# If italy Joined the allies World War 2



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

I think if Italy were to stand up to Germany with Britain and France they would have won. Here is the historical scenario:
The allies hold back and wait for Poland to fall. Germany has to now cover both France and Italy. Here Hitler has two options Italy first or France First because I could no possibly imagine a 1939 Germany with a front from the Netherlands to Italy
With Italy first Hitler had 2 options either 

concentrate and break through the alps (remember Italy gained a lot of the alps after ww2 so it would be much more difficult than ww1) or...
Invade Yugoslavia to go around Italy mountain defenses
With France first, Hitler would do the same as in 1940 but will have fewer forces as some must get to Italy/Yugoslavia
Technology-wise everything would be the same.

All of the Italian planes with german engines and 20 mm mg 151s would just be fitted with British ones (like Hispanos)
according to Wikipedia "When the Merlin engine was removed it was discovered that the fuselage cross-section was virtually identical to that of the engine nacelle of a Messerschmitt Bf 110G. Consequently, a new engine support structure was built onto the Spitfire's fuselage and the DB 605 engine and cowling panels added. A propeller unit and supercharger air intake from a Bf 109 G completed the installation". 
All of the Italian arms, tanks, and navy would be the same
Plus now Italy does not need to worry about supplies issues *AS MUCH *since they are fighting in their own country (still in the mountains) and don't need to worry about the royal navy
Now if France would be under pressure Italy would be able to mount an offensive into Austria in the same manner as the Brusilov offensive during WW1 and vice versa with Italy under pressure. 
Plus Germany would not have the resources to invade Norway.

And eventually, America would join the war anyways and Germany would just collapse because America can just out-produce everyone
Is this a historically accurate alt-history series of events?


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2021)

They were pretty successful without them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

Why wait until Poland falls?
Attack Germany while they're distracted by Poland's still resistance, leaving their back and flanks undefended.
Force the Germans and Soviets (Germany's ally at the time) to an armistice.

WWII in Europe never starts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (May 25, 2021)

The food would have been a bit better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Why wait until Poland falls?
> Attack Germany while they're distracted by Poland's still resistance, leaving their back and flanks undefended.
> Force the Germans and Soviets (Germany's ally at the time) to an armistice.
> 
> WWII in Europe never starts.


Ever heard of the phony war?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

Glider said:


> They were pretty successful without them.


what do you mean France fell in 6 and a half weeks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Capt. Vick said:


> The food would have been a bit better.



What is wrong with good hearty German food?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is wrong with good hearty German food?


the food is a step up fro Poland.... not a very good standard


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

Dunno, maybe ask Wojtek for good Polish dishes?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> Dunno, maybe ask Wojtek for good Polish dishes?


polish food is a step up from Russian food... no food


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

Hmm, I rather like caviar


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> the food is a step up fro Poland.... not a very good standard



You obviously have never had real German or Polish food. Not the Americanized crap sold passed off as Polish and German food. Both are fantastic. I eat authentic every week, made by my German wife.

How old are you by the way?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> polish food is a step up from Russian food... no food



Have you had real authentic Russian food? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no. Its pretty good actually.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> Hmm, I rather like caviar


from ww2 to food


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you had real authentic Russian food? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no. Its pretty good actually.


Lamo absolutely not


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> from ww2 to food


Better eating than fighting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> from ww2 to food



Yeah it happens in discussions all the time. Its normal and always comes back to the topic,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Lamo absolutely not



And you base your opinion on what? Have you been to Russia?


----------



## Crimea_River (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah it happens in discussions all the time. Its normal and always comes back to the topic,



And then it repeats itself over and over again like some kind of ground hog day scenario......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Crimea_River said:


> And then it repeats itself over and over again like some kind of ground hog day scenario......



Well the groundhog thread is special.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is wrong with good hearty German food?


There was this GREAT German restaurant in Pomona, California that we would frequent after work. One of of the great things about visiting Thailand is the European restaurants. I always go to Bangkok when I want a good Danish meal.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> Dunno, maybe ask Wojtek for good Polish dishes?


Great Polish restaurant on the Lower East Side of Manhattan on Second Avenue, NYC. The pierogis are to die for!


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Lamo absolutely not


In Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY there are a bunch of Russian restaurants. Try the Paradise.


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is wrong with good hearty German food?


You know the answer to that Chris: it's german. The ones who beat us.. eh I mean who we beat at the worldcup, the arch enemies. Everything German is bad.... 

(I rather like German food, but don't tell anyone  )

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You obviously have never had real German or Polish food. Not the Americanized crap sold passed off as Polish and German food. Both are fantastic. I eat authentic every week, made by my German wife.
> 
> How old are you by the way?


you probably joined this forum when you were my age
but if you really wanna know 15


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> You know the answer to that Chris: it's german. The ones who beat us.. eh I mean who we beat at the worldcup, the arch enemies.
> 
> (I rather like German food, but don't tell anyone  )



Just a few short months to the Euro Cup. I don’t expect a strong showing from the Germans. Unfortunately, I think I will miss the games because I will be in Hawaii the entire time with a 12 hour time difference.

Now next year in the World Cup, Germany led by Hansi Flick will dominate again! 

Speaking of German food though, I might have to make a good Sauerbraten and Knödel. You know that stuff that is only a step up from Polish food.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Ever heard of the phony war?


Of course and what became of that?
A few skirmishes, a little incursion into the Saar and then nothing.
Poland fell, Germany ran rough-shod over Europe.

Which is why it's called the "Phoney War" - it was a half-assed effort that accomplished nothing.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you base your opinion on what? Have you been to Russia?


never been but to me they are mongolian


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> what do you mean France fell in 6 and a half weeks


Not a very good historian myself but I think what happened to France was self inflicted. My opinion was formed by reading the first few chapters of a book, Battle of Britain, 6 Weeks That Changed the World or something like that. I think the author's name is Hudson. Then again I might be thinking of a lend-lease airplane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> you probably joined this forum when you were my age
> but if you really wanna know 15



One year off from what we all guessed...

Forums did not exist when I was your age. I joined this forum while I deployed to Iraq in the US Army in 2004 at the age of 23 if you must know.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Of course and what became of that?
> A few skirmishes, a little incursion into the Saar and then nothing.
> Poland fell, Germany ran rough-shod over Europe.
> 
> Which is why it's called the "Phoney War" - it was a half-assed effort that accomplished nothing.


yeah this is historical so it is supposed to be as close to history as possible


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One year off from what we all guessed...
> 
> Forums did not exist when I was your age. I joined this forum while I deployed to Iraq in the US Army in 2004 at the age of 23 if you must know.


born on 6/9 day 2005


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> never been but to me they are mongolian



So you base your opinions on no facts, experience, or knowledge of anything? That’s not really a good attribute or something to be proud of you know?

And what does “they are Mongolian mean?”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yeah this is historical so it is supposed to be as close to history as possible


Well, being close as possible to history, IL Duce isn't going to join the Allies, he has aspirations that run contrary to any alliance with Britain or France.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, being close as possible to history, So Duce isn't going to join the Allies, he has aspirations that run contrary to any alliance with Britain or France.


As close with an exeption
idk maybe he was given malta Cyprus or Tunisia


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So you base your opinions on no facts, experience, or knowledge of anything? That’s not really a good attribute or something to be proud of you know?
> 
> And what does “they are Mongolian mean?”


they are so far east they are probably Mongolian


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, being close as possible to history, So Duce isn't going to join the Allies, he has aspirations that run contrary to any alliance with Britain or France.



Plus he adored Hitler, and the Italians were perfectly happy with being on the German’s side until everything started going down hill. Then it was “Oh no, we are losing! We need to switch sides and pretend the last few years did not happen!”


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> they are so far east they are probably Mongolian



Not a very good comparison...


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Plus he adored Hitler, and the Italians were perfectly happy with being on the German’s side until everything started going down hill. Then it was “Oh no, we are losing! We need to switch sides and pretend the last few years did not happen!”


not entirely I know a lot of Italian people who both loved and hated him. For example, my friend's grandma hates him because he put her husband in jail. My great grandfather loved him because he was able to buy a pair of does for the first time.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> In Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY there are a bunch of Russian restaurants. Try the Paradise.


used to be Italian now it is Russian smh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> not entirely I know a lot of Italian people who both loved and hated him. For example, my friend's grandma hates him because he put her husband in jail. My great grandfather loved him because he was able to buy a pair of does for the first time.



I was making a sarcastic opinionated comparison not based on any facts. See how it works?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not a very good comparison...


better comparison?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was making a sarcastic opinionated comparison not based on any facts. See how it works?


maybe?
no


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> used to be Italian now it is Russian smh



You should get out of your comfort zone and try it. The food is really good. I know its not Americanized Italian or Wendy’s you know, but you might be surprised.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You should get out of your comfort zone and try it. The food is really good. I know ots not Americanized Italian or Wendy’s you know, but you might be surprised.


lamo i haven't gone to Wendys in years like I'm not fat jeez just cause I'm American RaSict


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> better comparison?



The Russian people are predominantly Slavic. Not even close to being the same.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> used to be Italian now it is Russian smh


They’re right next door.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> lamo i haven't gone Wendys in years like I'm not fat jeez just cause I'm american



I didn’t say you were...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> The Dutch will not be much better. I'm already glad they made it to the Cup this time, unlike the last 6 years or so.
> Yeah, Saurbraten, or zuurkool as we call it. It's also Dutch food. You can wake me up for it anytime.



How different is the Dutch recipe?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> maybe?
> no



That’s obvious.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I didn’t say you were...


bro do you guys play il 2 stormvik 1946? i used to play it in 8th grade....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro do you guys play il 2 stormvik 1946? i used to play t in 8th grade....



Nope, I don’t do Sims. I fly real planes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Like seriously bro...


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope, I don’t do Sims. I fly real planes.


oh


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> It's quite different I'm afraid.


my dad works for dutch people arent they like germans


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> my dad works for dutch people arent they like germans



How do you think German’s are?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How different is the Dutch recipe?


Sorry, brainfart, was a bit confused. Zuurkool is of course sauerkraut, not sauerbraten.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> Sorry, brainfart, was a bit confused. Zuurkool is of course sauerkraut, not sauerbraten.



Ah, my wife makes an amazing Sauerkraut.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you think German’s are?


to be honest anything north of he alps


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> to be honest anything north of he alps



Huh?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Huh?


every living person north of the alps is germanic


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

Can we bring KevinJ back?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> every living person north of the alps is germanic



That does not make them German. I’m pretty sure the British, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, Croation, and Polish members of our forum don’t think they are German.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

And part of the Alps are in Switzerland, Austria, France, and Italy...


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That does not make them German. I’m pretty sure the British, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, Croation, and Polish members of our forum don’t think they are German.


all germans 
Croatians are honorary Italians


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And part of the Alps are in Switzerland, Austria, France, and Italy...


ok and?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> all germans
> Croatians are honorary Italians



I’ve never met a Croatian that thinks they are Italian. I’ve been to Croatia quite a few times, and even have some in my family through marriage.

You display a very narrow minded view of the world. Very typical of someone who has never left their part of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> ok and?



So I guess the Italians in South Tirol are German?


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

If the Italians had joined the Allies I doubt whether Russia would have been invaded, WW2 in Europe would have been over before it started, if it wasnt then the N Africa campaign would be transferred to the Alps or South France, the battle of the Atlantic would have been settled quickly and strategic bombing of places like Ploesti would begin as soon as planes could be sent to Italy.

Amusing that people think the Russians know nothing about food when much of the western world uses "Russian Service" Service à la russe - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I’ve never met a Croatian that thinks they are Italian. I’ve been to Croatia quite a few times, and even have some in my family through marriage.
> 
> You display a very narrow minded view of the world. Very typical of someone who has never left their part of the world.


sheesh you do be mad it was a JOKE I made a reference to Hitler's "HONORARY ARYANS" ok chill


----------



## fubar57 (May 25, 2021)

I sense a moment coming up in one of these threads......tick.....tick.....tick

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> I sense a moment coming up in one of these threads......tick.....tick.....tick


bomb has been planted


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So I guess the Italians in South Tirol are German?


tbh kinda yeah


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If the Italians had joined the Allies I doubt whether Russia would have been invaded, WW2 in Europe would have been over before it started, if it wasnt then the N Africa campaign would be transferred to the Alps or South France, the battle of the Atlantic would have been settled quickly and strategic bombing of places like Ploesti would begin as soon as planes could be sent to Italy.
> 
> Amusing that people think the Russians know nothing about food when much of the western world uses "Russian Service" Service à la russe - Wikipedia


yeah Italy could have stoped ww2 its kinda cool


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> sheesh you do be mad it was a JOKE I made a reference to Hitler's "HONORARY ARYANS" ok chill



Thats what happens when someone comes in here like a bull in a china shop.

You are 15 years old, acting in here like a know it all, presenting opinions more so than fact. This forum is made up of very serious aviation and history enthusiasts. We are made up of a diverse group of historians, pilots, mechanics, engineers, military veterans and even have had a few WW2 veterans. Some of our nembers are accomplished authors on WW2 aviation. We come from all over the world, and most of us have become rather good friends over the last 20 years, even meeting up on many occasions. We don’t take half ass comments and posts very kindly.

We are more than willing to discuss and debate with you, and even accept you into the group. We have others that are your age as well in here, and they do just fine.

However, I would recommend YOU chilling out, and listening more than acting like a typical teenage smart ass. People will respect you a lot more.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yeah Italy could have stoped ww2 its kinda cool


But they didnt, which isnt. I could have been the first F1 world Champion to win the Balon D-or and Nobel prize for physics.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats what happens when someone comes in here like a bull in a china shop.
> 
> You are 15 years old, acting in here like a know it all, presenting opinions more so than fact. This forum is made up of very serious aviation and history enthusiasts. We are made up of a diverse group of historians, pilots, mechanics, engineers, military veterans and even have had a few WW2 veterans. We come from all over the world, and most of us have become rather good friends over the last 20 years, even meeting up on many occasions. We don’t take half ass comments and posts very kindly.
> 
> ...


look I don't wanna get banned as i did from the Roblox napoleon discord server but i mean you only live once


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> look I don't wanna get banned as i did from the Roblox napoleon discord server but i mean you only live once



What happens here is fully up to you. This is not a gamer hangout like discord.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But they didnt, which isnt. I could have been the first F1 world Champion to win the Balon D-or and Nobel prize for physics.


Like do you think Winston Churchill did not stop and realize he probably lost the war at least once in his life. In 1940 the whole world thought the war was lost.


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> every living person north of the alps is germanic


Since the city of Koln (Cologne) is named after a Roman Emperors wife you may have trouble sustaining that argument, Mulheim on the Ruhr used to be in Normandy. Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium - Wikipedia



pops-paolo said:


> Like do you think Winston Churchill did not stop and realize he probably lost the war at least once in his life. In 1940 the whole world thought the war was lost.


No they didnt, once the Battle of Britain was won it was clear Germany wasnt going to win that battle if he tried again and no historian seriously considers the RAF were close to losing the Battle of Britain.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Since the city of Koln (Cologne) is named after a Roman Emperors wife you may have trouble sustaining that argument, Mulheim on the Ruhr used to be in Normandy. Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium - Wikipedia


bro 


pbehn said:


> No they didnt, once the Battle of Britain was won it was clear Germany wasnt going to win that battle if he tried again and no historian seriously considers the RAF were close to losing the Battle of Britain.


I mean like dunkirk and the fall of france


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Bro... 

Sigh

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That does not make them German. I’m pretty sure the British, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, Croation, and Polish members of our forum don’t think they are German.


Not at all indeed. I'm Dutch, not German. And I believe that if you tell a Polish person that he is German, he will start hitting you

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo, here is my point...

Stop acting like a gamer troll, and you will be fine and accepted here. We welcome you here, just try and take it serious.


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> Not at all indeed. I'm Dutch, not German. And I believe that if you tell a Polish person that he is German, he will start hitting you


Tell a Dutch person he is German and they arent happy at all, I saw it many times, I took being mistaken for a Dutchman as a compliment, it meant my German was getting better lol

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro
> 
> I mean like dunkirk and the fall of france


Churchill and Dowding had maintained enough fighters in UK to defend the islands, no one in the RAF thought they had or would lose.


