What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

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.

You are quite correct. My apologies for not fully seeing your excellent point. The Russians don't have to accomplish the main force on force. (Cref Western Allies and how they used the Russians to set up D-Day.). All they have to do is present a problem/distraction and/or let other events/actors play out and then they can exploit any weakness or opportunity that presents itself, like they did in northern Iran when the British embrogled themselves in Iraq and spilled over into southern Iran. The Russians, like anyone else competent in "strategic" vision, can seep into the niches and weaknesses. They don't have to schwerpunkt 24/7 tactically or even at the op-art level as long as they prepare well what they can do and thus exploit any opportunity they see.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
The reason I bring it out is the red herring that the Italian army was somehow specially prepared to fight in the Alps. Lack of training and preparation saw them suffer heavy exposure casualties and suffer very lopsided losses against less than half the French army stationed there (only 85k out of 180k were even at the front).

Unlike the Western Alps the Eastern Alps, i.e. on the Slovenian border, is the lowest part of the entire range and the entire reason the Italians only attacked there IOTL WW1.
800px-Alps_-_EastWest.JPG


On the defensive in that region any special mountain warfare skills they might have had weren't especially helpful given the level of preparation to actually fight a war and their OTL combat record in 1940. Compare that to the German record of fighting through similar terrain in the Balkans and Greece in 1941.

In terms of it being only a few days...that cuts both ways, the French could have continued to out perform. And we do have Italian performance for the rest of 1940 to consider as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco...offensive_(14_November_1940_–_6_January_1941)

I'll give it a rest when people drop the canard that the Italians were somehow ready to fight in 1940 even defensively against forces from out of Slovenia and that mountains or at least hills were the Italian's 'natural' fighting ground.
 
The reason I bring it out is the red herring that the Italian army was somehow specially prepared to fight in the Alps.

The Italian army was woefully unprepared for war in 1940, criminally so considered that they had had several months after September 1939. I don't question that. However, the sector in which they were, let's say, less unprepared was mountain fighting. That's presumably what you don't understand from the efforts of other posters.

Lack of training and preparation saw them suffer heavy exposure casualties and suffer very lopsided losses against less than half the French army stationed there (only 85k out of 180k were even at the front).

First, lopsided losses are what happens when you attack fortified positions with little preparation, no clear plan, no air support and scanty artillery support. Second, it's not as if the Italian army in North-Western Italy, in turn, was entirely committed to the campaign. That's what happens when you fight in such constrained terrain; you simply lack the space to deploy. It was true for both sides in OTL, and it would be true in any similar terrain in any ATL.

Unlike the Western Alps the Eastern Alps, i.e. on the Slovenian border, is the lowest part of the entire range and the entire reason the Italians only attacked there IOTL WW1.

The Eastern end of the mountain range is lower than the other side. That's the only accurate piece of information in your rubbish above.
The Slovenian border you doggedly keep looking at, the place you called "not mountains", isn't where the Italian-Yugoslavian border was back in 1940, nor where the Italian-Austro-Hungarian border was in 1914.
And the Italians attacked in the highest Alps, in Trentino, for instance. In general, the Austro-Hungarians were on the defensive and withdrawing all the time in that high mountain area, until the Austro-Hungarian attack in that theater in 1916, which forced the advancing Italians to stop where they were, and pushed them back on the Asiago highlands. And how did that end? That ended with the Austro-Hungarians being pushed back again. You need to read something about that part of WWI.

On the defensive in that region any special mountain warfare skills they might have had weren't especially helpful given the level of preparation to actually fight a war and their OTL combat record in 1940. Compare that to the German record of fighting through similar terrain in the Balkans and Greece in 1941.

I just did. The Gebirgsjäger, in the first two days of their attack on the Metaxás Line - a line that the Greeks had emptied to advance into Albania -, only conquered the outer Greek positions, and paid a heavy price. They did not break through. They probably would have, in a week or more, yes. But, on the basis of comparable data points (just the first two days of operations), the German mountain troops in 1941 were as bad as the Italians in 1940, if not worse given that the Greek forts were mostly half-empty.

Ditto for the performance of the 4. Panzerdivision. If we give it time to do its panzerdivision-like thing, then it works well in the first week of september, 1939. If we look at its first two days, we can serenely conclude it was a failure. I could provide more examples like this, you know.
 
The reason I bring it out is the red herring that the Italian army was somehow specially prepared to fight in the Alps.
It was prepared to defend on the Alps.

Let me repeat that again: defend on the Alps.

