What if: Stalin sends a Soviet Expeditionary Force to Italy in 1943

Anaxagoras

Banned
As pointed out already, this would not happen because the USSR needs every man it can get on the Eastern Front (stories of the "unlimited" supply of Soviet manpower are simply wrong) and Stalin would not want Russian troops side-by-side with Americans, Brits, Frenchmen, Poles, Brazilians, ect. because of the dangerous ideas they might pick up.

Moreover, Stalin didn't really want the Allied poking around in the Mediterranean, since he thought it distracted them from the invasion of France, the real Second Front. Therefore, why would he wanted to encourage them?
 
What about a major Italian Communist uprising in North Italy, if the Soviets could be able to send a small Soviet Expeditionary Force to Italy with the idea to divide Italy up in a Soviet North Italy, Allied South Italy, just like what happened in Austria and Germany.
 

orwelans II

Banned
The Red army had literally just suffered 1,000,000 casualties at Kursk (~400,000 KIA) and lost almost 8,000 armored vehicles
I don't know where the hell you got these inflated numbers for dead Red Army personell. The number of Soviet troops that engaged the Axis in that battle was 1.2 million. They won the battle. They didn't loose every third man, let alone suffer casualties at 85% of their force. Operation Citadel was postponed when troops were needed in Italy. If Germans don't commit to attacking the Soviets at Kursk and biting into their trap and instead keep the forces in Italy, Stalin would have those extra troops to spare for an Italian adventure.
 
I don't know where the hell you got these inflated numbers for dead Red Army personell. The number of Soviet troops that engaged the Axis in that battle was 1.2 million. They won the battle. They didn't loose every third man, let alone suffer casualties at 85% of their force. Operation Citadel was postponed when troops were needed in Italy. If Germans don't commit to attacking the Soviets at Kursk and biting into their trap and instead keep the forces in Italy, Stalin would have those extra troops to spare for an Italian adventure.
But as i have discovered, any Soviet troops send to Italy will get exposed to a better life than under the Stalin Regime.
 
Maybe sending blueprint for faster thanks that the britts have and better armor than the yanks and thus the wallies land in Normandy with KV-tanks or something like that
 
Maybe sending blueprint for faster thanks that the britts have and better armor than the yanks and thus the wallies land in Normandy with KV-tanks or something like that
I think both the Americans and the British new enough about the Soviet hardware they where using, i think so.
 

orwelans II

Banned
But as i have discovered, any Soviet troops send to Italy will get exposed to a better life than under the Stalin Regime.
I'm just arguing that it wasn't impossible for Stalin to find extra troops if he felt like it, not that he'd be likely to do it.
But, better life in a Fascist backwater that was Italy? The only ones that can introduce them to a better life were some American and British troops and you have commisars to make sure that they don't mingle with them too much which won't be hard since most Soviet troops didn't speak English. On the front everyone has a shitty life, so I don't see how they'd notice this better life anyway.
 
I'm just arguing that it wasn't impossible for Stalin to find extra troops if he felt like it, not that he'd be likely to do it.
But, better life in a Fascist backwater that was Italy? The only ones that can introduce them to a better life were some American and British troops and you have commisars to make sure that they don't mingle with them too much which won't be hard since most Soviet troops didn't speak English. On the front everyone has a shitty life, so I don't see how they'd notice this better life anyway.
But Italian people living under the Mussolini regime where better of than those who are living under the Stalin Regime, ore am i wrong.
 

orwelans II

Banned
But Italian people living under the Mussolini regime where better of than those who are living under the Stalin Regime, ore am i wrong.
Better and worse off depends on a lot of stuff. Maybe it's better to live in a Mediterrenian climate than a boreal one. People in Italy hated Mussolini at that point while the Soviets were mostly loyal to Stalin. One might presume that because the people's standard was nominally higher in Italy it might sway the Red armymen's opinions, but the richest areas of Italy were still held by the Axis.
 