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2021)

I don't know but I'm finding this thread highly entertaining, kinda' like the accident on the highway that you slow down to look at. You know you shouldn't but you do anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro
> 
> I mean like dunkirk and the fall of france


pops-paolo - a couple of points of advice

This is a group of pretty serious aviation types, as deradler stated, experts in the fields of aviation, mechanics etc. Published authorities on aerial warfare, published authorities on engines (specifically WWII piston types) and we even keep a bona fide F-15 jock around here somewhere. We don't usually let him out among civilized folk though.

Hardly anyone here plays flight sims, many of us are actual pilots, me not since the 1980's but there are a lot of guys here that still fly regularly or for a living.

The other important thing to note is, these guys are _very_ knowledgeable _AND_ willing to share that knowledge freely. They may come off as a bit gruff sometimes but it's nothing personal, heck, they like a good challenge, as long as it's isn't one based in myth or rumor. Actually, these guys like nothing better than to refute myths and rumors, so I take that part back.

Also the group here uses actual source material, raw data most of the time so if you have a point to make, be prepared to back it up with actual facts/data.

Just a few friendly words of advice and...

Welcome to the forum.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But they didnt, which isnt. I could have been the first F1 world Champion to win the Balon D-or and Nobel prize for physics.


You’re not?


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> You’re not?


Not quite, but I could have been and that is really cool.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 25, 2021)

Peter Gunn
You could have added Wiki to your ".....as long as it's isn't one based in myth or rumor."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I worked in the same place in Germany as a huge Dutch engineer, whenever a local asked what he was doing he said he was looking for his grandfather's bicycle.


Yeah, that's the common joke here. Not so funny if you realize this joke is about WW2 when the occupying forces plundered everything from here, starting with the bicyles.

One of my grandfathers had a bicycle shop/repair shop in WW2. They plundered everything.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> Peter Gunn
> You could have added Wiki to your ".....as long as it's isn't one based in myth or rumor."


Ach... my bad.


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> Peter Gunn
> You could have added Wiki to your ".....as long as it's isn't one based in myth or rumor."


Yet we all quote it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Yet we all quote it.


So do I:



> Wikipedia

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> pops-paolo - a couple of points of advice
> 
> This is a group of pretty serious aviation types, as deradler stated, experts in the fields of aviation, mechanics etc. Published authorities on aerial warfare, published authorities on engines (specifically WWII piston types) and we even keep a bona fide F-15 jock around here somewhere. We don't usually let him out among civilized folk though.
> 
> ...


thanks

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> thanks



Follow his advice and you will do just fine. Those that stick around usually discover this is a great and fun place.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

By god we derailed this thread quite a bit did't we?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> By god we derailed this thread quite a bit did't we?



See my quote above. I’ll start one later and move all these posts over.


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

Yeah, looking forward to talk some trash again.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 25, 2021)

Marcel said:


> By god we derailed this thread quite a bit did't we?


I think its on par with most threads and running smoothly. A few more posts and we'll be right on track to the main subject....whatever that was

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> I think its on par with most threads and running smoothly


Still missing bacon, some groundhogs and color pictures for a model someone is building.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 25, 2021)

A colour picture of a bacon eating P-39 Groundhog?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> A colour picture of a bacon eating groundhog?


.. that someone is building... indeed.


----------



## fubar57 (May 25, 2021)

Amended Post #116

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2021)

At least added some bacon to you, that ticks the first box...


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Hardly anyone here plays flight sims, many of us are actual pilots, me not since the 1980's but there are a lot of guys here that still fly regularly or for a living.


Hey now!
Some of us used to run combat sims back in the day - combine the knowledge of WWII aircraft with actual flight experience and you have a hell of alot of fun tearing through the opponents.
Almost to the point of feeling bad for them.

*almost*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Hey now!
> Some of us used to run combat sims back in the day - combine the knowledge of WWI aircraft with actual flight experience and you have a hell of alot of fun tearing through the opponents.
> Almost to the point of feeling bad for them.
> 
> *almost*


LOL!

Remember what is said about flying combat sims - "_*"Include the toxic cockpit fumes, the extreme heat or cold, sitting on a lumpy seat while restrained with belts that almost cut through your soaking wet flight suit and have a 300 pound woman sit on you every time you pull Gs - oh while breathing smelly oxygen through a face mask that smells like a prophylactic."*_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> LOL!
> 
> Remember what is said about flying combat sims - "_*"Include the toxic cockpit fumes, the extreme heat or cold, sitting on a lumpy seat while restrained with belts that almost cut through your soaking wet flight suit and have a 300 pound woman sit on you every time you pull Gs - oh while breathing smelly oxygen through a face mask that smells like a prophylactic."*_


Yep and add (from a convo ages ago): _"Want to get close to 'realistic' game algorithms? When you're KIA in-game, that's it. You cannot respawn, cannot rejoin or start another game. The program bans you forever. You're done, period."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2021)

To be honest, German, Polish and probably Russian food in the late 1930's was probably better than the British food of the time.

And I say that as a Brit who likes cooking


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well the groundhog thread is special.



True and I know I shouldn't say this, but it's gone quiet on that front

Edit - Cancel this posting,


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Hey now!
> Some of us used to run combat sims back in the day - combine the knowledge of WWII aircraft with actual flight experience and you have a hell of alot of fun tearing through the opponents.
> Almost to the point of feeling bad for them.
> 
> *almost*


i would destroy you with my macchi

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i would destroy you with my macchi


That reminds me of a favorite quote: "I like you. You make me laugh"


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> That reminds me of a favorite quote: "I like you. You make me laugh"


ok what plane would you use huh?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> LOL!
> 
> Remember what is said about flying combat sims - "_*"Include the toxic cockpit fumes, the extreme heat or cold, sitting on a lumpy seat while restrained with belts that almost cut through your soaking wet flight suit and have a 300 pound woman sit on you every time you pull Gs - oh while breathing smelly oxygen through a face mask that smells like a prophylactic."*_


rip is it really that bad? i mean don't you g-suits?


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i would destroy you with my macchi


What is that flag pops? Looks like Nottinghamshire (without Robin Hood)


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


> What is that flag pops? Looks like Nottinghamshire (without Robin Hood)
> View attachment 624716


some "northern Italian flag" I found when I was a kid and I have used it ever since


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> some "northern Italian flag" I found when I was a kid and I have used it ever since


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

pbehn said:


>



yeh


----------



## ARTESH (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> In Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY there are a bunch of Russian restaurants. Try the Paradise.


Any Persian / Iranian Restaurants nearby?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Any Persian / Iranian Restaurants nearby?


My dad's "Persian" friend brought some good saffron my mom used to make risotto and that is the extent of how well i know Iranian food.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> ok what plane would you use huh?


Go peruse the Gaming section of the forum.
Typically I flew the Fw190A-8 or the Me262A-1a
Also keep in mind that while I haven't run a SIM in seven years, I ran SIMs from the late 80's through 2013.
(Air Warrior, Jane's WW2 Fighters, CFS2, CFS3 & IL-2 (versions through 1946).
Also did program modelling and airframe development in CFS3.

Also, over the years, I found the ones who always said they were "going to take you out" were the ones whi went down first.
It's the quiet ones you had to be careful of...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Go peruse the Gaming section of the forum.
> Typically I flew the Fw190A-8 or the Me262A-1a
> Also keep in mind that while I haven't run a SIM in seven years, I ran SIMs from the late 80's through 2013.
> (Air Warrior, Jane's WW2 Fighters, CFS2, CFS3 & IL-2 (versions through 1946).
> ...


in your opinion what was better CFS3 or il-2?
by the way, you may be a "veteran" but I'm an eager recruit
amma pull up in a reggiane 2005


----------



## ARTESH (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> My dad's "Persian" friend brought some good saffron my mom used to make risotto and that is the extent of how well i know Iranian food.


So, After saffron, try Caviar!

Not food, but also turquoise is suggested!

Anyway, Have you seen Paul Barb aka "Geography Now"?

and about Topic:

Italy's Main service rifle (Carcano) was good, side guns are OK!!! and Machine guns, well, it really sucks.

The Armor, It almost had nothing to say!

Artillery: Outdated

Navy: Possibly best part of Italian Armed Forces

Air Force: I have no Idea! leave it to experts.

In one word:

If Italy ever decided to join the Allies, They would have best Fleet in entire Mediterranean area on their side, but on the ground, almost nothing! Italy was not a big obstacle for Germans to be fronted. It needed Help from allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> LOL!
> 
> Remember what is said about flying combat sims - "_*"Include the toxic cockpit fumes, the extreme heat or cold, sitting on a lumpy seat while restrained with belts that almost cut through your soaking wet flight suit and have a 300 pound woman sit on you every time you pull Gs - oh while breathing smelly oxygen through a face mask that smells like a prophylactic."*_


Early Typhoon sims were supplied with a two stroke lawn mower for that extra bit of realism, this was refined in later models to a badly adjusted gas heater.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> So, After saffron, try Caviar!
> 
> Not food, but also turquoise is suggested!
> 
> ...


I'm confused about the caviar turquoise stuff and only watched geography now when Artur rehi reacted to it
In the mountains, I believe the Italian army could hold while its light machine gun was not amazing most of its oil jams if I am not mistaken was from the desert and they would be fighting in Europe. It still only had 20 rounds so whatever. The 1939 armor Italy had was atrocious but remember they are fighting in the alps anyways and the m13/39 came around which was a decent tank for 1940. artillery was outdated but still usable and the larger newer cannons like the 149/19 cannons were harder to bring up anyways. The Italian air force was also pretty good with the c.200, g.50, cr.42/32, sm.79. Plus by 1941 the Folgore came out. 
And you are forgetting Germany had to also face France and Brittain.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> in your opinion what was better CFS3 or il-2?
> by the way, you may be a "veteran" but I'm an eager recruit
> amma pull up in a reggiane 2005


To be 100% honest: CFS3
Oleg dumbed down the Axis fighters prior to V4.06 and it was frustrating. Gaijin has been known to pull the same stunt in WT.

"Eager Recruits" tend to experience "Jagdfeiber" and the old-timers can spot it and exploit it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> rip is it really that bad? i mean don't you g-suits?


Late in the war they did but they still aren't that comfortable and you still feel the Gs


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is wrong with good hearty German food?



The joke when I was in Spain was that _a European's idea of heaven is where the British are the police, the Germans are the mechanics, the Italians are the cooks, and the French are the lovers. A European's idea of hell is where the British are the cooks, the Italians are the mechanics, the Germans are the police ... and the French are still the lovers._

Reactions: Funny Funny:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well the groundhog thread is special.



Fried groundhog, anyone? Battered in cornmeal and deep-fried, with some okra on the side?

Watch out for the shotgun pellets, they'll break a tooth if you ain't wary.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2021)

If a person's ethnicity were based on their favorite foods, then I'd be Mexican, Italian and Chinese!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Not a very good historian myself but I think what happened to France was self inflicted. My opinion was formed by reading the first few chapters of a book, Battle of Britain, 6 Weeks That Changed the World or something like that. I think the author's name is Hudson. Then again I might be thinking of a lend-lease airplane.



Rob, if you want to learn a bit about the self-defeat the French inflicted upon themselves, find and read _The Third Republic_ from William Shirer. It is not about the war itself, but about the prelude to war, going into the fractious divisions in French politics and society that weakened it internally long before Poland was invaded, indeed before Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg.

I also read a book from a French historian, called _Sixty Days That Shook the West_, which also delves into the factionalization which harmed France so much.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Follow his advice and you will do just fine. Those that stick around usually discover this is a great and fun place.



Remembering that what you don't know almost always outweighs what you do know is a good way to not only learn more, but to get those who _do_ know more interested in helping you learn.

Or as Pa Thump used to say all the goddamned time, "You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason -- use them in that order."

The authority here wielded by many members in different fields, piloting, engineering, aeronautics, and so forth, is mind-boggling.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> I think its on par with most threads and running smoothly. A few more posts and we'll be right on track to the main subject....whatever that was



Pretty sure there's a P-39 involved.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> I'm confused about the caviar turquoise stuff and only watched geography now when Artur rehi reacted to it



Well, beside Saffron, Iran is No. 1 or one of top 10 producers of Pistachio, Stone Fruits, Caviar, Pearl, Turquoise, Zinc, Oil, Gas, and some other stuff!

and about topic:

Well, even Italy was not prepare for battle! Not only from military side of view, but almost from all other aspects! at best, Italy's Armed Forces were fully equipped, modernized, standardized, mobilized in mid-war years!!! This include all branches plus local security units like Gendarmerie or Police.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 25, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Any Persian / Iranian Restaurants nearby?



We've got a couple here in Austin that make a decent chelokebab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 25, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Any Persian / Iranian Restaurants nearby?


There are many Mid East restaurants. I'm not familiar with them all. I know a great Turkish restaurant on Coney Island Avenue. I have been eating a steady diet of Thai food for the last five years and I could really go for some kebbeh! ("lamb burger", sort of.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 25, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> There are many Mid East restaurants. I'm not familiar with them all. I know a great Turkish restaurant on Coney Island Avenue. I have been eating a steady diet of Thai food for the last five years and I could really go for some kebbeh! ("lamb burger", sort of.)



We have a few really nice Turkish places here in the St. Louis area.


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The joke when I was in Spain was that _a European's idea of heaven is where the British are the police, the Germans are the mechanics, the Italians are the cooks, and the French are the lovers. A European's idea of hell is where the British are the cooks, the Italians are the mechanics, the Germans are the police ... and the French are still the lovers._


When I was in PolySci it was:

In heaven, the British are the police, the Germans are the administrators and the French are the cooks.
In hell, the British are the cooks, the Germans are the police and the Italians are the administrators.

Ah college.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 26, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> When I was in PolySci it was:
> 
> In heaven, the British are the police, the Germans are the administrators and the French are the cooks.
> In hell, the British are the cooks, the Germans are the police and the Italians are the administrators.
> ...



My girlfriend might have been a little more sauced-up than your professor. Not that that bothered me much!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 26, 2021)

A Polish pilot in England during the war made the observation that both the English and the Poles ate pork and cabbage as staples, but couldn't understand how the English could screw it up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
6 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 26, 2021)

Germans (Angles and Saxons, mostly) invaded Britain in the 5th century it is now called England (Land of the Angles). Germans (Franks, mostly) invaded Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries. It is now called France (Land of the Franks). Germans (heck, just about everybody, like bus loads of tourists) invaded Italy throughout the 4th 5th and 6th centuries, that's why the northern half is called Lombardy. So, everybody in Europe is actually German.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 26, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Well, beside Saffron, Iran is No. 1 or one of top 10 producers of Pistachio, Stone Fruits, Caviar, Pearl, Turquoise, Zinc, Oil, Gas, and some other stuff!
> 
> and about topic:
> 
> Well, even Italy was not prepare for battle! Not only from military side of view, but almost from all other aspects! at best, Italy's Armed Forces were fully equipped, modernized, standardized, mobilized in mid-war years!!! This include all branches plus local security units like Gendarmerie or Police.


Bro you are saying that they were not even able to do anything like they would be able to provide pressure and definitely hold for a while


----------



## ljadw (May 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Why wait until Poland falls?
> Attack Germany while they're distracted by Poland's still resistance, leaving their back and flanks undefended.
> Force the Germans and Soviets (Germany's ally at the time) to an armistice.
> 
> WWII in Europe never starts.


France had NOT the power, not the intention, not the obligation to save Poland . 
Britain ? Its first two divisions arrived only at the end of September .
The USSR was NOT a German ally in 1939, it was neutral .


----------



## ljadw (May 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Of course and what became of that?
> A few skirmishes, a little incursion into the Saar and then nothing.
> Poland fell, Germany ran rough-shod over Europe.
> 
> Which is why it's called the "Phoney War" - it was a half-assed effort that accomplished nothing.


There was nothing wrong with what is wrongly called :the Phoney War .


----------



## pops-paolo (May 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> France had NOT the power, not the intention, not the obligation to save Poland .
> Britain ? Its first two divisions arrived only at the end of September .
> The USSR was NOT a German ally in 1939, it was neutral .


yeah see he gets it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yeah see he gets it



But Italy was not a power either...


----------



## Wurger (May 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The USSR was NOT a German ally in 1939, it was neutral .



Really !!!! It was neutral because of the threaty of Rapallo in 1922 and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and also the invasion on Poland in the September 1939 together with the Nazi Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 27, 2021)

Wurger said:


> Really !!!! It was neutral because of the threaty of Rapallo in 1922 and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and also the invasion on Poland in the September 1939 together with the Nazi Germany.