And, as all of the thread repeating this concept is apparently not enough so far, I will drop in one more repetition: defend on the Alps.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Italian army was woefully unprepared for war in 1940, criminally so considered that they had had several months after September 1939. I don't question that. However, the sector in which they were, let's say, less unprepared was mountain fighting. That's presumably what you don't understand from the efforts of other posters.
Their 1940 record does not show that the be the case, regardless of terrain. Defending in Greece in late 1940 against the Greeks in rougher terrain than on the Eastern Alps saw them get their asses handed to them.

First, lopsided losses are what happens when you attack fortified positions with little preparation, no clear plan, no air support and scanty artillery support. Second, it's not as if the Italian army in North-Western Italy, in turn, was entirely committed to the campaign. That's what happens when you fight in such constrained terrain; you simply lack the space to deploy. It was true for both sides in OTL, and it would be true in any similar terrain in any ATL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France#Italian
During the interwar years and 1939, the strength of the Italian military had dramatically fluctuated due to waves of mobilization and demobilization. By the time Italy entered the war, over 1.5 million men had been mobilized.[83][84] The Regio Esercito (Royal Italian Army) had formed 73 divisions out of this influx of men. However, only 19 of these divisions were complete and fully combat ready. A further 32 were in various stages of being formed and could be used for combat if needed, while the rest were not ready for battle.[85]
The Italians had mobilized well before the invasion, but only 19 were fully ready for combat; it was less the terrain and more a function of the poor readiness for war Italy has despite ostensibly getting ready since September 1939.
They sent 24 divisions, all their readied and then some.

Plus if Italy goes by OTL ITTL then they will be in the middle of a reorganization to shrink the size of divisions.

As to artillery:
Only 246 pieces, out of the army’s entire arsenal of 7,970 guns, were modern. The rest were up to forty years old and included many taken as reparations, in 1918, from the Austro-Hungarian Army.[87]

As to air support the Italian army had plenty, in fact it was the most prepared part of it's forces:
The Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) had the third largest fleet of bombers in the world when it entered the war.[19] A potent symbol of Fascist modernisation, it was the most prestigious of Italy's service branches, as well as the most recently battle-hardened, having participated in the Spanish Civil War.[100] The 1a Squadra Aerea in northern Italy, the most powerful and well-equipped of Italy's squadre aeree,[j] was responsible for supporting operations on the Alpine front.[102]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Aeronautica#Battle_of_France
The Regia Aeronautica carried out 716 bombing missions in support of the Italian invasion of France by the Regio Esercito. Italian aircraft dropped a total of 276 tons of bombs.

So I don't know where you go the idea they lacked air and artillery support (though the latter was distinctly inferior to any major European enemy, which is going to really hurt on the defensive) or that they had a bunch of divisions ready to go.

If they were on the defensive, they were really screwed if faced with air attack themselves, not simply due to lack of radar:
Italian aerial defences were weak. As early as August 1939 Italy had requested from Germany 150 batteries of 88-mm anti-aircraft (AA) guns. The request was renewed in March 1940, but declined on 8 June. On 13 June, Mussolini offered to send one Italian armoured division to serve on the German front in France in exchange for 50 AA batteries. The offer was refused.[45][100]

The Eastern end of the mountain range is lower than the other side. That's the only accurate piece of information in your rubbish above.
Funny how you accuse others of posting rubbish, when you make so many rubbish claims yourself right before this comment.

The Slovenian border you doggedly keep looking at, the place you called "not mountains", isn't where the Italian-Yugoslavian border was back in 1940, nor where the Italian-Austro-Hungarian border was in 1914.
And the Italians attacked in the highest Alps, in Trentino, for instance. In general, the Austro-Hungarians were on the defensive and withdrawing all the time in that high mountain area, until the Austro-Hungarian attack in that theater in 1916, which forced the advancing Italians to stop where they were, and pushed them back on the Asiago highlands. And how did that end? That ended with the Austro-Hungarians being pushed back again. You need to read something about that part of WWI..
I'm talking about the area where the 1940 border was, we've been over this earlier in this very thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...es-in-wolrd-war-2.471894/page-8#post-19249513

The German breakthrough at Caporetto was near terrain no higher than the mountains/hills ts the 1939 Italian-Yugoslav border if you read the post linked above.

