Hans Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Okay Grogs Its May 1940, Germany has invaded France, Dunkirk is surrounded. What would you do (yes you may use hindsight) if you were Mussolini? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 STAY NEUTRAL: Italians had no tanks, no a/c, no troop training, obsolete equipment, no fuel reserves, no iron, no coil, radar research had been stopped, no industrial capacity, more analphabets (sp?) in % than most of the western countries. Just a big Navy without air cover and no shooting skill. WHAT IF: shoot all the old bloody generals, wait 2 years, meanwhile train the army, mechanize the army, build licensed Panzer III and IV, stop biplane, G50 and C200 production, build only C.202, Re2000 and Re2001, give the Navy aircover, protect the convoys with the big Navy, strike Malta, train more underwater demolition teams and sink the Royal bloody Navy in their harbours .... oh well too long a list [ October 23, 2003, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Aries ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Stay neutral. Live to old age and hang out with my buddy franko. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culex Pipiens Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 there are confirmed rumors and historical proof, that was from the french governament a request to attack when france was almost conquered by the germans, because the french gov prefer to have mussolini on the table with hitler instead of the german dictator alone. there was a lot of writings between the french gov and mussolini and the king in that days, almost all were recovered as soon as italy surrendered because was "inopportune" that this letters came out at the end of the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Stay neutral. At an opportune moment, say around the end of 1943, come in on the Allied side. There is no war in North Africa. Greece never gets invaded. Possibly Yugoslavia doesn't either. If so, Communists probably remain as a minority party there. Bulgaria remains neutral and probably stays out of the war. Germany, Finland, Hungary, and Rumania go to war against the USSR as per historically. Probably not a lot changes there except that Germany is not burdened with having to fight in the Mediterranean and garrison the Balkans. That might make a difference. Churchill might try to stir up trouble on Germany's southern flank, but Mussolini could warn him off of that. His leverage would be the size of his forces, especially his navy, and Italy's strategic position as well as hinting that he might come in on the Allied side if Germany starts to lose, or on Germany's side if the Allies start to overreach. I think this argument would be especially effective with Roosevelt who would not be anxious for another enemy to face. Churchill would be anxious about that as well, but balanced against it would be an urgent desire to strike at the Germans and take some heat off of the Soviets. Plus his own swashbuckling impetuosity. But nobody really knows for sure. Michael [ October 23, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Culex Pipiens: there are confirmed rumors and historical proof... May we know the nature of that proof? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 If Italy had stayed out (hence no NA) then the first meeting of WA and German forces would have been in any invasion of the French coastline. The result, I think, would have been a bloodbath, if the errors of Torch were instead played out on a contested beachhead. Allied armour developments would also have been more limited. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavka_lite Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Flamingknives, That is exactly what what on the rocky beaches at Dieppe in 42. Poor planning, inferior equipment, or at least unsuited for the task and inadequate training resulted in a bunch of dead Canucks and a very embarrassed Churchill (You think he would have learned from Gallopoli). Lessons were learned and the WA made the Amphib Assault a very powerful tool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Swap a Canadian Brigade for about six divisions and you'd have what would have happened without NA and Italy to practice on. In the region of two orders of magnitude larger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I would take a holiday and name a battleship after myself. Then I would give all my countrymen a holiday. Ciao! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavka_lite Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Flaming, I don't think the Allies would have been slaughtered on the beaches in'44 if Italy would have been smart and stayed neutral. The United States was gathering experience at a very quick rate in terms of amphibous operations in the Pacific regardless of the absence of Torch and I know there is going to be disagreement on this but I think that most of the amphib experience did indeed came from the Pacific and not the Med. By the time Sicily came around the WA had developed the model for Overlord. I do think Overlord would have been a much closer affair though. To continue postulating on this. It is not too far a stretch to say the WA may have even had an easier time of it becase the OKH would have had only the Dieppe raid to base their asumptions on and may not have taken any Allied invasion seriously not having faced the Med invasions... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 For a start, it most likely wouldn't have been in '44. Without NA to occupy them, the WA would have attacked straight for Germany through France in late '42 or '43, at which time they had the ability to put 6 untried divisions onto the Continent, to face something in the region of 20 hardened German divisions. For all their difficulty, assaulting a Pacific island is a far cry from assaulting a continental coast, plus the Germans had far better equipment necessary to make a counterattack, and could hold troops and aircraft far enough inland to be out of Naval gun and fighter range, but still close enough to make an impact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Stavka_lite: Flamingknives, That is exactly what what on the rocky beaches at Dieppe in 42. Poor planning, inferior equipment, or at least unsuited for the task and inadequate training resulted in a bunch of dead Canucks and a very embarrassed Churchill (You think he would have learned from Gallopoli). Lessons were learned and the WA made the Amphib Assault a very powerful tool. What lessons were learned at Dieppe? Other than some specialized experience with certain types of radio equipment, I can't think of a single damn thing that was learned at Dieppe that wasn't either a) painfully obvious already known c) would have been known by June 1944 and the Normandy landings anyway, had Dieppe never happened. Sicily was a larger invasion than Normandy, and yet I never hear the argument that "Dieppe paved the way for Husky". That Normandy benefitted directly from Dieppe is, in my opinion, a myth created by Canadian apologists. If you have specific info to refute this, I am all ears. In answer to the question - Italy should have declared war, seized the French Mediterranean fleet at anchor, then surrendered to the Allies immediately. Italy and Sardinia could have been declared open countries, and the Allies could have moved in to occupy the line along the alps and French frontier, avoiding the war in