Not an ally, just invaded Poland at the same time, which of course makes a huge difference, because of the non aggression pact.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 27, 2021)

Sorry almost I forgot , they just were liberating only ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 27, 2021)

Oh and one more reason for being neutral by the USSR - a soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> France had NOT the power, not the intention, not the obligation to save Poland .
> Britain ? Its first two divisions arrived only at the end of September .
> The USSR was NOT a German ally in 1939, it was neutral .


Britain promised to come to Poland's aid in March 1939.
France promised to come to Poland's aid in May 1939.
Both declarations above were signed pacts.

In 1940, France had a standing army of 900,000 with a 5 million reserve.
They had 100 divisions strung across their eastern Frontier facing Germany.
There were 3 full armored divisions on alert which included 4,200 AFVs (tanks)
Their air Force strength was 1,092 bombers and 1,114 fighters.

France most certainly had the ability to stop Germany. What They did NOT have, was competent leadership to use those superior numbers to their advantage against the Germans.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2021)

ljadw said:


> France had NOT the power, not the intention, not the obligation to save Poland .
> Britain ? Its first two divisions arrived only at the end of September .
> The USSR was NOT a German ally in 1939, it was neutral .



Invading Poland is neutal?


----------



## cherry blossom (May 27, 2021)

First a note on France in 1939. Because mobilizations were remembered as a possible cause of WW1, there was great hesitancy to mobilize. Thus the numbers for 1940 are not relevant in early September 1939. Poland was also urged not to mobilize and that weakened Polish resistance and speeded up the German advance.

Coming back to Italy, Britain, France and Italy did agree an alliance in 1935 Stresa Front - Wikipedia but then everything fell apart. If something happened to prevent Italy attacking Abyssinia, such as an accident to Mussolini, we can imagine the alliance surviving. It would be activated by any German move against Austria, so no need to worry the Poles or the Czechs.

Previous posters have noted that the equipment of the Italian Army was poor. However, if the Stresa Alliance had survived from 1935 to 1938-9, the Italian Army would have received the priority that in our timeline went to the Navy. We might not have the Littorio Class battleships completed but instead very similar 37 mm and 90 mm guns would be deployed as AA guns on land. We might also see more Cannone da 75/32 modello 37 and also more Obice da 149/19 modello 37, which were both quite reasonable guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> What They did NOT have, was competent leadership to use those superior numbers to their advantage against the Germans.



... nor the political will, imho.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> ... nor the political will, imho.


And that cost them 2 million soldiers captured and 390,000 killed when the dust settled.
It also set the stage for what unfolded in Europe for the next 4 1/2 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> And that cost them 2 million soldiers captured and 390,000 killed when the dust settled.
> It also set the stage for what unfolded in Europe for the next 4 1/2 years.



Indeed. The stage for the French defeat was set, I think, long before Poland was invaded, and has more to do with French politics that French equipment or the French fighting man. The poilus showed valor and determination during the second half of the campaign, trying to overcome the inept leadership of the first half. It simply wasn't enough by that point.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 27, 2021)

I often hear of the perfidious French, but wasn't it the British who slunk back to The Home Islands while the fight was still raging?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 27, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> I often hear of the perfidious French, but wasn't it the British who slunk back to The Home Islands while the fight was still raging?



I think the phrase is "perfidious Albion" (referring to Britain), but did the Brits have much choice in the matter in 1940? The Royal Army used different equipment, meaning specialized logistics, and how would that work if falling back with the French onto Paris, with Channel ports captured?

Seems to me the choice of evacuation wasn't a matter of "slinking", but thinking ahead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 28, 2021)

One always must think ahead when one is perfidious.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

Either way, the BEF and French were fortunate at the stand down order to the Wehrmacht and the inability of the Luftwaffe to produce results as they were bottled up at Dunkirk - the Kreigsmarine being completely conspicuous by their absence...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> One always must think ahead when one is perfidious.



One might also prefer to address points raised.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But Italy was not a power either...


it doesn't matter combined they would do a lot better


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> it doesn't matter combined they would do a lot better



Possibly. Maybe, maybe not.

Italy was a pretty big thorn in the sides of the Germans. It may have done the same to the Allies.


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 28, 2021)

Well, we did gain Italy as an ally in 1943, or was it '44? How did that work out?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Well, we did gain Italy as an ally in 1943, or was it '44? How did that work out?



Like I said earlier, Italy was perfectly content being on the side of the Nazis when the things were going well. Once it became obvious they were losing they switched sides.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Possibly. Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> Italy was a pretty big thorn in the sides of the Germans. It may have done the same to the Allies.


1939 Germany would not have been able to break through since they had TWO fronts


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> 1939 Germany would not have been able to break through since they had TWO fronts



You are assuming the Italians would have had the capabilities to launch an offensive into Germany. Remember those Alps in the way. Oh, and Switzerland. Italy would have been a cheerleader...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Italy had to be bailed out by the Germans in almost every operation they undertook. What makes you think they could get an Army into Germany in 1939?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> 1939 Germany would not have been able to break through since they had TWO fronts



They already had *TWO* fronts in 1939.

*ONE:* Western Front (France, Belgium, Netherlands...)

*TWO:* Eastern Front (Poland)

Italy would have made a southern *Third Front*, but Germany had Switzerland and the Alps in the way.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Well, we did gain Italy as an ally in 1943, or was it '44? How did that work out?


Italy collapsed so I guess it was easier and there was no more Italian navy or airforce really


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are assuming the Italians would have had the capabilities to launch an offensive into Germany. Remember those Alps in the way. Oh, and Switzerland. Italy would have been a cheerleader...


yeah


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They already had *TWO* fronts in 1939.
> 
> *ONE:* Western Front (France, Belgium, Netherlands...)
> 
> ...


well they had Austria so they were bordering Italy but we are talking about after Poland fell


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> well they had Austria so they were bordering Italy but we are talking about after Poland fell



After Poland fell, Italy is still a cheerleader. Historically speaking what kind of offensive were they going to launch into Germany? Austria is still an Alpine country. Good luck getting the poor Italian armor through it.

Lets look at their track record:

North Africa? Needed the Germans to bail them out.

Albania/Greece? Needed the Germans to bail them out. Forced the Germans to change their plans for Operation Barbarossa by 6 weeks (which slightly may have impacted whether the German’s reached Moscow or not).


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> After Poland fell, Italy is still a cheerleader. Historically speaking what kind of offensive were they going to launch into Germany? Austria is still an Alpine country. Good luck getting the poor Italian armor through it.
> 
> Lets look at their track record:
> 
> ...


In 1952, the Historical Branch of the UK Cabinet Office concluded that the Balkan Campaign had no influence on the launching of Operation Barbarossa
According to Robert Kirchubel, "the main causes for deferring Barbarossa's start from 15 May to 22 June were incomplete logistical arrangements and an unusually wet winter that kept rivers at full flood until late spring."
But now Italy has better logistics since it is not fighting in the desert and the royal navy

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> In 1952, the Historical Branch of the UK Cabinet Office concluded that the Balkan Campaign had no influence on the launching of Operation Barbarossa
> According to Robert Kirchubel, "the main causes for deferring Barbarossa's start from 15 May to 22 June were incomplete logistical arrangements and an unusually wet winter that kept rivers at full flood until late spring."
> But now Italy has better logistics since it is not fighting in the desert and the royal navy



Regardless, the Balkan campaign still demonstrated Italy’s lackluster performance. If it needed help from Germany there, how would it fair against the Germans?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Italy would have made a southern *Third Front*, but Germany had Switzerland and the Alps in the way.



Not after the Anschluss, no? The Brenner Pass?

Any hypothetical invasion in either direction would have been pretty dumb imho. It's ideal defensive terrain.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not after the Anschluss, no? The Brenner Pass?
> 
> Any hypothetical invasion in either direction would have been pretty dumb imho. It's ideal defensive terrain.



Exactly!

There is a reason Germany respected Switzerland’s neutrality. And regarding this hypothetical scenario here, neither Germany or Italy was going to muster much of a fight on this southern front in 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

But in the end, this is all a fun hypothetical what if anyhow. There is no right or wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 28, 2021)

".... Lets look at their track record:

North Africa? Needed the Germans to bail them out.

Albania/Greece? Needed the Germans to bail them out."

Good to bare in mind that the Italian military _had already been decisively beaten _... in East Africa, Abyssinia. Tribesmen and the Brits.
Deloped a taste for losing ..... despite some outstanding outfits.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Regardless, the Balkan campaign still demonstrated Italy’s lackluster performance. If it needed help from Germany there, how would it fair against the Germans?


look the battle of Greece was bad for Italy but remember Italy was fighting in Africa and just finished France then invaded Yugoslavia. Plus they were fighting in the mountains against an enemy that was dug in and consecrated on a small front with the support of the British. When Germany and Bulgaria invaded they faced little opposition since most greek forces were in Albania.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Lets look at their track record:
> 
> North Africa? Needed the Germans to bail them out.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, I don’t think the German’s would have been top concerned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> look the battle of Greece was bad for Italy but remember Italy was fighting in Africa and just finished France then invaded Yugoslavia. Plus they were fighting in the mountains against an enemy that was dug in and consecrated on a small front with the support of the British. When Germany and Bulgaria invaded they faced little opposition since most greek forces were in Albania.



Okay, and Italy was having trouble with second and third rate militaries. What were they going to do with Germany?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

The Italians had some good units and some not-so-good units. 

I believe that their biggest deficiency was in leadership, myself, followed closely by poor equipment (in the Army, at any rate -- they had some fine ships and planes).


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay, and Italy was having trouble with second and third rate militaries. What were they going to do with Germany?



Dig into the Alps and dare them to bring it on. Remember, the Italians had three years of Alpine fighting in WWI. I'm sure they knew a strong position when they saw it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Italians had some good units and some not-so-good units.
> 
> I believe that their biggest deficiency was in leadership, myself, followed closely by poor equipment (in the Army, at any rate -- they had some fine ships and planes).



I agree. I’m not taking anything away from the soldiers themselves, but when you have poor equipment, doctrine, tactics, and leadership you are not going to have much success. How do you think the Germans were able to muster a good fight against practically the entire world (England, France, USA, Russia, etc.)? They had good equipment (for the most part), great training, excellent doctrine and tactics, and quality leadership (at the military level, not counting that moron Hitler and Görring).

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Dig into the Alps and dare them to bring it on. Remember, the Italians had three years of Alpine fighting in WWI. I'm sure they knew a strong position when they saw it.



I can agree with this, but...

The Germans would not invade Italy in this case. All they had to do was not let the Italians in. So what do we have? A few mountain units staring at each other, lobbing a few rounds at each other every once in a while. A defensive staring contest.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay, and Italy was having trouble with second and third rate militaries. What were they going to do with Germany?


bro the germans during ww2 could not break through the Maginot line the had to go around early war Germany was about maneuvering not direct attacks


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can agree with this, but...
> 
> The Germans would not invade Italy in this case. All they had to do was not let the Italians in. So what do we have? A few mountain units staring at each other, lobbing a few rounds at each other every once in a while. A defensive staring contest.



Exactly, a second Phony War. The best thing about Italy siding with the Allies would be denying Germany access to Sicilian airfields, and no Maltese siege sucking ships and resources in.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Exactly, a second Phony War. The best thing about Italy siding with the Allies would be denying Germany access to Sicilian airfields, and no Maltese siege sucking ships and resources in.


yeah and eventually either Britain or America would come in and ww2 would have ended


----------



## rochie (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro the germans during ww2 could not break through the Maginot line the had to go around early war Germany was about maneuvering not direct attacks


that was sound tactics and forward thinking, not a failure !
why attack a defended position when you can bypass it and attack from the rear where they have trouble bringing their large calibre weapons into a position to fire on your own forces ?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

rochie said:


> that was sound tactics and forward thinking, not a failure !
> why attack a defended position when you can bypass it and attack from the rear where they have trouble bringing their large calibre weapons into a position to fire on your own forces ?


I'm not saying they were bad they would not have been able to circle around the alps unless they went trough Yugoslavia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> bro the germans during ww2 could not break through the Maginot line the had to go around early war Germany was about maneuvering not direct attacks



Bro...

What you just described is modern offensive tactics. Something the French had not learned yet.

The Germans never had to go through the Maginot line. So what does that have to do with our hypothetical scenario here? This is about Italy opening a third front against Germany, which in the end would have been another example of “the phony war, and the Italians going “Rah, Rah, Rah, get em boys, while we drink our cappuccino (to the French/British).”


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Exactly, a second Phony War. The best thing about Italy siding with the Allies would be denying Germany access to Sicilian airfields, and no Maltese siege sucking ships and resources in.



Thats true. It is not without benefits.

The more interesting scenario is what would happen if France still fell in this scenario. What does this mean for Russia and the Balkans? Would Italy switch sides?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bro...
> 
> What you just described is modern offensive tactics. Something the French had not learned yet.
> 
> The Germans never had to go through the Maginot line. So what does that have to do with our hypothetical scenario here? This is about Italy opening a third front against Germany, which in the end would have been another example of “the phony war, and the Italians going “Rah, Rah, Rah, get em boys, while we drink our cappuccino (to the French/British).”


i know but they would not be abe to do that with the alps unless they went through Yugoslavia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> I'm not saying they were bad they would not have been able to circle around the alps unless they went trough Yugoslavia



But they did not need to. I already said Germany would not have to invade Italy. Nor would they want to, because Italy would just be sitting there.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats true. It is not without benefits.
> 
> The more interesting scenario is what would happen if France still fell in this scenario. What does this mean for Russia and the Balkans? Would Italy switch sides?


i think the french would retreat defend south France since Italy is on their side now and eventually, they would defend the Italian western alps and they would hold Italy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i know but they would not be abe to do that with the alps unless they went through Yugoslavia



Why would Germany need to do that?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would Germany need to do that?


to go around the mountisn


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i think the french would retreat defend south France since Italy is on their side now and eventually, they would defend the Italian western alps and they would hold Italy



I think France falls just like it did. Then Italy has Vichy France on its border, and Italy sues for peace.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 28, 2021)

One other interesting thought: Having Italy as an ally also seems to have cost the Germans dearly in the sense that the Duce started all kinds of adventures in Greece and North Africa, which in turn costed the Germans a ton of equipment and men to try and bail them out again. What if the Germans would not have fought in Africa? Could they have used all those men and equipment in Russia or against the Allies after D-Day?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> to go around the mountisn



But why? Italy is no serious threat.

Germany needs to concentrate on France. If they succeed in taking France like they did, England goes home, and Italy is just sitting to the south twiddling its thumbs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But why? Italy is no serious threat.
> 
> Germany needs to concentrate on France. If they succeed in taking France like they did, England goes home, and Italy is just sitting to the south twiddling its thumbs.


Me saying that was to explain to some one that Germany would not break the alps


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think France falls just like it did. Then Italy has Vichy France on its border, and Italy sues for peace.


no I think France would hold south France like the savia region


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yeah and eventually either Britain or America would come in and ww2 would have ended



Well, that's a whole 'nother conversation, but I don't think the UK could've defeated Germany on its own.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Marcel said:


> One other interesting thought: Having Italy as an ally also seems to have cost the Germans dearly in the sense that the Duce started all kinds of adventures in Greece and North Africa, which in turn costed the Germans a ton of equipment and men to try and bail them out again. What if the Germans would not have fought in Africa? Could they have used all those men and equipment in Russia or against the Allies after D-Day?


dday was way after


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> no I think France would hold south France like the savia region



How so? What would they do differently? The Germans have rolled through the low countries and are driving their tanks at the rear of the maginot line and to the coast. Paris falls. The Germans install the puppet Vichy government. Nothing changes here, unless you want to move the goal posts and say the French figured out modern warfare tactics overnight and changed their leadership. But then you have a completely different what if scenario.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> to go around the mountisn



I think the point is that there's no real need to invade Italy at all. Very scanty natural resources, and whatever benefits might accrue from a German presence in the Med could be fairly easily counteracted by shutting off Gibraltar and the Suez.

What would be the objective of Germany invading Italy?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But why? Italy is no serious threat.
> 
> Germany needs to concentrate on France. If they succeed in taking France like they did, England goes home, and Italy is just sitting to the south twiddling its thumbs.



