of saying no, plus the benefits of saying yes and letting the Allies do all the fighting for them.

Terrain, infrastructure, balkanization of competing interest groups, ethnic hatreds, etc.; how much does one know about Yugoslavia then? only a madman (Berlin maniac one at that.) wants anything to do with Yugoslavia.

Greece.

Against Italy out of Albania, not against the Germans or Brits.
I note with sarcasm, that the Germans invaded out of Bulgaria and that most of the Greek army was holed up in southern Albania locked up with the Italians. kind of hard to stop Germans 10x to 1. The British came to help, so were not opposed.

1200px-Battle_of_Greece_WWII_1941_map-en.svg.png


Note the right hook?
Given the positive relations the Allies had with Yugoslavia, I doubt the Yugoslav people would resist them as they were willing to do against the Germans. The Romanians were pretty pro-French above all else and wouldn't resist them, if anything they be glad to avoid dependency on Germany or the USSR. IOTL they'd have been rolled over very quickly in 1944 if not for the German 6th Army, as the Romanian army was on the Don in 1942 at Stalingrad. The Soviet 3rd Ukrainian Front rolled into Yugoslavia in 1944, so they were very critical to the liberation of that country, so there wasn't an issue of them actively avoiding Yugoslavia, in fact the country wouldn't have been liberated without their Front doing the heavy lifting. Partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece were an issue, but never an existential threat and were only as much of a threat as it was due to how much external material support they got from the Allies; really to get to the point that they became nearly as dangerous as they were from 1943-45 was due to the Allies getting bases in Italy to make supply to the Partisans easier; I don't see Germany or the Soviets really being all that able to supply that level of support to Communists in the area and Fascists were only willing to fight alongside the occupiers once they had been set up and backed up by the physical presence of Axis troops in country; they would not likely be behind the line guerrillas themselves.

One answer... Croations. So the whole house of cards (^^^) about Yugoslavia falls apart. Also Tito, not the Russians chased the Germans out, but what the hey?

As for Rumania, what about geography and oil am I missing? Nothing. So, there is that refutation.

I mean, sure? If the Allies are moving in to the Balkans history showed they were more pro-Allied than pro-German, with relatively minor exception with the Croats. Siding with the Allies means they are protected from both the Germans and Stalin for the time being barring major collapse of the Allies, which is unlikely if the Allies get in there first, though their plans for a mass movement of Balkan states to their side to do the heavy lifting for the Allies is a pipe-dream of Parisian generals and politicians. But moving on the Balkans removes a major raw material source for Germany, which they had built up through economic strong arming in the 1930s, and could arguably convince the Romanians not to sell oil to Germany, which would have pretty major consequences assuming Stalin doesn't make up the difference, which he might well do to keep Germany in the war even before/without Operation Pike bringing the USSR into the war as a German co-belligerent or ally.

Everything I've written about the Balkans reiterated. Politics, terrain, infrastructure, ethnic differences, LOGISTICS. You see that bold? That is YOU making MY CASE.

Bennie the Moose goes nuts and orders gas warfare.

But why? Gas means gas can be used against the Italians, which hurts them as the attacker in the Brenner, especially with persistent mustard gas saturating the exact route they'd need to run supplies and troops through. The Allies would disavow immediately.

Gas would be used in DEFENSE. Laid in smoke belts it will slow German movement to a crawl. Brenner? Who said anything about the Brenner? I imagine that it would be on the Slovenian frontier where the gap and the left hook is. Besides, the AMERICANS are not going to give a hoot in hell when it comes to gas. They planned its use for Downfall, so they would understand the Moose's desperation. They would just shake their heads at the tactical stupidity of it. Mines and obstacles are better.

If he did it against the Brits...well seeing as how the fighting went for the Italians against them IOTL gas warfare would turn against them extremely badly very quickly.

See what I just wrote about mines and obstacles. Italians have excellent sappers, pioneers and "combat engineers".
 
no eastern front for Germany

Whenever someone says Russia can do something in the Middle East or southwest Asia I look at the rail and road nets and the air base infrastructures and who is in the way. There are real problems for Germano_Russians, some of them insoluble.

IF the two pariah countries cooperated, and USSR gets involved in shooting war with the Allies? doesn't that allow for the ratio of German forces East/West to be reversed? (at the very least)

THAT is the benefit to speculative CommuNazi Axis? along with a probable floodtide of raw materials?
 
IF the two pariah countries cooperated, and USSR gets involved in shooting war with the Allies? doesn't that allow for the ratio of German forces East/West to be reversed? (at the very least)

THAT is the benefit to speculative CommuNazi Axis? along with a probable floodtide of raw materials?