North Africa and possibly even the Balkans. [ October 23, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chashm Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I think the battle for Moscow would have been different. Mussolini's ill fated venture into the Balkans threw Barbarossa off schedule. No Musso, No Balkans, No Balkans, Barbarossa starts on time which gets them to Moscow before the snows. They could have done it. Now this doesn't mean Stalin surrenders, it just means that Moscow may have fallen. It certainly would have put a crimp in the Russian resistance though. Also, if Italy had of stayed nuetral, well, we would have one less set of crappy tanks to laugh at. And that , gentlemen, is why I am glad they entered the war 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 Interesting replies all gentlemen and Michael No NA to practice invasion on, good point. I'd say the Allies instead of hiting France directly would have gone for an easier target. Probably Norway - of course Vichy France would have still been in the picture also...interesting. With no Southern Front would the Russians had moved against the Balkans? Or more horribly would the Soviets and Germans have agreed to split Europe? With the Soviets geting some of the Slavic Balkans versus Germany getting Italy? Best bet for Italy, sit tight and try to join the right side at the right moment - to the guy who could give them the most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Well. Had I been Mussoulini in 1940. Hindsight. Hm. My conclusive act of aggression would be reinstalling the lawful Republic in Spain by force of arms. I'd do that while the WA and TR were quite busy wrestling in France. But then I think I would have started with the withdrawal of fascist troops and deathsquads from Albania, Ethipia, Libya and the Dodecanaeds. Then I'd hold a speech, in which I'd ask, among many other things, "Hannah, Hannah can you hear me?" After which I would finally get to take off that embarassing uniform, and get myself a slick Italian suit instead. Then I'd dismantle the corporate fascist state and reintroduce independent courts and lawful democratic government in Italy. Why not a Republic? I would send several love letters to Greece. Not necessarily the king or the totalitarian régime of the same, but to other, more popular representatives of that nation. Then I'd set up a tribunal for the trial of me and my fascist buddies for crimes against humanity, specifically Spanish, Libyan, Ethiopian and Italian such. With judges from all said nations. Italy? well she could do the Swedish walz, just lean back and shake her head at the sad European social tradition of regularly recurring mass slaughter - and build a modern welfare state from the considerable buck that is inevitably to be made from a global war if one is not destroyed in it. Myself I guess I'd hang myself, and thus make very sure I'd never get a daughter who'd go into politics. Yup, that's about it I think. The new government would have to clean up the rest. How much can one man do anyway. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by chashm: I think the battle for Moscow would have been different. Mussolini's ill fated venture into the Balkans threw Barbarossa off schedule. No Musso, No Balkans, No Balkans, Barbarossa starts on time which gets them to Moscow before the snows. They could have done it. Now this doesn't mean Stalin surrenders, it just means that Moscow may have fallen. It certainly would have put a crimp in the Russian resistance though. I disagree. The reason for Germany's delay in launching Barbarossa had more to do with the invasion of Yugoslavia (which was due to a pro-allied faction overthrowing the pro-axis goverment in a coup) and Greece (which was a response to the British landings) than anything Italy was doing in Albania. These came at a time when Germany was preparing for Barbarossa, and the threat to her southern flank (as well as the Ploesti oilfields) prompted her to invade these two countries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Another reason for the delay was that the airfield had not sufficiently dried up to be useable in early May, or sumfink (Yeah, I could drag out my copy of 'The Attack on the Soviet-Union' by the MGFA, but I have to go downstairs to watch spin City). I think it is generally accepted now that the Balkans did not play the big role that many once thought they did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Dandelion: stuffOi! How did you get out of the CMBO forum?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by Hans: Best bet for Italy, sit tight and try to join the right side at the right moment - to the guy who could give them the most. But isn't that what they actually did do? Twice? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dandelion: stuffOi! How did you get out of the CMBO forum?! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Ah ... so you got the anal probe too huh? Still, kinda worth it, doncha fink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Ah ... so you got the anal probe too huh? Still, kinda worth it, doncha fink? Nah I never got that, they didn't think it worth it in my case, they only do that with interesting or good looking people. Not Germans. Still, sure hoping it'll be worth the wait. Been nagging about my CMBO MG fix for years. That and some optics was all I ever wanted. Incoming... Cheers Dandy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Dandelion: A striking beam of light shone down on me in my CMBO cell, no forewarning, bright as a hot day in the Sahel, landing like the sun on my shoulders, and then I hear O Fortuna thundering so loud my PC cracks, the walls of my cell tremble, and a choir of bright angels seemed to hover in a huge circle around the lightbeam. There was Michael, there was John, there was the other Michael and the other John, and Michael too, and John - you know, the guys - and they were all smiling so serenely. And I was sort of lifted up into the light, slowly and gently, as if picked up by a giant, TLC kind of hand. And up there in the heart of the light, I swear it, I saw Him, it was the PROGRAMMER - in my parts we never mention his actual name - and he was smiling gently down on me. And then I knew it, I knew I would be let out of there, that they would take me away, I would be taken to someplace fantastic, someplace... wonderful. Before I knew it I was singing too, the Nessun Dorma, Vincerooo, VincerooOOO! VincEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRROOOOOOO! which wouldn't have been that remarkable except EXACTLY the same thing happened to me yesterday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chashm: I think the battle for Moscow would have been different. Mussolini's ill fated venture into the Balkans threw Barbarossa off schedule. No Musso, No Balkans, No Balkans, Barbarossa starts on time which gets them to Moscow before the snows. I disagree. The reason for Germany's delay in launching Barbarossa had more to do with the invasion of Yugoslavia (which was due to a pro-allied faction overthrowing the pro-axis goverment in a coup) and Greece (which was a response to the British landings) than anything Italy was doing in Albania. These came at a time when Germany was preparing for Barbarossa, and the threat to her southern flank (as well as the Ploesti oilfields) prompted her to invade these two countries. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.