It's the same reason the Allies decided on Germany First: you go after your most dangerous opponent first. Plenty of time to mop up the weaker ones when convenient.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think the point is that there's no real need to invade Italy at all. Very scanty natural resources, and whatever benefits might accrue from a German presence in the Med could be fairly easily counteracted by shutting off Gibraltar and the Suez.
> 
> What would be the objective of Germany invading Italy?


I guess if Italy would be allied to the Allies, the Germans might be afraid that it would be a landing ground for said Allies, same reason why they attacked Holland.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so? What would they do differently? The Germans have rolled through the low countries and are driving their tanks at the rear of the maginot line and to the coast. Paris falls. The Germans install the puppet Vichy government. Nothing changes here, unless you want to move the goal posts and say the French figured out modern warfare tactics overnight and changed their leadership. But then you have a completely different what if scenario.


During the invasion of France Italy declared war at the end that is why they didn't even bother trying to defend south France


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Marcel said:


> I guess if Italy would be allied to the Allies, the Germans might be afraid that it would be a landing ground for said Allies, same reason why they attacked Holland.



Sure, but the front would not amount to much with the Alps in the way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think the point is that there's no real need to invade Italy at all. Very scanty natural resources, and whatever benefits might accrue from a German presence in the Med could be fairly easily counteracted by shutting off Gibraltar and the Suez.
> 
> What would be the objective of Germany invading Italy?


knocking out a major player in the war????


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sure, but the front would not amount to much with the Alps in the way.


yes but it would still be pressure plus bombing from Italy by the Regia Aeronautica and royal navy which needed the diversion of forces

again it never happened so we don't know what would have happened but whatever


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> During the invasion of France Italy declared war at the end that is why they didn't even bother trying to defend south France



Italy was in no way capable of doing anything to help France in Southern France. Even if the French had forces there, they were still using outdated tactics and doctrine. How would it have prevented the German Blitz? If anything it makes the situation worse for them by thinning out their forces.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

Marcel said:


> I guess if Italy would be allied to the Allies, the Germans might be afraid that it would be a landing ground for said Allies, same reason why they attacked Holland.



Italy -- as noted above -- is far down the list of good routes into Germany, don't you think? If France is still in the war, use the French frontier. If France is knocked out of the war, use their seafront as in OTL.

With it's geography, Italy is a crummy place to fight: mountains perpendicular to the axis of advance, with the occasional river -- also perpendicular to the advance -- to cross as well. Germany could just as easily block any use of Italy as a jump-off point by fortifying the passes. Remember how formidable they were on the defensive.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Italy was in no way capable of doing anything to help France in Southern France. Even if the French had forces there, they were still using outdated tactics and doctrine. How would it have prevented the German Blitz? If anything it makes the situation worse for them by thinning out their forces.


they could have held the french alps


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Italy -- as noted above -- is far down the list of good routes into Germany, don't you think? If France is still in the war, use the French frontier. If France is knocked out of the war, use their seafront as in OTL.
> 
> With it's geography, Italy is a crummy place to fight: mountains perpendicular to the axis of advance, with the occasional river -- also perpendicular to the advance -- to cross as well. Germany could just as easily block any use of Italy as a jump-off point by fortifying the passes. Remember how formidable they were on the defensive.


i guess


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> knocking out a major player in the war????



Sorry to bust your bubble my friend, but Italy would not be a major player. What would they be doing?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry to bust your bubble my friend, but Italy would not be a major player. What would they be doing?


4 million men is not nothing they would divert forces and even help France.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> knocking out a major player in the war????



"Major" in what sense? Where do you envision the Italians fighting the Germans?

Much easier to get at France than Italy, from the German perspective. It also concentrates one's efforts against the most powerful army threat it faces. Germans getting bogged down in Italy while the French have 100 divisions right across the Rhine? 

I don't think the Germans were that stupid. Relying on one's enemy to to do as you wish is no way to run a railroad -- or prosecute a war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yes but it would still be pressure plus bombing from Italy by the Regia Aeronautica and royal navy which needed the diversion of forces
> 
> again it never happened so we don't know what would have happened but whatever



What pressure? Italy had no capability to invade Germany in any meaningful manner. At most they could capture a few towns in Austria.

Bombing Germany with what? Italy’s air force did not have the capability, strength, or range to launch a serious or effective bombing campaign past the Austrian region (if that). Let alone any strategic campaign.

Sure they had a good Navy, but what good will it do in the end?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> During the invasion of France Italy declared war at the end that is why they didn't even bother trying to defend south France



Actually, the French _did_ bother defending the Italian invasion, with six divisions. I think the 32 Italian divisions got, what, 20 miles into France before the Armistice was signed?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Actually, the French _did_ bother defending the Italian invasion, with six divisions. I think the 32 Italian divisions got, what, 20 miles into France before the Armistice was signed?


i know but if they had an ally there they would fall back there


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> 4 million men is not nothing they would divert forces and even help France.



How so? Does Italy have the logistics to get 4 million men into France. Nope...


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What pressure? Italy had no capability to invade Germany in any meaningful manner. At most they could capture a few towns in Austria.
> 
> Bombing Germany with what? Italy’s air force did not have the capability, strength, or range to launch a serious or effective bombing campaign past the Austrian region (if that). Let alone any strategic campaign.
> 
> Sure they had a good Navy, but what good will it do in the end?


again you underestimate the fact Germany neds to split its forces even if its a 1:3 ratio in Italy that's still enough


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i know but if they had an ally there they would fall back there



If the French have been that badly beaten that their flank is rolled up, the Maginot is enveloped, and the Germans have crossed the Rhone, that's pretty much game over for France anyway. The Germans at that point would have Paris as a hostage city.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so? Does Italy have the logistics to get 4 million men into France. Nope...


obviously not 4 million in France obviously but some divisions could go


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> they could have held the french alps



They could have done that in reality too, but there is no reason to think they would. By the time they realized what was going on, France was already fallen. They put their entire eggs in the Maginot Line basket. So unless you are moving the goal posts, France still falls.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> again you underestimate the fact Germany neds to split its forces even if its a 1:3 ratio in Italy that's still enough



Why does Germany have to split its forces?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

I’m not underestimating anything. You are allowing your Italian pride to overestimate Italy’s capabilities and military value.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> If the French have been that badly beaten that their flank is rolled up, the Maginot is enveloped, and the Germans have crossed the Rhone, that's pretty much game over for France anyway. The Germans at that point would have Paris as a hostage city.



The only way to make this scenario end differently is to say:

1. The Alps do not exist.
2. Italy has better leadership.
3. Italy has better tactics/doctrine.
4. Italy has better equipment.
5. France has better leadership.
6. France has better tactics/doctrine.

Or...

7. Hitler never comes to power. No WW2.

Or...

8. England and France invade Germany during the invasion of Poland.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo


I’m trying to get you to defend your position.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They could have done that in reality too, but there is no reason to think they would. By the time they realized what was going on, France was already fallen. They put their entire eggs in the Maginot Line basket. So unless you are moving the goal posts, France still falls.


ok and then Italy is left with France guarding the west Italy and east is italy


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why does Germany have to split its forces?


BECAUSE ITALY IS AT THE SOUTHER FLANK


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

A few things to take into consideration:
Germany, in it's invasion strategy, used the path of least resistance.
The French built a formidable defensive line across their frontier (Maginot line) and relied on that to discourage a German invasion.
As it happens, Germany went around through the Low Countries (just like they did in WWI).
Secondly, Germany had direct access to Italy via Austria, add to that, access via France. Historically, the Germans had not trouble with the Alps, as seen by the battles later in the war against Allied elements.
There was also Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria within access to Italy's eastern borders (assuming they followed addition to the Axis as was historically) that would be able to provide pressure on north-eastern Italy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> ok and then Italy is left with France guarding the west Italy and east is italy



Guarding what? As soon as the Germans entered France, France was toast. They were so disorganized. What changes here?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> BECAUSE ITALY IS AT THE SOUTHER FLANK



DOING WHAT????

They were no threat. They were never coming up. Any forces the Germans needed to “defend” the southern front were negligible.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> A few things to take into consideration:
> Germany, in it's invasion strategy, used the path of least resistance.
> The French built a formidable defensive line across their frontier (Maginot line) and relied on that to discourage a German invasion.
> As it happens, Germany went around through the Low Countries (just like they did in WWI).
> ...


no they would not join because there was no pct


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> no they would not join because there was no pct



How do you know?


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> DOING WHAT????
> 
> They were no threat. They were never coming up. Any forces the Germans needed to “defend” the southern front were negligible.


They still need troops down there to defend like u don't just use a couple of germans soldiers


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> no they would not join because there was no pct


Why not?
Bulgaria had close ties to Germany, Romania and Hungary wanted land back that was lost in WWI, Croatia wanted to be an independant state.
Their joining the Axis wasn't influenced by Italy's political position either way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

I can do this too...

England sees that Italy has joined the allies and thinks all is lost because Italy is a huge major player you know. England joins forces with the Germans. The Royal Navy annihilates the Italian Navy. England and Germany take France and march to Moscow. England changes its language to German.

That’s how these what ifs are won...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> They still need troops down there to defend like u don't just use a couple of germans soldiers



But they don’t need much, because there is no way the Italians are coming up. Germany’s military leadership was not stupid. Why would they mass a huge Army at a border that is not a huge threat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you know?
> 
> 
> View attachment 625166


If Italy didn't sign it who would then? romania and Hungary were pressured


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> If Italy didn't sign it who would then? romania and Hungary were pressured



Romania and Hungary had other motives for joining. See the above post...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Here’s the thing pops_paolo, even in a what if scenario like this, you cannot completely throw out historical aspects that actually happened.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

Look, I get it that you like Italy. That's cool, but we have to look at all the factors in this scenario.
France was a major power in 1940 Europe and Germany steam-rolled them, killing 390,000 French soldiers for the loss of 35,000 of their own.
Then let's look at how Italy did historically in Ethiopia and North Africa and put that historical performance into this scenario.
Just imagine Rommel unleashed against Italian troops and armor, which did not perform well historically against Allied elements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can do this too...
> 
> England sees that Italy has joined the allies and thinks all is lost because Italy is a huge major player you know. England joins forces with the Germans. The Royal Navy annihilates the Italian Navy. England and Germany take France and march to Moscow. England changes its language to German.
> 
> That’s how these what ifs are won...


Scots Irish and Welsh invade England and make the world wear skirts while dancing to strangled cat type music.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Scots Irish and Welsh invade England and make the world wear skirts while dancing to strangled cat type music.





I almost spit out my coffee.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I almost spit out my coffee.


You and me both!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Look, I get it that you like Italy. That's cool, but we have to look at all the factors in this scenario.
> France was a major power in 1940 Europe and Germany steam-rolled them, killing 390,000 French soldiers for the loss of 35,000 of their own.
> Then let's look at how Italy did historically in Ethiopia and North Africa and put that historical performance into this scenario.
> Just imagine Rommel unleashed against Italian troops and armor, which did not perform well historically against Allied elements.



Thats really the entire thing here.

1. Italy was not a major power.
2. They were ill equipped and poorly led.

You have to completely re-write Italian pre-war history to make this scenario work. That or change what the French and British do in Sept/October 1939.


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I almost spit out my coffee.


Scotland has already run out of Croatia and Czech flags, all the ancient battles will be re lived on 18th June.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can do this too...
> 
> England sees that Italy has joined the allies and thinks all is lost because Italy is a huge major player you know. England joins forces with the Germans. The Royal Navy annihilates the Italian Navy. England and Germany take France and march to Moscow. England changes its language to German.
> 
> That’s how these what ifs are won...





pbehn said:


> Scots Irish and Welsh invade England and make the world wear skirts while dancing to strangled cat type music.


I prefer Chris's scenario.

Rather be German than Scottish, hell I'd take being French over being Scottish anyday !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats really the entire thing here.
> 
> 1. Italy was not a major power.
> 2. They were ill equipped and poorly led.
> ...


Thats true, but they had a lot of people and their navy was a danger. Take out the Italian navy and its presence from WW2 and the Battle of the Atlantic is much different. With equipment and training the Italians could be as any other, like the Polish and other nations contributions to Commonwealth forces. If Benito hadnt joined with Adolf, Adolf would have to invade to avoid having to keep huge armies in Austria south France and Romania.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

rochie said:


> Rather be German than Scottish, hell I'd take being French over being Scottish anyday !


Dunno, in WWI, when the Highlanders piped toward German lines, the Germans fell back because the "Ladies from Hell" advancing on their lines freaked them out.

As for this scenario, I have a feeling that emotions are a large factor. Italy has a long and rich history and had Mussolini not assumed control, I suspect that Italy may have remained neutral as their economy (like many other nations at the time) was in shambles.

As far as wanting alternate history based on ancestry goes, I could have a field day, since all my ancestors hail from countries that either no longer exist or are no longer sovereign.
I have Prussian, Saxon German, Highlander Scot and Oglala Sioux - just imagine the "what-ifs" we could come up with any of those...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Dunno, in WWI, when the Highlanders piped toward German lines, the Germans fell back because the "Ladies from Hell" advancing on their lines freaked them out.
> 
> As for this scenario, I have a feeling that emotions are a large factor. Italy has a long and rich history and had Mussolini not assumed control, I suspect that Italy may have remained neutral as their economy (like many other nations at the time) was in shambles.
> 
> ...


Well if you have Scottish ancestry then we cant be friends anymore

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 28, 2021)

Historically, look at WW1 in the Alps between Austria and Italy. Much fighting, much dying, nothing accomplished. The border mostly the same as today. Italy was ally to France and Britain. How did that work out?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

rochie said:


> Well if you have Scottish ancestry then we cant be friends anymore


You're just mad because they can throw telephone poles and you can't!


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You're just mad because they can throw telephone poles and you can't!


The whole world envies people who can throw telegraph poles, internet FACT.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You're just mad because they can throw telephone poles and you can't!



True



pbehn said:


> The whole world envies people who can throw telegraph poles, internet FACT.



Also true


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)




----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

rochie said:


> Also true


The first two Robert de Bruce' are buried in Guisborough priory, you will be happy to know that no one recorded where lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The first two Robert de Bruce' are buried in Guisborough priory, you will be happy to know that no one recorded where lol


I didnt know that, i worked around the corner in Gisborough hall for a few years too !


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

rochie said:


> I didnt know that, i worked around the corner in Gisborough hall for a few years too !


I know, that why I posted it. The de Bruce's were Lords of Annandale, slowly by marriage they became influential in Scotland. Robert THE Bruce was the sixth Lord of Annandale and first one to be king of Scotland. He still owned most of what is present day Teesside which is why they were always invading to try to link up their lands. My uncle was custodian of Pickering Castle, only about 10% of the people in the town had been inside it, some didnt (still dont) know where it is despite a sign saying "castle" in the middle of the high street. Many dont know what is on their door step.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (May 28, 2021)

I have mentioned this in another thread somewhere here, but a friends' father told some of his wartime experience. Since he seemed too young, as well as very tall and very thin I assumed he had not been in the Army. His mention of Scotland may be of interest. The build up for D day meant lots of US troops and where to put them. His unit was sent to Scotland and they were in the hands of Scottish sergeants for exercise and keeping fit for the invasion. He talked about how tough the Scottish sergeants were and they threw huge rocks back and forth for exercise. When I said that it wasn't punishment but to get you ready to face the Germans, he said, "Oh yeah, after those Scottish sergeants, we went right through those Germans."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Thats true, but they had a lot of people and their navy was a danger. Take out the Italian navy and its presence from WW2 and the Battle of the Atlantic is much different. With equipment and training the Italians could be as any other, like the Polish and other nations contributions to Commonwealth forces. If Benito hadnt joined with Adolf, Adolf would have to invade to avoid having to keep huge armies in Austria south France and Romania.



In order for that to work, this what if begins in 1919. As it historically stands, Italy was no threat to Germany in 1939. Germany would not even need a massive Army in Austria to counter them. Mountainous terrain favors the defender, and Italy’s air force, armor and mobility are not going to pose a threat beyond Austria’s historical borders.

We have to go back and what if a whole lot of things just to get Italy into a position where it can be a viable threat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

Which by the way, I have no problem doing. We can definitely come up with a viable way to make this work, but simply saying Italy had a lot of men, was a world power, and would stop WW2 before it started is not going to work. The Italian Stallion needs to use his critical thinking skills and defend his position.


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which by the way, I have no problem doing. We can definitely come up with a viable way to make this work, but simply saying Italy had a lot of men, was a world power, and would stop WW2 before it started is not going to work. The Italian Stallion needs to use his critical thinking skills and defend his position.