Stalin might have sent handfuls of "advisors" to assist communist partisans in the Balkans and Italy in hopes that they would distract entire divisions of Germans.
Why?
For centuries, Russia has struggled to gain a warm-water port. A port along tbeDalmation or Italian coast would allow Russian ships to sail 12 months out of every year.
 

orwelans II

Banned
Stalin might have sent handfuls of "advisors" to assist communist partisans in the Balkans and Italy in hopes that they would distract entire divisions of Germans.
Why?
For centuries, Russia has struggled to gain a warm-water port. A port along tbeDalmation or Italian coast would allow Russian ships to sail 12 months out of every year.
Kaliningrad is one such port, no? Even so, if the push comes to shove with the West during some crisis point, they can just close off the Suez and Gibraltar to the Soviet ships.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't know where the hell you got these inflated numbers for dead Red Army personell. The number of Soviet troops that engaged the Axis in that battle was 1.2 million. They won the battle. They didn't loose every third man, let alone suffer casualties at 85% of their force. Operation Citadel was postponed when troops were needed in Italy. If Germans don't commit to attacking the Soviets at Kursk and biting into their trap and instead keep the forces in Italy, Stalin would have those extra troops to spare for an Italian adventure.
Red Army forces at Kursk, including both Operation Citadel (Red Army forces deployed 1,910,361 with KIA/MIA 70,240 i.e. unrecoverable losses, 104.714 WIA and the Soviet counter-offensives Operations Kutuzov with 1,286,000 troops deployed (112,529 KIA/MIA i.e. unrecoverable losses, 317,361 WIA) & Polkovodets Rumyantsev with 1,114000 troops deployed (71,611 KIA/MIA i.e. unrecoverable losses, 113,995 WIA) totaled ~2.5 million men (there was considerable replacement activity that makes determining the exact figure engaged almost impossible). Total losses, even those detailed to the man by Soviet records, are almost certainly understated/cooked (as an example the number of unrecoverable losses suffered by the Steppe Front and the Voronezh Front during Citadel are identical and end with a round figure) but do total, even in the official records, as 254,529 KIA/MIA ( i.e. unrecoverable losses), 536,070 WIA or a total of 790,599 ground force losses. This does not include losses by Soviet air formations. It is worth noting that these losses are also unlikely to include even a majority of the "penal battalion" losses.

In short the Soviets did, very much suffer casualties of at least one third of the deployed force, with official KIA numbers almost certainly suppressed and "died of Wounds" not included in the KIA figures.

Sources:
Krivosheev, Grigoriy Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
Beevor, Antony, The Second World War
 

orwelans II

Banned
Sources:
Krivosheev, Grigoriy Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century
Beevor, Antony, The Second World War

You're right about the height of Soviet losses in the whole engagement. I was wrong and I was remembering partial numbers I've read in Epic Land Battles by Richard Holmes. There he states the number of Soviet troops that engaged at the start of the battle as 1.337 mil. (plus a tank army in reserve) I misremembered it as 1.2 mil.
He mentions that Soviet losses were no lesser than German ones and that the Germans themselves had official records of 907 000 casualties.

Even with these losses I'd argue that the Soviets had personell to spare for a symbolic division in Italy since the Axis suffered great casualties in the battle AND had to move some of it's troops from the eastern front due to the landings in Sicily (which had already caused problems for them at Kursk).
 
You're right about the height of Soviet losses in the whole engagement. I was wrong and I was remembering partial numbers I've read in Epic Land Battles by Richard Holmes. There he states the number of Soviet troops that engaged at the start of the battle as 1.337 mil. (plus a tank army in reserve) I misremembered it as 1.2 mil.
He mentions that Soviet losses were no lesser than German ones and that the Germans themselves had official records of 907 000 casualties.

Even with these losses I'd argue that the Soviets had personell to spare for a symbolic division in Italy since the Axis suffered great casualties in the battle AND had to move some of it's troops from the eastern front due to the landings in Sicily (which had already caused problems for them at Kursk).
Also i would assume that even with only a symbolic division in Italy, the Soviets can be part in shaping the future of Italy and not leave it only to the British and Americans.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Also i would assume that even with only a symbolic division in Italy, the Soviets can be part in shaping the future of Italy and not leave it only to the British and Americans.

The Western Allies and the Soviets were doing deals after wartime talks throughout the latter stages of the war concerning spheres of influence long before the end. Where and when Italy came up would be important.
I don't believe there would be a Soviet wartime presence in Italy due to logistics and politics but maybe, possibly there could be post-war presence.
Churchill would have something to say on that though, even the co-belligerent regime post-Benny.
 
Top