The WW1 Italians did not in fact attack the Trentino, the Austrians pulled back to defensible terrain at the beginning of Italian entry into the war, ceded the low ground to economize on manpower, and the lines stayed the same while the Italian army tried their dozen Isonzo offensives. The Austrians did try the Asiago offensive, but ended up pulling back to their pre-attack lines after the Brusilov offensive started; the Italians only took back a bit of ground in counterattacks which started just 2 days before the Brusilov offensive, the Austrians gave up most of it willingly to economize on manpower yet again for the Eastern Front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asiago#Battle

For someone repeatedly claiming others should read more, you really should take your own advice first before posting.

I just did. The Gebirgsjäger, in the first two days of their attack on the Metaxás Line - a line that the Greeks had emptied to advance into Albania -, only conquered the outer Greek positions, and paid a heavy price. They did not break through. They probably would have, in a week or more, yes. But, on the basis of comparable data points (just the first two days of operations), the German mountain troops in 1941 were as bad as the Italians in 1940, if not worse given that the Greek forts were mostly half-empty.
70,000 men is empty? There was even a Yugoslav division that helped:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Metaxas_Line
4 divisions
2 brigades

65,110 soldiers
188 field artillery pieces
76 anti-tank guns
30 anti-aircraft guns
40 tankettes

The Yugoslav force that contributed directly to the defence of Metaxas Line was the 20th "Bregalnička" Infantry Division, part of the 3rd Territorial Army of the Yugoslav army. It confronted the German 2nd Panzerdivision, which would attempt to outflank the entire Greek position crossing into Greece from Yugoslav territory.

  • 20th "Bregalnička" Infantry Division (Lt. Gen. Dragutin Zivanovic)
    • 23 & 28 & 49 Inf. Reg., 20 Art. Reg.

The two new Gebirgsjager divisions (only formed in October 1940) pinned the garrison and flanked the position, capturing most of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Greece#Metaxas_Line
Date 6–9 April 1941
.....
In the following days, the Germans pummelled the forts with artillery and dive bombers and reinforced the 125th Infantry Regiment. Finally, a 7,000 ft (2,100 m) high snow-covered mountainous passage considered inaccessible by the Greeks was crossed by the 6th Mountain Division, which reached the rail line to Thessaloniki on the evening of 7 April.[93]

Yeah, sounds like the Germans did terribly to win so quickly, in 4 days.

Oh BTW about the Italian invasion of France timeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
Italian offensive (21–24 June)
Oh what's that? Same exact time period, 4 days?

And the Germans flanked the line already on day 2 of their attack and in the same total time frame captured the entire garrison and fought through a Yugoslav division in the process, while suffering fewer overall casualties than the Italians.

All that with with the Greeks having a denser concentration of manpower for the frontage (110 mile front at the Metaxas Line, with the Franco-Italian border being over 320 miles, but only 85k men at the front), while the Germans actually won their campaign in the same time frame with fewer losses than the Italians took.

Ditto for the performance of the 4. Panzerdivision. If we give it time to do its panzerdivision-like thing, then it works well in the first week of september, 1939. If we look at its first two days, we can serenely conclude it was a failure. I could provide more examples like this, you know.
How about 4 days, the entire length of the Italian main offensive?

It was prepared to defend on the Alps.

Let me repeat that again: defend on the Alps.

And, as all of the thread repeating this concept is apparently not enough so far, I will drop in one more repetition: defend on the Alps.
Maybe on the Brenner, but it's record on the defense in any terrain was pretty bad on all fronts in 1940 with limited exceptions. Things got better with more combat experience, extensive retraining, and aid from their allies, but that took time and despite that they had a severe equipment quality deficiency throughout the war.

Repeat it all you want, but there is a historical record and it does not look good for defending the Eastern Alps on the Slovenian border.
 

Deleted member 1487

I confused no-one.
Too bad for you then, you might look like you had any semblance of an idea of what was going on:
Islamic Army of the Caucasus. End result was Russian defeat.

From your own link:
During 1917, due to the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War, the Russian army in the Caucasus had ceased to exist. The Russian Provisional Government's Caucasus Front formally ceased to exist in March 1918.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk#Territorial_cessions_in_the_Caucasus
At the insistence of Talaat Pasha, the treaty declared that the territory Russia took from the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi, were to be returned. At the time of the treaty, this territory was under the effective control of Armenian and Georgian forces.

Paragraph 3 of Article IV of the treaty stated that:

The districts of Erdehan, Kars, and Batum will likewise and without delay be cleared of Russian troops. Russia will not interfere in the reorganization of the national and international relations of these districts, but leave it to the population of these districts to carry out this reorganization in agreement with the neighboring States, especially with the Ottoman Empire.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia became independent.
Huh, the Ottoman faced a non-existent Russian army to occupy territory that was no longer Russian and just forming into a new country.