I wasnt proposing Italy do very much, just that all the effort the British and Americans put into N Africa would go into Italy. American build up of forces would have been in Italy, not N Africa.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I wasnt proposing Italy do very much, just that all the effort the British and Americans put into N Africa would go into Italy. American build up of forces would have been in Italy, not N Africa.



I was referring to pops. I don’t think he thought this through...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Mountainous terrain favors the defender, and Italy’s air force, armor and mobility are not going to pose a threat beyond Austria’s historical borders.
> 
> We have to go back and what if a whole lot of things just to get Italy into a position where it can be a viable threat.



For instance the Italian artillery park was pretty dismal. They had some good designs but nowhere enough of them forcing them to rely on WW I left overs. 
A bit less money spent on the Navy and Air Force might have meant a better equipped army. As noted buy others this requires changes in priorities for a number of years before 1939.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 28, 2021)

The only way Italy is an ally is if Mussolini never comes to power. He and Hitler were just too enamored with each other. In fact, I'd say that without the Hitler - Mussolini co-dependency, there is no war. Adolf and Benito were deep down just a couple of bullies that needed each other to feel secure enough to push there plans for world domination. Take one or both out and there is no need to impress the other with your aggression. So, in this hypothetical scenario, if there is no Mussolini, there is no Hitler. If there is no Hitler, there is no Axis Pact, nor any compulsion to prove yourself by invading your neighbors. Poland is at peace. Until Stalin decides to reclaim the territories lost after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> if there is no Mussolini, there is no Hitler.



I understand your point, but I don't believe this. Hitler would have done what he did without Italy's support. The rise of the Nazis came about through internal turmoil in Germany, it's goals were not unlike the Fascists, but had the capacity and skillset to undertake its external objectives. What might have been different is that if Italy had been an ally of Britain and France, the Med situation would have been very different; the Germans couldn't have gotten so far in North Africa and arguably anywhere in the Med without Italian support.

On the subject of this thread, it's likely that had the Fascists not gotten a handle on the country, Italy would have been on the Allied side at any rate, but how useful that would have been remained to be seen. Italian battleships joining Force H in hunting the Bismarck? Italian warships patrolling the North Atlantic and escorting convoys across, as well as into the Arctic? Italian aircraft guarding the Med's upper flanks, with Allied supported defence of Balkan and Aegean states against the Germans? It's an interesting scenario.

Problem with Italy is that other than what's been mentioned here already, poor leadership, inadequate understanding of modern tactics etc, Italy was a poor country before the fascists came to power and with their entry into government its economy spiked before the war but there was no momentum in that. It simply wasn't capable of sustaining a long-term war footing. It did not have access to raw materials to the same degree as the other combatants and without their help was a bit lost across the board. It could only ever play a supporting role with lofty, but unachievable aspirations. Italy is an example of a country that never came to terms with the loss of its greatness, a bit like Britain after the end of WW1.

This is when Italy peaked...





Europe 480

Its empire was never greater.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> They still need troops down there to defend like u don't just use a couple of germans soldiers



Given Alpine terrain, you don't really need a lot of troops to defend the passes. What you need is a good logistics chain to make sure they have food, clothing, and ammo.

If you've actually read up on the Italian campaign, you'll see how the Germans made masterful use of Italian terrain to bog down a lot of Allied divisions. The Alpine passes would be easier to defend, especially against early-war Allied armies.

You may as well throw your troops into a meat-grinder.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2021)

Just imagine the Vittorio Veneto next to USS Nevada pounding away at defences around Utah Beach, or Caio Duilio alongside HMS Warspite bombarding the big gun emplacements around Sword and Gold Beaches in Neptune in 1944...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But they don’t need much, because there is no way the Italians are coming up. Germany’s military leadership was not stupid. Why would they mass a huge Army at a border that is not a huge threat?



And on a border so easily defensible? Talk about economizing forces!

Hell, six French divisions held 32 Italian divisions off on the border with Piedmont, another mountainous region, giving up about 20 miles of France.

This ain't rocket surgery. Mountains make good defensive positions. Just ask the Afghanis.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Given Alpine terrain, you don't really need a lot of troops to defend the passes. What you need is a good logistics chain to make sure they have food, clothing, and ammo.
> 
> If you've actually read up on the Italian campaign, you'll see how the Germans made masterful use of Italian terrain to bog down a lot of Allied divisions. The Alpine passes would be easier to defend, especially against early-war Allied armies.
> 
> You may as well throw your troops into a meat-grinder.


not only troops but the Italian air force so Germany would have to divert fighters


----------



## SaparotRob (May 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Just imagine the Vittorio Veneto next to USS Nevada pounding away at defences around Utah Beach, or Caio Duilio alongside HMS Warspite bombarding the big gun emplacements around Sword and Gold Beaches in Neptune in 1944...


Reality is overrated. It would just be cool to see all those battleships together.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> not only troops but the Italian air force so Germany would have to divert fighters



A fair point, but did the Italians have any bombers capable of really hurting the Reich? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly don't know. What are the ranges and bomb-capacities we're talking about?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Reality is overrated. It would just be cool to see all those battleships together.



The Italians had the handsomest battleships of any combatant. And some with 9x15", nothing to sneeze at, at all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 28, 2021)

They were beautiful ships. However, I like the Colorado and the Tennessee classes, with the lattice masts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> not only troops but the Italian air force so Germany would have to divert fighters



The Italian air force was going to do what in 1939? The Germans already had arguably the best air force in 1939.

How is Italy going to move its troops through the mountains into Germany?

How is a small underperforming air force going to gain air superiority over Germany?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> However, I like the Colorado and the Tennessee classes, with the lattice masts.



Dunno if I'm fond of the look of the lattice mast. I prefer a solid tower, like the South Dakotas and Iowas. I wonder what being up a lattice would have been like in a storm? I reckon they'd flex like crazy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> They were beautiful ships. However, I like the Colorado and the Tennessee classes, with the lattice masts.



The _Colorados_ had a certain majesty, no doubt. One of my favorite BB pics, USS _Colorado_:







The way the ship's superstructure echoes the New York skyline tickles my eyeballs. But it looks a little ungainly compared to _Vittorio Veneto_, to me:






Just a matter of aesthetics. _De gustibus non est disputandum_, and all that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Reality is overrated. It would just be cool to see all those battleships together.


most definitely

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 28, 2021)

It would be interesting as the modern Italian battleships had a strange armour belt design. It was never tested so may never know.

The battleships Littorio and Tony Soprano were never tested by 15 inch shells.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Italian air force was going to do what in 1939? The Germans already had arguably the best air force in 1939.
> 
> How is Italy going to move its troops through the mountains into Germany?
> 
> How is a small underperforming air force going to gain air superiority over Germany?


You can be certain that Guderian would be there to counter any ground movement the Italians would attempt and Italian armor was nothing compared to French armor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> A fair point, but did the Italians have any bombers capable of really hurting the Reich? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly don't know. What are the ranges and bomb-capacities we're talking about?


around 1000 km with bombs


----------



## The Basket (May 28, 2021)

If the Italians had joined UK and France in war in September 1939 against the Germans then that could have been a Yikes moment for the Germans.

May have caused a revolt against Hitler when the 3 major European economic and military powers are suddenly against you.

Maybe, maybe not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Italian air force was going to do what in 1939? The Germans already had arguably the best air force in 1939.
> 
> How is Italy going to move its troops through the mountains into Germany?
> 
> How is a small underperforming air force going to gain air superiority over Germany?


do you think Italy was really that underpowered in 1940 like


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> do you think Italy was really that underpowered in 1940 like



I don't think they got any better between 1939 and 1940.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> around 1000 km with bombs



Which ones and in what numbers?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2021)

The Basket said:


> If the Italians had joined UK and France in war in September 1939 against the Germans then that could have been a Yikes moment for the Germans.
> 
> May have caused a revolt against Hitler when the 3 major European economic and military powers are suddenly against you.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.



How so? As asked of pops_paolo, how as Italy going to muster anything more than being a cheer leader from the other side of the Alps?


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 28, 2021)

Had Italy sided with the Allies it would have been a great stab in the back to Hitler, would have eliminated the North African campaign completely, left the Med an Allied lake. Without Italy drawing off resources from Great Britain, the war would have been far more concentrated in Northern Europe. I think Hitler consolidates his gains in Poland and goes defensive in the south and west. Since the conflict is smaller, Germany is much easier to contain. Isolationists in the US block FDR's attempts to mobilize, to ramp up war production, since the threat is less grave.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which ones and in what numbers?


The range (not endurance) with 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) payload was around 800–900 km (500–560 mi). Sgarlato, Nico. Sparviero (The Great Historical Planes series) N.2 (in Italian), West-ward editzioni, October–November. 2002.
my bad not 1000 km 900km


----------



## pops-paolo (May 28, 2021)

The Basket said:


> If the Italians had joined UK and France in war in September 1939 against the Germans then that could have been a Yikes moment for the Germans.
> 
> May have caused a revolt against Hitler when the 3 major European economic and military powers are suddenly against you.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.


that's what I was staring to think


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 28, 2021)

Maybe. There was always a faction of resisters within the Heer. Every time they thought that Hitler had committed a blunder they could capitalize on, he pulled it off! After the fall of France, hubris set in and the anti-Hitler faction was cowed into submission. It wasn't until the serious reverses in North Africa and Russia in late 1942 that the generals began to again seriously consider a coup. I think that Italy flipping early might actually work in Hitler's favor. Plenty of unkind things to say about dirty, backstabbing Italians. Question is, how much resources does Hitler divert from the attack on the West to neutralize the Italian threat?


----------



## SaparotRob (May 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Dunno if I'm fond of the look of the lattice mast. I prefer a solid tower, like the South Dakotas and Iowas. I wonder what being up a lattice would have been like in a storm? I reckon they'd flex like crazy.


The lattice masts were terrible! Really bad idea. There are pictures of those ships with collapsed lattice masts but those US BB's with their clipper bows just seemed so stately and majestic. Ain't comparing them to anything. I just like them.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You can be certain that Guderian would be there [...]



... or Rommel, who earnt his _Pour le Mérite_ in the mountains of northern Italy in 1917.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> around 1000 km with bombs



What weight of bombs? And how much fuel does flying around Switzerland consume?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How so? As asked of pops_paolo, how as Italy going to muster anything more than being a cheer leader from the other side of the Alps?



I think 

 The Basket
is pointing out political fallout rather than operational value. I think we both agree that nothing of operational value will come from this hypothetical front no matter who opens it, right? But the domestic effect of having another European power arrayed against it might in Germany have some effect. Might.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> do you think Italy was really that underpowered in 1940 like



Depends on which country you are comparing Italy with. Against Balkan and Aegean states, not so much, but against Germany and Britain in 1940, very much so. This is a picture of a CR.42 that was shot down over Britain in November 1940 and is on display at the RAF Museum.





RAFM 119


At the time the CR.42 was the most numerous fighter in the Italian Air Force, although Fiat G.50s and Macchi MC.200s were also available, but when Italy entered the war in 1940, numbers of serviceable aircraft were in double figures only (less than 100 each) for both types, whereas the CR.42 was into the triple figures, with over 300 constructed. Aside from the numbers, compared to contemporary aircraft of dominant combatant countries in Europe, these aircraft definitely had their advantages, but they were under-armed and possessed poorer performance, to say nothing for the accumulated experience the Germans and the British airmen had earned through battling it out over British and French skies through May to October.

At the RAF Museum, there are four aircraft arranged in a circle in the main hall, all of which carried out combat operations over Britain in 1940, including the CR.42. They make a stark contrast to the CR.42 and illustrate what the Italians were up against.




RAFM 122




RAFM 109




RAFM 113

By the time Italy enters the war, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 are arguably the best fighters in service, being flown by the most experienced combat pilots in the world.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> ... or Rommel, who earnt his _Pour le Mérite_ in the mountains of northern Italy in 1917.


I'm under the impression this scenario is based in 1940 - at that point in time, Guderian is in his prime and a senior to Rommel. Both performed remarkably well in the Polish, Low Countries and French campaigns and both were masters of armor tactics.
I would give it to Rommel to have the upper hand in the Italian Alps, as this was his element in WWI, but Guderian would be a terror as well, since he was known to exploit adverse terrain to his advantage.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm under the impression this scenario is based in 1940 - at that point in time, Guderian is in his prime and a senior to Rommel. Both performed remarkably well in the Polish, Low Countries and French campaigns and both were masters of armor tactics.
> I would give it to Rommel to have the upper hand in the Italian Alps, as this was his element in WWI, but Guderian would be a terror as well, since he was known to exploit adverse terrain to his advantage.



Either/or, I just think Rommel's direct experience would be handy.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Either/or, I just think Rommel's direct experience would be handy.


There's no doubt that Rommel would be exceptionally dangerous in the Alps, he knew the lay of the land well.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> There's no doubt that Rommel would be exceptionally dangerous in the Alps, he knew the lay of the land well.



He also had experience in WWI fighting in the Carpathians.


----------



## ThomasP (May 29, 2021)

I think those (pops-paulo, pbehn, Greg Boeser, et al) who have expressed the idea of what would happen if the Italian Navy was on the Allied side may have hit the biggest effects of this what if scenario.

1. As Greg Boeser pointed out, without the RM on Germany's side, the Med is largely a free route to/from NA and the South of France. Aside from U-boats there would be no significant effective German offensive capability in the MTO.

2. Without control of the Med, the South of France is vulnerable to invasion at any point that the Allies can muster up enough force to do so. If Italy is on the Allied side, Italian ground forces do not have to go through the Alps, they can invade through the South of France. At the least Germany would have to dedicate a few units to the French/Italian Alpine sector AND would have to build up a small but significant force to defend the southern coast of France.

3. Without Axis contesting the control of the Med, there would be no need for the UK/Commonwealth forces to be tied up in NA. That would leave all those units doing nothing. I am sure that the Allies would find something for them to do. The only stumbling block to an invasion through southern France would be how quickly the Allies would build the infrastructure for a landing force (ie landing craft/ships, and seaborne logistics chain). If when such an invasion took place, the Germans would still have to keep forces in place in the Alpine sector to prevent Italian ground forces from moving into France with impunity. As pbehn pointed out, in effect Italy could be the base of operations for the Allies. In effect there might be a D-Day in 1942(?), only on the south coast of France.

I do not know how many divisions the Germans had tied up historically in France as a whole, ie occupation troops vs potential combat units on the South Coast, but I can easily see the need for somewhere in the region of 20 additional ground divisions plus Luftwaffe and (secure) logistics assets in this what if scenario. What would the effect of that type of reassignment of forces from the historical situation have? In effect there could be a sizable and active third front before the end of 1942.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> The range (not endurance) with 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) payload was around 800–900 km (500–560 mi). Sgarlato, Nico. Sparviero (The Great Historical Planes series) N.2 (in Italian), West-ward editzioni, October–November. 2002.
> my bad not 1000 km 900km



Which gets you were? And what numbers? The entire fleet is not made up of these aircraft. Even the RAF was not mustering up much of an offensive air operation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> What weight of bombs? And how much fuel does flying around Switzerland consume?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I can see that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

It's times like this, that I miss Michael (Parsifal) and his input.
His alternate simulations that he worked on for years were flawless.

I'd love to see what he'd have to say.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (May 29, 2021)

Hey GrauGeist,

re: "One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well."

True, and I do not have any info on just how many ground units, air, and logistic assets, this entailed. On the one hand, you would think that in this what if scenario the Germans would hold those units back for the potential defense of southern France. On the other hand, Hitler might have decided they would be of more use for Operation Barbarossa. And either might be have been true. Yikes!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2021)

The Greater German Reich had a land border with Italy as in Austria so direct military action could be undertaken.

Ww1 rinse and repeat.

Whether the Generals would have done a coup against Hitler is up to who you believe. But Italy was a major European power with a powerful military and so the concept of UK, France and Italy against you may have been the straw that spoilt the broth.

All supposition. Whether Italy was or wasn't isn't the issue but the concept of war with Italy is a unpalatable one.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

The Basket said:


> The Greater German Reich had a land border with Italy as in Austria so direct military action could be undertaken.
> 
> Ww1 rinse and repeat.
> 
> ...



Again, that border is not conducive to mobile warfare, and that terrain favors the defender. Italy was not going to mass a large offensive into Germany though its southern border.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again, that border is not conducive to mobile warfare, and that terrain favors the defender. Italy was not going to mass a large offensive into Germany though its southern border.