Probably >>>> but then Berlin gets glassed and then Moscow. Think about that HORRIBLE stomach nauseating terrible outcome for a moment, and then thank Murphy that the Moscow madman and Berlin maniac hated each other.
 

nbcman

Donor
Probably >>>> but then Berlin gets glassed and then Moscow. Think about that HORRIBLE stomach nauseating terrible outcome for a moment, and then thank Murphy that the Moscow madman and Berlin maniac hated each other.
I don't think that it was personal but ideological. They would have been best of buds if they had the same ideology - until one of them purged the other for getting too close to power.
 
I don't think that it was personal but ideological. They would have been best of buds if they had the same ideology - until one of them purged the other for getting too close to power.

I think the ideology would sufficiently lead to personality clashes. Roosevelt could get along with anybody, but even he found Stalin sort of revolting.
 
Italy interfering with Anschluss after Britain and France have given the go ahead probably means that Mussolini is castigated as a war mongerer by all the right thinking people of Europe. Later, after all the evils of the Nazi regime have been put on public display, ITTL it's fascists that get to be insufferable about being "prematurely anti-Nazi" instead of communists.
I'd argue the Communists were equally, if not more evil.
 
Even if controlling the pass they would need to fight out of a bottleneck into terrain beyond. Look at pictures and maps of it, the terrain is very restricted. Plus any attacking army would be advancing into Tyrol, the most mountainous region of Austria. Having been there, that isn't a place you would want to fight your way into and through. Especially starting in September when the next couple of months is going to mean you're stuck in enemy mountains in winter.

Carbone_tedesco_per_il_Brennero.jpg
Yeah i see what you mean thanks for the clear up.
 
IF the two pariah countries cooperated, and USSR gets involved in shooting war with the Allies? doesn't that allow for the ratio of German forces East/West to be reversed? (at the very least)

THAT is the benefit to speculative CommuNazi Axis? along with a probable floodtide of raw materials?

Probably >>>> but then Berlin gets glassed and then Moscow. Think about that HORRIBLE stomach nauseating terrible outcome for a moment, and then thank Murphy that the Moscow madman and Berlin maniac hated each other.


of course my comment was only directed towards real benefits of Soviets being actively involved in the war, when historically they were able to remain out of the fray, going from strong to stronger?

in the context of this thread, my speculation the Soviets "spilling out into the Med" could gain German consent if Italy was neutral or Allied? and that would finally provoke the UK? (this may be incorrect)
 
of course my comment was only directed towards real benefits of Soviets being actively involved in the war, when historically they were able to remain out of the fray, going from strong to stronger?

in the context of this thread, my speculation the Soviets "spilling out into the Med" could gain German consent if Italy was neutral or Allied? and that would finally provoke the UK? (this may be incorrect)

Russians in that era have no navy or sealift worthy of the name. They lack even the human capital to build such a capability. They are a big fat zero in the Med. Come to think of it? They still are. Not that they cannot acquire the capacity, but it takes about 300 hundred years to build it.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
Doesn't really make them look all that effective fighting in the Alps

Could you please stop trotting out this old red herring?

The other poster was envisioning a situation in which the Italians would be on the defense - like the French in the Western Alps, you know.

Additionally, you're judging a campaign from its first two days - because it ended with the armistice, after that.
If Germany had heeded the French and British ultimatum and declared a ceasefire on September 3, 1939, what should we think of the performance of the 4. Panzerdivision?
That it wasn't all that effective attacking cavalry.

If Germany had suddenly decided to stop attacking Greece on April 8, 1941, what should we think of the performance of the German mountain troops that attacked the Metaxás Line?
That they were not all that effective in mountain fighting.

So give it a rest, will you.
 
of course my comment was only directed towards real benefits of Soviets being actively involved in the war, when historically they were able to remain out of the fray, going from strong to stronger?

in the context of this thread, my speculation the Soviets "spilling out into the Med" could gain German consent if Italy was neutral or Allied? and that would finally provoke the UK? (this may be incorrect)

Russians in that era have no navy or sealift worthy of the name. They lack even the human capital to build such a capability. They are a big fat zero in the Med. Come to think of it? They still are. Not that they cannot acquire the capacity, but it takes about 300 hundred years to build it.

you are making the same analysis regarding the Med as you did with the Middle East, and you are correct, "they're not going very far"

my point is if they stall in northern Iran or have a tenuous outpost in the Med (Greece?) no matter, they have entered the war.
 
Top