Again... end result after Allenby got finished in the trans Jordan and Maude dealt with Khalil Pasha
You said the Brits were never stopped, I provided 3 examples of them being stopped and beaten by the Ottomans.
Your reply is a really sad attempt to try and change the subject.

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.
Funny how they stayed from 1941-46 despite what you claim is nonexistent infrastructure.
If they have no active fronts it isn't like they couldn't build more, seeing as they already occupied the territory and the Allies will still have to to commit divisions it cannot spare to try and check them at a minimum and preferably push them out. After all Britain wants that oil.
Iran did provide a conduit of L-L supply to the USSR, one of the highest volume routes, which ran through the Caspian see ports. All while supplying the forces they had there occupying Iran until 1946. They got supplies from Iran and from the USSR, L-L material almost exclusively moved into the USSR, not going to supply the occupying forces.

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.
As they would in any TL. Which means there is a Middle East Front that Britain/the Allies needs to supply, sucks in divisions, equipment, and supplies they need for Europe, and achieves exactly what I was talking about: active participation of the USSR in the war against the Allies and drains them.
The oil only flowed because the Brits weren't fighting the Soviets, rather than were helped by them. Fighting in Iran changes the entire ability of the Allies to source oil from that country. How many forces do you think the Brits would pour into the country to ensure the flow of oil? Where are they coming from??? What happens when Iraq revolts while all available British divisions are in Iran?

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.
You will ignore what you cannot prove of course, pathetic attempt to dodge.
You haven't provided any evidence at all, so I don't now what you think you've proven or even how it relates to what the discussion is of.

Please quote where I did.

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.
How about specifically stating what you're choosing to concede because of inability to argue any point.

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.
They are the problem of the entire alliance, since they want to influence nations like Turkey and various Balkan states to join their alliance.

So far all I notice is your inability to make coherent points or supply actual evidence and get sidetracked by made up points that you've dreamed up.

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.)
Ok? Where did I argue that they would be a problem ITTL?

Pe-8

It is called incompetence and engineering overreach.
Hey more nonsense world salad!

I note (with intense sarcasm) the difference between RTL results and the claims asserted for the aircraft made.
Like any nation in WW2?

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.
Same with the Brits until the Butt Report and development of electronic bombing aids that took time, despite developing all that same stuff you list above pre-war. Experience takes time to develop and I'm not arguing the Soviets would be perfect on their first bombing raid at night over Britain, not sure why you're arguing like I am or did.

They pretty much abandoned their strategic bombing effort a few months after the start of Barbarossa and didn't resume until WW2 in Europe ended. So OTL isn't a heuristic for how their learning curve would be without Barbarossa, allied to Germany and getting helped by them, and operating out of France against Britain rather than over featureless Eastern European terrain at night trying to find a blacked out city.

You're making a lot of specious claims based on OTL AFTER Germany invaded and inflicted immense economic damage and the Soviets abandoned their strategic bombing program for years.

The Anglo-Americans weren't able to bomb Berlin with any sort of accuracy or consistency despite investing enormous resources in their strategic bombing programs until 1942. In fact the failures of the RAF to pull it off in November 1941 led to BC's leader being fired and Bomber Harris getting the job.

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.
Timing isn't irrelevant considering how much time and more resources the Soviets would have to developing their bomber and honing their skills and technology. You're trying to deflect again and only showing how bad at proving your points you are. Why are you comparing a situation after the USSR was surprise attacked in the worst invasion in modern history, that inflicted by some estimates upwards of 40% loss of GDP on the USSR and their entire pre-war military, to how they'd be able to conduct their operations in a TL where they aren't at war with the OTL invaders, instead allied to them and assisting their bombing campaign?

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.
x'Dx'Dx'D
That is the most pathetic argument of the bunch.
One French aircraft flying over a lit up capital city after hugging the German North Sea coast; the only reason they found the city was it was lit up like there was no war on and they could see it from nearly the coast. The Soviets were trying to bomb a blacked out city and pulled it off.
Did you even bother to read your own article?

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

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.
Do you have a quote about that circuit problem? I can't find a single reference to support your assertion.

I could go on, but I'm tired of all the nonsense I keep coming across in your posts.
 
Too bad for you then, you might look like you had any semblance of an idea of what was going on:

From your own link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk#Territorial_cessions_in_the_Caucasus

Huh, the Ottoman faced a non-existent Russian army to occupy territory that was no longer Russian and just forming into a new country.