Doesn't have to.
Declaration of war and full mobilisation should do it.

Then German planners are facing a war without allies and on 2 fronts 

How would Halder and Brauchitsch deal with that? Ur facing ww1 the second round and that's not good.


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Invading Poland is neutal?


If Stalin did nothing, Hitler would have occupied the whole of Poland .
It was Churchill who said that the Soviet attack had also positive effects for the Wallies .


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Indeed. The stage for the French defeat was set, I think, long before Poland was invaded, and has more to do with French politics that French equipment or the French fighting man. The poilus showed valor and determination during the second half of the campaign, trying to overcome the inept leadership of the first half. It simply wasn't enough by that point.


In 1928 the French saw that they were better without the alliance with Poland,because this alliance risked to involve them in wars who benefited only Poland: war between the Czechs and Poland, between the Czechs and the USSR ,AND because the aid Poland could give to France/would give to France if France was attacked by Germany, was almost non existent.That's why France blew up the alliance by building the Maginot Line .
And Poland knew it,and reconciled themselves with the loss .
Because ? Because they knew that their survival depended on the hostility between Germany and the USSR and on the willingness of G to fight if the Soviets attacked Poland, and the opposite

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

Wurger said:


> Really !!!! It was neutral because of the threaty of Rapallo in 1922 and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and also the invasion on Poland in the September 1939 together with the Nazi Germany.


Not together with the Germans, but after the Germans : on September 17 .
The Poles had the choice : the whole of Poland occupied by Germany, or a partition of Poland .


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 29, 2021)

The Polish state in 1939 had existed less than 20 years, being created from the ashes of the collapsed German, Austrian and Russian empires. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were eager to reassert their territorial claims. While not formally allied, the non-aggression pact had clauses which recognized the territorial ambitions of both parties. Plus Germany and the Soviet Union had been conducting secret military and economic cooperation for years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well.


..and all the assets Italy sent to the Soviet Front would be lost to Germany. At absolute worst, were Italy to join the Allies, the Axis would be no better off than it was historically. More likely, the loss of the Italian Forces would significantly weaken the Axis.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> If Stalin did nothing, Hitler would have occupied the whole of Poland .
> It was Churchill who said that the Soviet attack had also positive effects for the Wallies .



Still does not make them neutral. They had an agreement with Germany to split up Poland. Attacking another country is *the exact opposite of neutral*.

Let’s ask our Polish members here if they had a preference over being occupied by Germany or Russia in 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Not together with the Germans, but after the Germans : on September 17 .
> The Poles had the choice : the whole of Poland occupied by Germany, or a partition of Poland .





The Poles had no choice at all. They were invaded by a foreign army on two different sides. I think your view of history is a bit off.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Doesn't have to.
> Declaration of war and full mobilisation should do it.
> 
> Then German planners are facing a war without allies and on 2 fronts
> ...



The Germans were not stupid. They would know the Italians are just going to sit on their border. They don’t have to mass troops on the border to defend it. Italy was in no position to do anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> ..and all the assets Italy sent to the Soviet Front would be lost to Germany. At absolute worst, were Italy to join the Allies, the Axis would be no better off than it was historically. More likely, the loss of the Italian Forces would significantly weaken the Axis.



I disagree. The loss of Italy is one less thing for Germany to worry about. They don’t have to waste resources bailing them out all over the world.


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Poles had no choice at all. They were invaded by a foreign army on two different sides. I think your view of history is a bit off.


They could chose,and they did : they said no to Hitler,and when he was defeated, Stalin was in Warsaw .
If they said yes to Hitler,and he lost, Stalin would still be at Warsaw. If Hitler won ,Warsaw would no exist today ,and one can doubt that there would still be Poles in Poland .


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> The Polish state in 1939 had existed less than 20 years, being created from the ashes of the collapsed German, Austrian and Russian empires. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were eager to reassert their territorial claims. While not formally allied, the non-aggression pact had clauses which recognized the territorial ambitions of both parties. Plus Germany and the Soviet Union had been conducting secret military and economic cooperation for years.


The cooperation stopped in 1933 and was not long remaining secret .


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Still does not make them neutral. They had an agreement with Germany to split up Poland. Attacking another country is *the exact opposite of neutral*.
> 
> Let’s ask our Polish members here if they had a preference over being occupied by Germany or Russia in 1939.


One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
> The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
> Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
> The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .



How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> One can remain neutral and attacking an other country : Japan was fighting in China but remained neutral till Pearl Harbour .
> The USSR was not at war with France and Britain,thus it was neutral til June 22 1941 .
> Besides : when on September 17 1939 the USSR invaded Poland, Poland did not declare war on the USSR,thus the USSR was neutral .
> The Soviets invaded Poland to prevent Hitler from occupying the eastern regions of Poland,which was a big danger for the Kremlin .



Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.


Bearing in mind Russia was the leading member of the Soviet Union that borders Europe the far east and India I dont see how it could ever be a "neutral country" as defined in international law.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2021)

The USSR was neutral regarding WWII in the Pacific, at least until near the end of the war, and Japan did not attack Soviet-flagged merchant ships and the USSR interned American aircraft which landed there (there may also have been Lend-Lease material going to the Soviet Front, where the USSR was an active ally) Why this is the case, I have no idea, as there was certainly no love lost between the USSR (or czarist Russia) and Japan. During WWI, the US remained neutral vis a vis the Ottoman Empire. 

As to the USSR and Poland? Since the USSR invaded Poland roughly simultaneously, and possibly cooperatively, with Germany, it's really straining credulity to consider the USSR to be neutral in that conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.


The Soviets did nothing else than the Poles a year before,who ,not long after Munich,occupied a part of CZ that they had lost in 1920 to the Czechs and hat they still claimed, for valid/non valid,reasons as a part of Poland = Teschen .
They did it to prevent the Germans from taking it .
After Munich and after Prague 1939, the Hungarians also ( re ) occupied parts of CZ,that they claimed were belonging to Hungary .
No one said that Poland and Hungary were not neutral . If they were neutral, so was the USSR .
If no one was whining about the Poles and the Hungarians, there was no reason to whine about the USSR .
After the fall of France, Spain occupied Tanger,no one said that Spain was not neutral .
The Baltics were not occupied to protect them from the Germans, neither was it for the small part of Finland .


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ummm no. I think you need to brush up on your definition of neutrality. You can justify the Soviet aggression all you want, it does not make you right.


I do not justify what the Soviets did : there is no justification needed in international politics

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 29, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The USSR was neutral regarding WWII in the Pacific, at least until near the end of the war, and Japan did not attack Soviet-flagged merchant ships and the USSR interned American aircraft which landed there (there may also have been Lend-Lease material going to the Soviet Front, where the USSR was an active ally) Why this is the case, I have no idea, as there was certainly no love lost between the USSR (or czarist Russia) and Japan. During WWI, the US remained neutral vis a vis the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> As to the USSR and Poland? Since the USSR invaded Poland roughly simultaneously, and possibly cooperatively, with Germany, it's really straining credulity to consider the USSR to be neutral in that conflict.


17 days is not simultaneously ,besides, as Churchill and several French military said : it was better for Britain and France if Poland was divided than if Poland was occupied by the Germans .
And, as the war was not about Poland ( no one cared about Poland ) but about /against Germany ,the fact that a part of Poland was not occupied by the Germans but by the Soviets,was not hindering the Wallies .
The existence of Poland prevented a possible alliance between the Wallies and the Soviets .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> They could chose,and they did : they said no to Hitler,and when he was defeated, Stalin was in Warsaw .
> If they said yes to Hitler,and he lost, Stalin would still be at Warsaw. If Hitler won ,Warsaw would no exist today ,and one can doubt that there would still be Poles in Poland .



The unspoken premise in your post is that the Poles knew the Soviets planned to invade. If they did not know that, they could not, speaking logically, have made a choice between one occupier and two. Did the Poles have foreknowledge of Soviet plans to invade on the 17th?

It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.

The only choice the Poles made regarding the presence of Soviet troops on their territory, to my knowledge, was to categorically reject that avenue of assistance when the pact with UK and France was being hammered out and the Brits (iirc) floated the idea as one way of addressing the German threat. That's according to Shirer, but I don't have the book handy and can't give the page number.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2021)

ljadw said:


> 17 days is not simultaneously ,besides, as Churchill and several French military said : it was better for Britain and France if Poland was divided than if Poland was occupied by the Germans .
> And, as the war was not about Poland ( no one cared about Poland ) but about /against Germany ,the fact that a part of Poland was not occupied by the Germans but by the Soviets,was not hindering the Wallies .
> The existence of Poland prevented a possible alliance between the Wallies and the Soviets .


If they attacked on the same date that would be coordinated, in military and historical terms it is simultaneous because it resulted in Poland fighting the Soviet Union and Germany SIMULTANEOUSLY.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 29, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If they attacked on the same date that would be coordinated, in military and historical terms it is simultaneous because it resulted in Poland fighting the Soviet Union and Germany SIMULTANEOUSLY.



That sounds like the defense was simultaneous for part of the time. That does not sound like the attacks were simultaneous.


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That sounds like the defense was simultaneous for part of the time. That does not sound like the attacks were simultaneous.


How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 29, 2021)

pbehn said:


> How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.



You'd earlier said that the attacks were "simultaneous". They weren't. The Japanese fought the Americans for almost four years; they fought the Soviets for less than four weeks. Were the Soviet and American attacks upon Japan therefore "simultaneous"? No.

You're now moving on to Stalin's motivations, without addressing the point that the attacks were not, in fact, simultaneous. That renders your points here, such as they are, a red-herring, irrelevant to the discussion at hand but clearly an entirely different point.

The attacks were not simultaneous. Nor were they coordinated. While the Germans and the Soviets had divvied up Eastern Europe in the M-R Pact, neither side informed the other of its actions before the war, neither side planned any actions together, and they were separated in time by over two weeks. Calling them either "simultaneous" or "coordinated" simply doesn't describe the facts accurately at all.

A reference to something eleven hundred years ago does not change that. We're not discussing the Norman invasion.

Your point about Stalin's opportunism is the best point in your post. Opportunism is unplanned, usually.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 29, 2021)

Simultaneous? Opportunistic? No. No. Coordinated, yes. The Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact specified what parts of Poland would go to Germany and which parts would go to the Soviet Union. German troops pursuing the Polish Army withdrew from territory claimed by Stalin and turned over Polish prisoners to the Soviets when the Soviets invaded.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 29, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Depends on which country you are comparing Italy with. Against Balkan and Aegean states, not so much, but against Germany and Britain in 1940, very much so. This is a picture of a CR.42 that was shot down over Britain in November 1940 and is on display at the RAF Museum.
> 
> View attachment 625230
> RAFM 119
> ...


This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too


----------



## pops-paolo (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which gets you were? And what numbers? The entire fleet is not made up of these aircraft. Even the RAF was not mustering up much of an offensive air operation.


612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
> the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
> and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
> cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too


By September 1939, the RAF had 187 Spitfires in service with 119 in reserve.
By September 1939, the Regia Aeronautica *only had* 89 G.50s and 77 MC.200s in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> By September 1939, the RAF had 187 Spitfires in service with 119 in reserve.
> By September 1939, the Regia Aeronautica *only had* 89 G.50s and 77 MC.200s in service.


by 1940, around the battle of France there were a bit more


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> by 1940, around the battle of France there were a bit more


There was a bit more all across the board, but since you mentioned Italy declaring war in 1939...
And to add to the above numbers:
In 1939, Germany had 449 Bf109s and several He112s.


----------



## pops-paolo (May 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> There was a bit more all across the board, but since you mentioned Italy declaring war in 1939...
> And to add to the above numbers:
> In 1939, Germany had 449 Bf109s and several He112s.


yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real life
but to be honest if they had Italy they might have pushed Germanys weak defences in 1939


----------



## pops-paolo (May 29, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> How exactly is invading another country remaining neutral? The Soviets and Germans had a non-aggression pact that divided up the spoils of eastern Europe. Tell the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns that the Soviet occupation of their land was to protect them from Nazi aggression. While not formally allied, the Soviets were definitely not neutral. What is true is that the western powers did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they occupied the eastern half of Poland, nor did they attempt to interfere with the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, other to send a bit of war material to Finland, when they resisted the Soviet ultimatum.


so true so many look past this because the soviets helped us defeat the nazis but little do these num nums realize one powerful, terrible dictator was replaced by another.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> so true so many look past this because the soviets helped us defeat the nazis but little do these num nums realize one powerful, terrible dictator was replaced by another.



A lot of folks have no idea that these two worked together for almost two years before Germany turned on the USSR.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real life
> but to be honest if they had Italy they might have pushed Germanys weak defences in 1939


In 1939, Germany had a top of the line airforce and a top of the line Army, both well equipped and well trained - they were anything but weak.
Italy's decision to declare war on Germany in 1943 when Germany was getting hammered from all directions was about the only smart thing they did during WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> 612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing



Again, was there enough to mount a meaningful campaign against a formidable Luftwaffe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 29, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again, was there enough to mount a meaningful campaign against a formidable Luftwaffe?



... not to mention 88s.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> 612 sparievo bombers to bomb Munich or to be used as tactical bombing


With a top speed of 290mph, they would have been dead meat against Bf109s and Bf110s.


----------



## The Basket (May 30, 2021)

Austria had ceased to exist by 1939 so any conflict by Italy would be against this part of the German Reich and not Munich or Berlin. 

I can see scenario where Italy stays neutral but I can't see Italy fighting against Germany. Italy adventures in Ethiopia and Spain led straight to Germany being an ally. And against the allies.

Once France falls then there is territory up for grabs. And could Mussolini resist? Could UK keep him neutral
? Maybe the importance of the Mediterranean meant that UK would have to try to destroy the Regia Marina regardless.

Italian force did stop the Nazis in 1934 with the Dollfuss assassination from taking over Austria. This was certainly the greatest friction between the two countries. 

Hitler wanted Mussolini's green light for the Anschluss which Mussolini gave. Had Mussolini said no then this could have been the reason for conflict with Germany.


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> How long do you estimate the Russians would need to mount an attack on Poland if the German attack on Poland was as much of a surprise to them as it was to Poland itself? Tosdig and WilliaM in 1066 coordinated their attacks. The Battle of Stamford Bridge near York was on 25th September (they landed weeks before) while the battle of Hastings was on 14 October. That is a coordinated attack, Stalin going into Poland was opportunism and real politik. Why should he accept any German army to camp on his border, he just moved the border further away.


The German attack on Poland was no surprise to the Soviets,neither to the Poles and the Wallies .


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The unspoken premise in your post is that the Poles knew the Soviets planned to invade. If they did not know that, they could not, speaking logically, have made a choice between one occupier and two. Did the Poles have foreknowledge of Soviet plans to invade on the 17th?
> 
> It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.
> 
> The only choice the Poles made regarding the presence of Soviet troops on their territory, to my knowledge, was to categorically reject that avenue of assistance when the pact with UK and France was being hammered out and the Brits (iirc) floated the idea as one way of addressing the German threat. That's according to Shirer, but I don't have the book handy and can't give the page number.


When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that 
a Hitler would attack very soon Poland 
b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
> a Hitler would attack very soon Poland
> b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .


What the hell are you talking about.
Do you even know European geography??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
> a Hitler would attack very soon Poland
> b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .


I cant be bothered with this nonsense anymore, we all know how it ends.


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> What the hell are you talking about.
> Do you even know European geography??


I think that I know European geography better than you .
And I see that you are unaware of the existence of the OUN which tried to assassinate Pilsudski and assassinated the Polish minister of interior.
The OUN was also very hostile to the USSR ,but the Ukrainians collaborated at the end of WWI with the Germans .
Thus, it was not in the interest of Stalin that Hitler would occupy the easteren parts of Poland .
When Hitler attacked the USSR in June 1941, the OUN collaborated initially with him : the infamous Nachtigall Batallion .
The alternative ,which was : Stalin doing nothing and remaining idle in September 1939,would not be better for the USSR, not be better for Poland and not be better for the Wallies .
Stalin accepted the incorporation of parts of Ukraine to Poland, but he would never accept that these parts would be a part of Gross Deutschland,because Hitler could create an independent Ukrainian state .


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yes but in the scenario, the allies waited for Germany to invade like they did in real life
> but to be honest if they had Italy they might have pushed Germanys weak defences in 1939


This is not correct : in WWI the Italians fought, without any success, several battles on the Isonzo, and finally suffered a big defeat at Caporetto when the Germans intervened.
Besides, the German defenses in the West were not weak in 1939 .
Last point : there were no Allies in September 1939 on the Western front,but only French : the first 2 British divisions arrived only in the last days of September and the Germans had a numerical superiority on the Western border.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> When the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact became public,it was obvious for every one that
> a Hitler would attack very soon Poland



That is neither here nor there. The claim being bandied is that the attacks were simultaneous. They weren't. And any claim that they were coordinated should be supported. That too hasn't hapened.



ljadw said:


> b that he would let Easteren Poland to the Soviets,because the Soviets opposed a German occupation of a region mainly populated by Ukrainians .



I'm not arguing against that; indeed, _I already pointed out_ that that was written into the M-R pact, in the secret clause.

I notice you didn't address my point about Poland's "choice" at all. Perhaps you missed it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 30, 2021)

The Molotov - Ribbontrop Pact sealed the fate of Poland and the Baltic states. Hitler wanted _Lebensraum _in Poland, Stalin wanted the former territories of the Russian Empire. To say that the Soviets and Germans didn't coordinate the invasion of Poland is simply not tenable. The sectors to be occupied by each invader had been agreed upon before the invasion. German forces that had pushed beyond the agreed upon boundaries withdrew when the Soviet forces arrived, and turned over prisoners. Eastern Poland was territory incorporated into the nascent Polish state following the Polish - Soviet War of 1919-21, and was predominantly populated by Ukrainians, Jews, and Belarussians. Perhaps this is why the Western Powers did not strenuously object to Stalin's takeover, as this territory was not part of the original Polish state created in the Treaty of Versailles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It seems to me that the Poles only had the choice of defending against the Germans, or rolling over and submitting. I think we here will all agree that that is no real choice at all.


I disagree with this : 
CZ had 2 choices : to say no to Hitler or to say yes to Hitler . They said yes because they knew that the West could not save them and that after the defeat of Hitler ,they would become a Soviet satellite .
Poland also had the same 2 choices : 
they said no to Hitler because initially they were convinced that Hitler was bluffing .He needed a deal with Stalin and he would never negotiate with Stalin . Thus Poland was safe .
after the M-R Pact, Poland continued to say no , because they knew that if they said yes, Hitler would still attack .
After the Pact Hitler could not say to Stalin : the Pact no longer exist,because Poland is accepting my demands and thus I will not invade her .
In 1908 (the Bosnia-Herzegovina crisis ) Russia received a German ultimatum,which was : to accept openly the annexation of BH and to abandon Serbia, or to refuse this demand and face war .
While Germany hoped that Russia would refuse and that it would have finally its war, Russia gave away, for several reasons,one of which was that France refused to support her .France had no intention to fight for something insignificant in the Balkans .
The same thing happened in the 2 Agadir crises .
In 1938 Austria also had 2 choices : to fight or to capitulate . For a lot of reasons, they capitulated .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 30, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> The Molotov - Ribbontrop Pact sealed the fate of Poland and the Baltic states. Hitler wanted _Lebensraum _in Poland, Stalin wanted the former territories of the Russian Empire. To say that the Soviets and Germans didn't coordinate the invasion of Poland is simply not tenable. The sectors to be occupied by each invader had been agreed upon before the invasion. German forces that had pushed beyond the agreed upon boundaries withdrew when the Soviet forces arrived, and turned over prisoners. Eastern Poland was territory incorporated into the nascent Polish state following the Polish - Soviet War of 1919-21, and was predominantly populated by Ukrainians, Jews, and Belarussians. Perhaps this is why the Western Powers did not strenuously object to Stalin's takeover, as this territory was not part of the original Polish state created in the Treaty of Versailles.


ONE correction : Stalin did not want the former territories of the Russian Empire, but only some of them : before 1914 the biggest part of Poland ,including Warsaw,was a part of the Russian Empire,but Stalin wanted only the Eastern part,because he knew that Poland was a poisoned chalice for the USSR and that even the communist Poles were hostile to the USSR . He preferred that ''fascist '' Germans should occupy ''capitalist '' Poles .
About the coordination of the Germans and Soviets : the Germans did not know when the Soviets would invade, because the Soviet attack was depending on the success of the German attack and on the failure of the Wallies to be in Berlin on September 15 .If after the German attack,there was a coup of the German generals and the French were advancing to Berlin, Stalin would not move .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> ONE correction : *Stalin did not want the former territories of the Russian Empire, but only some of them : before 1914 the biggest part of Poland ,including Warsaw,was a part of the Russian Empire,but Stalin wanted only the Eastern part,because he knew that Poland was a poisoned chalice for the USSR and that even the communist Poles were hostile to the USSR . He preferred that ''fascist '' Germans should occupy ''capitalist '' Poles* .
> About the coordination of the Germans and Soviets : the Germans did not know when the Soviets would invade, because the Soviet attack was depending on the success of the German attack and on the failure of the Wallies to be in Berlin on September 15 .If after the German attack,there was a coup of the German generals and the French were advancing to Berlin, Stalin would not move .



been reading some of your posts with great interest - a question; do you have a reference for this?


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

Has anyone seen Koopernic post recently?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 30, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I disagree with this :
> CZ had 2 choices : to say no to Hitler or to say yes to Hitler . They said yes because they knew that the West could not save them and that after the defeat of Hitler ,they would become a Soviet satellite .
> Poland also had the same 2 choices :
> they said no to Hitler because initially they were convinced that Hitler was bluffing .He needed a deal with Stalin and he would never negotiate with Stalin . Thus Poland was safe .
> ...



My point is logical, not historical. If someone is unaware of an alternative, them not selecting said alternative is not a choice, it's them acting in a fog of information. So again I ask you: did the Poles have any intel indicating, before deciding to fight the Germans, that the Russians were planning their own invasion? Please address this question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
> and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
> cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too



In your imagination. Let's be real for a minute here, If Italy goes to war against Britain in 1939, how are its aeroplanes going to reach the UK from Italy? In 1939 Italy had NO worthwhile combat aircraft that could fly non-stop to the UK and return. let alone a biplane fighter. The Fiat BR.20 certainly couldn't. In late 1940 Italy took advantage of the fact that Germany had invaded Belgium and launched its attacks from there. Germany didn't begin its invasion of mainland Europe until Spring 1940. The Italians did not have a long-range bomber that could attack Britain, but the British had bombers that could attack Italy from the UK. Whitleys carried out raids against Italian cities in 1940.

So, let's say that this highly implausible scenario of yours could come about and Italy can somehow attack the UK in 1939 via air attack? Spitfires represented around a third of the available fighters that Fighter Command had, therefore in total it outnumbered the Italian air force fighter arm by a considerable margin. Let's not forget that Britain also had the world's only comprehensive coordinated air defence system of its nature. Traditionally, the Italian air force was no match for the RAF in 1940 and there is little reason to believe that would have been any different in 1939.

Next, the CR.42, G.50 and MC.200 might be a match for the Hurricane (lets for a minute assume all things being equal, let's also not forget that the MC.200 was not sent as part of the attacking force against Britain in 1940; oddly, Italian pilots actually didn't trust it on its debut and the frontline units that it entered service with relinquished them for CR.42s), but let's not forget that during the Battle of Britain that the RAF achieved a 2 to 1 kill ratio against the Luftwaffe, which was equipped with far superior fighters than the Italian ones. This means they shot down more German aircraft of all types, bombers, fighters, long-range fighters, dive bombers etc than the Germans were able to shoot down British fighters, and the Luftwaffe had more fighters than Fighter Command.

During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was comprehensively defeated because of tactical and strategic errors and missteps. It started off with more aircraft, bombers, fighters, etc than it ended up with. Fighter Command however had more fighters at the end of the battle than it began it with. So, how do you think Italy will do? The total number of aircraft the Luftwaffe was equipped with far exceeded that of the entire RAF, not just Fighter Command, yet this was insufficient to force Britain to surrender. Germany didn't have the capacity to replace the aircraft it was losing as quickly as the British could replenish its fighters. Let's not forget the Luftwaffe was probably the best air force in mainland Europe in 1939 and 1940 so again, bearing in mind that it was defeated by Fighter Command over Britain, how do you _really_ think the Italians would do?

Let's look at what the Corpo Aereo Italiano achieved against the UK, _No_ RAF fighters were shot down by _any_ of the CR.42s and G.50s. None. The Italian fighter pilots claimed a lot of RAF aircraft, but the reality was they damaged a few, but none were destroyed by them. One G.50 was shot down and a couple of CR.42s and BR.20s, with total losses of between 10 and 15 aircraft of 170 that was fielded against Britain in late 1940. Let's also not forget that by the end of October 1940 RAF had more than 700 fighters available to it.

Here's a good account of the CAI's outing against Britain in late 1940:

Another Italian Misadventure in the Battle of Britain (historynet.com)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> This situation has Italy declare war in sept 1939
> the spitfires were not in large numbers during the battle of Britain let alone battle of france
> and the Italian c.200 and g.50 were comparable to the hurricanes
> cr.42 and 32 would have been ok in defending the airspace too


At the fall of France the numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes available to the RAF were approximately the same at 250 each. Hurricane production was higher than Spitfires especially at the start. During the battle the Spitfire Mk II was introduced and by the following March the MkV was being made.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2021)

I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. This they could have been trained and supplied with.
Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2021)

Glider said:


> Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.


A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 30, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.



My understanding is that especially with regard to airframe construction the Italians were less automated and factory-lined, and more hand-built.

Correction welcomed if this is wrongly held by me.


----------



## swampyankee (May 30, 2021)

Italy was probably the least industrialized of the European major powers involved in WW2. While it did have a competent industrial sector, capable of producing well-designed and well-constructed hardware, it did not have the mass of industry and the availability of material resources (iron, coal, oil, etc) as did the other European powers. Some of the Italian weapons were also less than successful because that's how they were specified, most notably the CR.42, but also the G.50, where weapons load and configuration were set by the officers of the RAI. The Italian armed forces had other problems, many due to the somewhat fraught relationship between Italy's north and south. While the Italian Army's elite units (_Alpini, Bersaglieri, _San Marco Brigade) were as good as anybody's, the bulk of the army was inadequately trained, not well-officered (this may have been a result of Cadorna's mismanagement during WW1), with (usually) mediocre equipment. 

While Germany wouldn't be diverted into the Mediterranean littoral, this also means that the Royal Navy wouldn't have to worry about its critical maritime routes through the Suez Canal, dealing with the powerful Italian surface fleet, or the large number of Italian submarines. Basically, the entire Royal Navy Mediterranean Fleet is now available to deal with Germany or Japan. Tell me how that benefits Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My point is logical, not historical. If someone is unaware of an alternative, them not selecting said alternative is not a choice, it's them acting in a fog of information. So again I ask you: did the Poles have any intel indicating, before deciding to fight the Germans, that the Russians were planning their own invasion? Please address this question.


The answer is : yes .
The proof is : the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
This pact meant that a successful German attack would be followed ( when was not known ) by a Soviet one .
Poland did not need any intel, the Soviets said it openly .
Besides, this was known after 1920 : a German attack was possible only if the Soviets agreed, a Soviet attack was possible only if the Germans agreed .
A German attack would be followed automatically by a Soviet one, a Soviet attack would be followed automatically by a German one .
Germany would not allow the Soviets to occupy the territories it had lost in 1918, the USSR would allow Germany to occupy the core part of the territories it had lost in 1918 ,territories with a Polish population,because the Soviets were better off without the Poles, but they would not allow the Germans to occupy the easteren part of Poland,which had mainly a Russian/Ukrainian population .The danger of a German/Ukrainian coalition ( SS/OUN ) was too great .


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

Glider said:


> I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. This they could have been trained and supplied with.
> Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy.


There was an other big advantage : the Italian DOW of 1940 forced Britain to use the long route ( via South Africa ) for its convoys to and from the East of Suez, which was a major obstacle for the war against Japan . If Italy was an ally, Britain could use the short route through the Mediterranean .
This applies also for Lend Lease : LL convoys from the US to Iran via Africa lasted 82 days, through the Mediterranean 55 days . A savings of 33 % .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> been reading some of your posts with great interest - a question; do you have a reference for this?


In August 1944 there was the insurrection of Warsaw,which,essentially,was an attempt to install an anti-Soviet government before the arrival of the Soviets .
In 1956,there was trouble in Poland and in Hungary : the Poles demanded liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky ( A Russian who commanded the Polish army ) . The Poznan protests in June 1956 were crashed not by the Polish police/army,but by the Soviets : there were at least 57 deaths .
The majority of the Polish leadership backed by both the army and the Internal Security Corps brought Gomulka and several associates into the Politburo and designated Gomulka as First Secretary .
The historian Raymond Pearson said that Poland changed from a colony to a dominion .
A delegation of the Politburo went to Warsaw,meanwhile,the Soviet forces in Poland received the order to be ready . The delegation was (not ) welcomed by a Polish delegation : communists, military and even secret police opposed the Soviet demands . And the Soviets moved back and the Poles got what they wanted : liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky and thousands of Soviet advisers .
Thirty years later there was Walechsa and the Soviets did not intervene .
In the 19th century there were several revolts in Poland against the Russians .
Some sources :
Polish October
1956 Reconsidered why Hungary and not Poland
The Polish-Soviet confrontation in 1956 and the attempted Soviet Military Intervention in Poland .
Other source : the Polish operation of the NKVD : thousands of ethnic Poles living in the USSR ,among whom a lot of members of the Polish communist party,were arrested and shot during the Purges before WWII .
Stalin knew that most Poles were hostile to Russia and communism ,he also knew that he could not kill them all and he preferred that Hitler would be at Warsaw .
Poland was a poisoned chalice .


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> A limitation to that would be their lack of mass-production techniques.



True I agree, but Mass Production is something that could fairly easily be taught and the Merlin (if I remember correctly) was easier to produce than the DB 601/5. Even concentrating on the production of spare parts for the front line aircraft, would be a significant boost to the British.

What the Allies need to avoid is the mistake Germany made when they took over France. The French had a long tradition of building aircraft but instead of utilising this capability they tried to extract the value and made little use of what was there.

The Italian Army on many occasions fought well but were let down by the quality and quantity of their trucks, soft vehicles and other equipment. Their navy was a similar example. The ships themselves of all types were generally as good as anyone's and some had very clever and unique features, but they were let down by the lack of modern fire control, anti submarine, anti aircraft and radar systems.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> There was an other big advantage : the Italian DOW of 1940 forced Britain to use the long route ( via South Africa ) for its convoys to and from the East of Suez, which was a major obstacle for the war against Japan . If Italy was an ally, Britain could use the short route through the Mediterranean .
> This applies also for Lend Lease : LL convoys from the US to Iran via Africa lasted 82 days, through the Mediterranean 55 days . A savings of 33 % .


An excellent point


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The answer is : yes .
> The proof is : the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
> This pact meant that a successful German attack would be followed ( when was not known ) by a Soviet one .
> Poland did not need any intel, the Soviets said it openly .



Not so. The appendix dividing up Eastern Europe was not made public; it was kept secret. The parts of the pact made public made no mention of attacking anyone. Period, full stop. So which Polish intelligence agency had information regarding that clause?

There is a big difference between _knowing_ and _surmising._ The words are not synonymous.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> In August 1944 there was the insurrection of Warsaw,which,essentially,was an attempt to install an anti-Soviet government before the arrival of the Soviets .
> In 1956,there was trouble in Poland and in Hungary : the Poles demanded liberalization and the departure of Rokossovsky ( A Russian who commanded the Polish army ) . The Poznan protests in June 1956 were crashed not by the Polish police/army,but by the Soviets : there were at least 57 deaths .
> The majority of the Polish leadership backed by both the army and the Internal Security Corps brought Gomulka and several associates into the Politburo and designated Gomulka as First Secretary .
> *The historian Raymond Pearson said that Poland changed from a colony to a dominion .*
> ...


OK - situations in history, and one reference. Yes it's pretty obvious of the eventual Soviet opposition, but I do know that there were Poles who supported the Soviet alliance ( we have several members here who live in Poland and served in the armed forces during those times, I'll let them chime in if they wish.



ljadw said:


> Stalin knew that most Poles were hostile to Russia and communism ,he also knew that he could not kill them all and he preferred that Hitler would be at Warsaw .
> *Poland was a poisoned chalice* .