You said the Brits were never stopped, I provided 3 examples of them being stopped and beaten by the Ottomans.
Your reply is a really sad attempt to try and change the subject.

Funny how they stayed from 1941-46 despite what you claim is nonexistent infrastructure.
If they have no active fronts it isn't like they couldn't build more, seeing as they already occupied the territory and the Allies will still have to to commit divisions it cannot spare to try and check them at a minimum and preferably push them out. After all Britain wants that oil.
Iran did provide a conduit of L-L supply to the USSR, one of the highest volume routes, which ran through the Caspian see ports. All while supplying the forces they had there occupying Iran until 1946. They got supplies from Iran and from the USSR, L-L material almost exclusively moved into the USSR, not going to supply the occupying forces.

As they would in any TL. Which means there is a Middle East Front that Britain/the Allies needs to supply, sucks in divisions, equipment, and supplies they need for Europe, and achieves exactly what I was talking about: active participation of the USSR in the war against the Allies and drains them.

The oil only flowed because the Brits weren't fighting the Soviets, rather than were helped by them. Fighting in Iran changes the entire ability of the Allies to source oil from that country. How many forces do you think the Brits would pour into the country to ensure the flow of oil? Where are they coming from??? What happens when Iraq revolts while all available British divisions are in Iran?

You will ignore what you cannot prove of course, pathetic attempt to dodge.

You haven't provided any evidence at all, so I don't now what you think you've proven or even how it relates to what the discussion is of.

Please quote where I did.

How about specifically stating what you're choosing to concede because of inability to argue any point.

They are the problem of the entire alliance, since they want to influence nations like Turkey and various Balkan states to join their alliance.

So far all I notice is your inability to make coherent points or supply actual evidence and get sidetracked by made up points that you've dreamed up.


Ok? Where did I argue that they would be a problem ITTL?


Hey more nonsense world salad!


Like any nation in WW2?


Same with the Brits until the Butt Report and development of electronic bombing aids that took time, despite developing all that same stuff you list above pre-war. Experience takes time to develop and I'm not arguing the Soviets would be perfect on their first bombing raid at night over Britain, not sure why you're arguing like I am or did.

They pretty much abandoned their strategic bombing effort a few months after the start of Barbarossa and didn't resume until WW2 in Europe ended. So OTL isn't a heuristic for how their learning curve would be without Barbarossa, allied to Germany and getting helped by them, and operating out of France against Britain rather than over featureless Eastern European terrain at night trying to find a blacked out city.

You're making a lot of specious claims based on OTL AFTER Germany invaded and inflicted immense economic damage and the Soviets abandoned their strategic bombing program for years.

The Anglo-Americans weren't able to bomb Berlin with any sort of accuracy or consistency despite investing enormous resources in their strategic bombing programs until 1942. In fact the failures of the RAF to pull it off in November 1941 led to BC's leader being fired and Bomber Harris getting the job.

Timing isn't irrelevant considering how much time and more resources the Soviets would have to developing their bomber and honing their skills and technology. You're trying to deflect again and only showing how bad at proving your points you are. Why are you comparing a situation after the USSR was surprise attacked in the worst invasion in modern history, that inflicted by some estimates upwards of 40% loss of GDP on the USSR and their entire pre-war military, to how they'd be able to conduct their operations in a TL where they aren't at war with the OTL invaders, instead allied to them and assisting their bombing campaign?

x'Dx'Dx'D
That is the most pathetic argument of the bunch.
One French aircraft flying over a lit up capital city after hugging the German North Sea coast; the only reason they found the city was it was lit up like there was no war on and they could see it from nearly the coast. The Soviets were trying to bomb a blacked out city and pulled it off.
Did you even bother to read your own article?

Ok?

Do you have a quote about that circuit problem? I can't find a single reference to support your assertion.

I could go on, but I'm tired of all the nonsense I keep coming across in your posts.

I invite you to go back and reread everything I've posted about the Russians, the British and the Pe-8 and the Ottomans ad nauseum, then I refer you to your OWN CITATION where I read and confirmed the cooling circuit problem in the Pe-8. (Its in the wiki article so how could you miss it?)

With all of that in mind, I am not going to denigrate anything you said or claimed at all. It is not gentlemanly nor is it necessary or acceptable to do so in a discussion. Facts and results cited previously, which you either want to ignore, seek to interpret in a unique way or discard are already in the record. You of course are allowed to disagree and interpret them differently since I am of the opinion, that no-one's interpretation is 100%, but that is a YMMV choice I give anyone. I am confident though that disinterested third parties will tend to accept and prefer my presentations rather than yours. Please do not take anything I write here as anything but what it is; my different interpretation of facts in the record as opposed to your claims. I disagree completely with your characterization of the facts as I presented them and invite you to build a much better case to refute them if you can.

Unless you can, I have to write of your case, based on what has been presented so far; "Not Proven."
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I invite you to go back and reread everything I've posted about the Russians, the British and the Pe-8 and the Ottomans ad nauseum, then I refer you to your OWN CITATION where I read and confirmed the cooling circuit problem in the Pe-8. (Its in the wiki article so how could you miss it?)

With all of that in mind, I am not going to denigrate anything you said or claimed at all. It is not gentlemanly nor is it necessary or acceptable to do so in a discussion. Facts and results cited previously, which you either want to ignore, seek to interpret in a unique way or discard are already in the record. You of course are allowed to disagree and interpret them differently since I am of the opinion, that no-one's interpretation is 100%, but that is a YMMV choice I give anyone. I am confident though that disinterested third parties will tend to accept and prefer my presentations rather than yours. Please do not take anything I write here as anything but what it is; my different interpretation of facts in the record as opposed to your claims. I disagree completely with your characterization of the facts as I presented them and invite you to build a much better case to refute them if you can.

Unless you can, I have to write of your case, based on what has been presented so far; "Not Proven."
The fact that you aren't even bothering to address the points shows you've got nothing to back up your claims. At this point we should go our own ways and agree to disagree on everything.
 
The fact that you aren't even bothering to address the points shows you've got nothing to back up your claims. At this point we should go our own ways and agree to disagree on everything.

Since you presented no case, what have I to comment upon? It brooks no discussion to say "tain't so" which is what your case is actually boiled down. Why waste time? Please give a refutation and then I will discuss it. Til then, I will not participate in circular run errors.
 
Damn and i thought the flame war was cooling down guess i was wrong might as well get some popcorn.
Well dont know how to respond without getting caught up so i might come back to it well good luck with the debate i guess.
 
Since you presented no case, what have I to comment upon? It brooks no discussion to say "tain't so" which is what your case is actually boiled down. Why waste time? Please give a refutation and then I will discuss it. Til then, I will not participate in circular run errors.

Damn and i thought the flame war was cooling down guess i was wrong might as well get some popcorn.
Well dont know how to respond without getting caught up so i might come back to it well good luck with the debate i guess.

Point taken and advice heeded. I am retiring right now.
 
What incentive would Mussolini have to join the Allies? He had territorial aspirations in French territories, as well as in the Balkans and North Africa. He had no quarrel with Germany as long as they didn't raise a claim to the South Tyrol, and his territorial ambitions did not conflict with those of Hitler. What could the Allies offer him to win him over to an alliance?
 

Deleted member 1487

What incentive would Mussolini have to join the Allies? He had territorial aspirations in French territories, as well as in the Balkans and North Africa. He had no quarrel with Germany as long as they didn't raise a claim to the South Tyrol, and his territorial ambitions did not conflict with those of Hitler. What could the Allies offer him to win him over to an alliance?
Economic incentives, client state in Austria, elimination of the German threat. He was after all anti-Hitler until the Allies embargoed him for his invasion of Ethopia and Hitler offered economic aid. But you're right, in the end there was more to be gained from working with Hitler in terms of territorial ambitions, which was the Italian Fascist core motivation after WW1 and the 'mutilated victory'.
 
Mussolini would have profited most from a waiting game. He could, for example, have taken advantage of the the alienation of Vichy France from Britain resulting from Dakar and Mers El Kebir, and moved to grab French Somaliland and Tunisia.
 

Deleted member 1487

Mussolini would have profited most from a waiting game. He could, for example, have taken advantage of the the alienation of Vichy France from Britain resulting from Dakar and Mers El Kebir, and moved to grab French Somaliland and Tunisia.
With hindsight sure, but at the time it looked like the war was going to be over within a few months, so he moved to get a seat at the table.
 
What incentive would Mussolini have to join the Allies? He had territorial aspirations in French territories, as well as in the Balkans and North Africa. He had no quarrel with Germany as long as they didn't raise a claim to the South Tyrol, and his territorial ambitions did not conflict with those of Hitler. What could the Allies offer him to win him over to an alliance?

Before the fall of France? Almost nothing. After Vichy ticks the Wallies off? Chad, Tunis, Djibouti, maybe Madagascar.
 
Top