 Where was this quoted from??? Are these his words, your words or some author's words???

_“because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland,” “the Soviet government was trying to atone for those sins.” Stalin concluded that “Poland must be strong” and that “the Soviet Union is interested in the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland.” 

Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had already annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compensated by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet-sponsored provisional government recently installed in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army._

Stalin's comments from Yalta. We know how the rest actually turned out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> OK - situations in history, and one reference. Yes it's pretty obvious of the eventual Soviet opposition, but I do know that there were Poles who supported the Soviet alliance ( we have several members here who live in Poland and served in the armed forces during those times, I'll let them chime in if they wish.
> 
> Where was this quoted from??? Are these his words, your words or some author's words???
> 
> ...


The Pact was giving Stalin 52 % of the Polish territory of 1939,but most of it were regions that did not belong to Poland before 1918,and some 40 % of its population ,of whom 5 million Poles .
Hitler OTOH received 48 % of Poland with 22 million people ,and most of this territory and of its population never belonged to Germany, but belonged to Russia .
Who benefited most of the Pact ? Hitler or Stalin ?
Stalin did not say : I want back what Russia lost in 1918, but Hitler said : I want much more than what Germany lost in 1918 . Who was the winner of the pact ?
About Stalin's promises : no one believed them and every one ( not only FDR but also the GOP) knew that it were lies . Every one knew what Stalin would do and every one knew that Stalin could not say what he would do but said the opposite what he would do .
And, no one cared .
Winston cared only about the nearing elections and FDR cared only about the votes of the Polish Americans . 
What happened to Poland was not their business,and there was nothing that they could do .A war against the USSR for Poland was out of the question . And, Poland becoming a Soviet satellite was no threat to the interests of the Wallies .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Pact was giving Stalin 52 % of the Polish territory of 1939,but most of it were regions that did not belong to Poland before 1918,and some 40 % of its population ,of whom 5 million Poles .
> Hitler OTOH received 48 % of Poland with 22 million people ,and most of this territory and of its population never belonged to Germany, but belonged to Russia .
> Who benefited most of the Pact ? Hitler or Stalin ?
> Stalin did not say : I want back what Russia lost in 1918, but Hitler said : I want much more than what Germany lost in 1918 . Who was the winner of the pact ?
> ...


What I quoted were Stalin's exact words from the Yalta conference. Yes, not believable and again history speaks for itself. My point is the "poison chalice" quote is yours, not Stalin's?


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not so. The appendix dividing up Eastern Europe was not made public; it was kept secret. The parts of the pact made public made no mention of attacking anyone. Period, full stop. So which Polish intelligence agency had information regarding that clause?
> 
> There is a big difference between _knowing_ and _surmising._ The words are not synonymous.


The content of the Pact was not the Partition of Eastern Europe, but to make the German attack on Poland not possible, but inevitable . And every one in Europe knew it .The Belgian mobilization started not on September 1, but on August 25 .Two days after the Pact was signed .
As A.J.P. Taylor said on P 318 of The Origins of the Second World War:'' The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland .''
The partition of Poland was the result of the successful German attack and of the inability of France to save Poland .
Stalin, a SOB, did the right thing to defend the interests of the USSR : if he did nothing,, Hitler would occupy the whole of Poland, including 8 million Ukrainians and Russians living in the Eastern Part of Poland.


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What I quoted were Stalin's exact words from the Yalta conference. Yes, not believable and again history speaks for itself. My point is the "poison chalice" quote is yours, not Stalin's?


The quote is mine, but Stalin had the same opinion: the past taught him that Poland only caused troubles for Russia and that it was better off without Poland , and the future (August 1944, June 1956, 1970, 1981 ) proves that my quote is correct .
Besides, if Stalin did not think that Poland was a poisoned chalice, why did he leave Central Poland with Warsaw to Hitler ?
Before, during and after the war the Cheka killed tens of thousands of anti communist/anti-Russian Poles ( there were a lot of Katyns ) and,what was the result ? The result was that the anti Soviet/Russian hostility in Poland was increasing .


----------



## GrauGeist (May 31, 2021)

And I suppose Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were over run by the Soviet Union by accident?
"Oops, didn't see you guys there, sorry!"

Finland seemed to be having issues with the Soviets, too.

So one asks, at what point these four nations being occupied (one held out, obviously) would create a barrier against Germany?
The premise that Stalin had no idea of Germany invading Poland (or was surprised) is baseless.
So is the excuse the the Soviet Union only wanted Poland as a "buffer" against German aspirations.
Also claiming that the USSR was neutral (while it was fighting the Japanese and Finns) makes no sense.
Switzerland and Sweden were Neutral - meaning they weren't actively invading/fighting someone.


----------



## swampyankee (May 31, 2021)

The Soviet invasions (or reconquest; take your pick) of the Baltic States and Finland was probably no more to spread bolshevism* than to restore what the rulers of the USSR -- who were very much products of the Russian Empire -- thought was rightfully their territory. In the case of Finland, which had somewhat more autonomy than did most of the territories conquered by Russia, the Soviets were unsuccessful. Since I view motivations as less important than actions, whether the Soviets invaded Poland to spread bolshevism or because of revanchism** is largely irrelevant: any invader planning on permanent control will either co-opt or destroy the elites***. 

While it is possible to be simultaneously at war and neutral -- the USSR was neutral in the Commonwealth/US/Japan war in the Pacific but not in the Europe, as was the US with regards to the Ottoman Empire, but not Germany, in WW1 -- this was only possible because the US had no significant presence in the Eastern Mediterranean or North Africa and the USSR's border conflicts over the Manchuria|Siberia border were of a low priority for both parties. In both cases, neutrality towards one of the allies of a multinational military alliance was because of distance. For the most part, Europe was much too densely populated for a nation to have this sort of limited neutrality: one needed to maintain neutrality towards everybody or nobody: Finland was not neutral, as far as the US or UK was concerned, it was just too minor to be a concern, so a Finnish diplomat in Washington or London could be expelled or interned. 

-----

* I suspect that bolshevism was already in the Baltics; witness, for example, the Red Latvian Rifles. 
** Definition of revanchism | Dictionary.com
*** What happened to the English aristocrats who didn't get co-opted by the Normans?


----------



## ljadw (May 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> And I suppose Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were over run by the Soviet Union by accident?
> "Oops, didn't see you guys there, sorry!"
> 
> Finland seemed to be having issues with the Soviets, too.
> ...


Stalin knew very well that Germany would attack Poland .
The Baltics were occupied because in the past they belonged to Russia .
That Stalin was fighting against Japan , a possible enemy of the Wallies, on the other side of the world,does not disqualify him as neutral in the war between the Wallies and Germany .
He attacked Finland because he wanted a small part of Finland which Finland refused .
The whining of the French and British media about Finland,was only hypocrisy, as they would have remained silent if Stalin had declared war on Germany in September 1939 and attacked Finland in December 1939 .


----------



## MIflyer (May 31, 2021)

If Italy joined the Allies in WWII:

First, the food would improve. Did you know that the Italian military has military canteens for olive oil?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Stalin knew very well that Germany would attack Poland .



Indeed, the invasion of Poland was in fact a joint invasion by both Germany and the USSR.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 31, 2021)

That the Soviets waited 2 1/2 weeks to launch their invasion was, perhaps, Stalin waiting to see what the reaction in the West would be. When he saw that they would do little to interfere, he struck, gobbling up the Baltic states and the agreed upon partition of Poland.
Similarly, when advancing into Poland in 1944, he waited while the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising, eliminating many Polish freedom fighters. Fewer for the Soviets to have to deal with after the occupation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 31, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> That the Soviets waited 2 1/2 weeks to launch their invasion was, perhaps, Stalin waiting to see what the reaction in the West would be. When he saw that they would do little to interfere, he struck, gobbling up the Baltic states and the agreed upon partition of Poland.
> Similarly, when advancing into Poland in 1944, he waited while the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising, eliminating many Polish freedom fighters. Fewer for the Soviets to have to deal with after the occupation.


Stalin had to wait to see what the effect of the UK and French ultimatum and declaration of war was


----------



## MIflyer (May 31, 2021)

Stalin told the Poles that Soviet forces were entering Poland to help defeat the Germans. Then, "Surprise!"


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 31, 2021)

No Pole would be surprised.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The Baltics were occupied because in the past they belonged to Russia .


Interesting.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed by the Russian Empire in the 1700's. It never "belonged" to Russia.
Latvia was originally ruled by the Germans. The Poles.and Lithuanians took it from the Germans. Then the Swedes assumed control in the 1600's after their war with Poland. Imperial Russia took over the Latvia in the 1700's.
Estonia was ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes and even Denmark before becoming a part of thw Russian Empire.

So we simply cannot Cherry Pick which nation these Baltic states "belong" to.

Each one was declared a sovereign nation in 1918 and as such, are no longer available for reclamation by some distant claim. Otherwise, Italy could declare itself the reincarnation of the Roman Empire and claim all of Europe and large portions of the Mediterranean as their rightful property...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (May 31, 2021)

I think that the Indo-Europeans should go home. Unfortunately, that presents a problem Proto-Indo-European homeland - Wikipedia.


----------



## MIflyer (May 31, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> No Pole would be surprised.



A Polish officer who spent most of WWII in a POW camp told me about the Soviet invasion. His attitude was that war with the Germans was what you expected war to be like. As for the Soviets, he had a much harsher opinion; they took his parents out of Poland and they died in a camp. In his view the Germans saved him from the Soviets, because when he finally escaped he lined up with the US Army.

I hope he lived to see Poland free. But I last saw him in 1978, and I doubt that.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Otherwise, Italy could declare itself the reincarnation of the Roman Empire and claim all of Europe and large portions of the Mediterranean as their rightful property...



DIdnt Mussolini do that? Sure that was the plan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The content of the Pact was not the Partition of Eastern Europe, but to make the German attack on Poland not possible, but inevitable . And every one in Europe knew it .The Belgian mobilization started not on September 1, but on August 25 .Two days after the Pact was signed .
> As A.J.P. Taylor said on P 318 of The Origins of the Second World War:'' The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland .''
> The partition of Poland was the result of the successful German attack and of the inability of France to save Poland .
> Stalin, a SOB, did the right thing to defend the interests of the USSR : if he did nothing,, Hitler would occupy the whole of Poland, including 8 million Ukrainians and Russians living in the Eastern Part of Poland.



That is still a far cry from the Poles _knowing_ anything. That is surmise. Again, look up the two words. Language matters.

As for Stalin's good intentions, that's entirely another thread. Suffice it to say that as many people he had put to death by labor or execution, I don't lend much credence to Stalin's alleged good intentions.

ETA: The secret protocol addressed much more than the partition of Poland. Quoted below from the Wilson Center's archives:



Spoiler



*The original agreement:*

1. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern border of Lithuania is simultaneously the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR. The interests of Lithuania with respect to the Vilnius district are recognized by both sides.

2. In the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish Republic, the border of the spheres of interest of Germany and the USSR will run approximately along the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers.

3. Concerning southeastern Europe, the Soviet side emphasizes the interest of the USSR in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinterest in these areas.

4. This protocol will be held in strict secrecy by both sides.



Further amendments to the secret annex are also listed in the linked document. The secret annex specifically mentions the Baltic states and Bessarabia _in addition_ to carving up Poland, so your claim that it wasn't about defining "spheres of interest" (i.e., partitions) is inaccurate. One part of the Pact -- oddly enough, the one which was not public knowledge -- divided Eastern Europe, including but not limited to Poland, between the two signatories.


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 31, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting.
> The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed by the Russian Empire in the 1700's. It never "belonged" to Russia.
> Latvia was originally ruled by the Germans. The Poles.and Lithuanians took it from the Germans. Then the Swedes assumed control in the 1600's after their war with Poland. Imperial Russia took over the Latvia in the 1700's.
> Estonia was ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes and even Denmark before becoming a part of thw Russian Empire.
> ...


This is the starting point of any nationalist politician. Always hark back to the time when some prince or potentate had temporarily brought a large area under their political sway.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2021)

ljadw said:


> The quote is mine, but Stalin had the same opinion: the past taught him that Poland only caused troubles for Russia and that it was better off without Poland , and the future (August 1944, June 1956, 1970, 1981 ) proves that my quote is correct .
> Besides, if Stalin did not think that Poland was a poisoned chalice, why did he leave Central Poland with Warsaw to Hitler ?
> Before, during and after the war the Cheka killed tens of thousands of anti communist/anti-Russian Poles ( there were a lot of Katyns ) and,what was the result ? The result was that the anti Soviet/Russian hostility in Poland was increasing .


OK, your comment so noted - all good, but earlier the comment was made about the Poles having "a choice." Many years ago I spent time in a part of upstate NY where there was a large Polish population and I actually met transplants who lived through the German and Soviet invasions/occupations. I think if you had made that statement to some of them you probably would have found great distress applied to your facial area or would have had a striking blow from a sizable shoe to your lower extremities. The impression I got from these people were BOTH Soviets and Nazis were hated and they had NO choice. In the aftermath of WW2 they realized that they were just a part of the pie and did their best to endure until the time was right or if they had the opportunity to leave, which many of them did. (Ever hear of the Mirabel shuffle?) The impression I got from these survivors was they didn't want to make a choice, they just wanted to be left alone.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (May 31, 2021)

Are you accusing Poles of having abnormally large feet?


----------



## MIflyer (May 31, 2021)

My friend the WWII Polish POW came to the US after the war (he met his wife when he woke up in a US Army hospital after running over a land mine). He went to work as an engineer for the USAF and for a while was assigned to a base in Europe. He drove into Poland to see what things were like and found that the people in the villages walking back from church would not get out of the road. They knew that the only person driving a car had to be a "Communist Party SOB." Then once he got past them would see the US flag on he back of his car and would mob him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Are you accusing Poles of having abnormally large feet?


Or very bad tempers!


----------



## DBII (May 31, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One year off from what we all guessed...
> 
> Forums did not exist when I was your age. I joined this forum while I deployed to Iraq in the US Army in 2004 at the age of 23 if you must know.


Go ahead, make me feel old.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That is still a far cry from the Poles _knowing_ anything. That is surmise. Again, look up the two words. Language matters.
> 
> As for Stalin's good intentions, that's entirely another thread. Suffice it to say that as many people he had put to death by labor or execution, I don't lend much credence to Stalin's alleged good intentions.
> 
> ...


No one is talking about the good intentions of Stalin .
Bessarabia ,till WWI a part of Russia,was not the business of Germany and not the interest of Germany .And, that the Soviets occupied Bessarabia, is not a proof that Eastern Europe was divided : it was NOT so that Eastern Europe was divided between Germany and the USSR : Hungary and Romania did not become German allies/satellites because of the Pact .Romania continued to export oil to the West till the fall of France .
The big winner of the Pact was Germany,whose conquests were mostly territories that had belonged to Russia .Stalin got only some crumbs .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> That the Soviets waited 2 1/2 weeks to launch their invasion was, perhaps, Stalin waiting to see what the reaction in the West would be. When he saw that they would do little to interfere, he struck, gobbling up the Baltic states and the agreed upon partition of Poland.
> Similarly, when advancing into Poland in 1944, he waited while the Germans crushed the Warsaw Uprising, eliminating many Polish freedom fighters. Fewer for the Soviets to have to deal with after the occupation.


Do you expect that Stalin would have helped anti communist Poles to conquer Warsaw ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Stalin got only some crumbs


Ok, I see where this is going now...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> OK, your comment so noted - all good, but earlier the comment was made about the Poles having "a choice." Many years ago I spent time in a part of upstate NY where there was a large Polish population and I actually met transplants who lived through the German and Soviet invasions/occupations. I think if you had made that statement to some of them you probably would have found great distress applied to your facial area or would have had a striking blow from a sizable shoe to your lower extremities. The impression I got from these people were BOTH Soviets and Nazis were hated and they had NO choice. In the aftermath of WW2 they realized that they were just a part of the pie and did their best to endure until the time was right or if they had the opportunity to leave, which many of them did. (Ever hear of the Mirabel shuffle?) The impression I got from these survivors was they didn't want to make a choice, they just wanted to be left alone.


Poland had 3 choices :
it could say yes to Hitler and become a German satellite.
it could say yes to Stalin and ask him to save them ( if he wanted ) and become a Soviet satellite
it could say no to Hitler ,with as result to become a Soviet satellite if Hitler lost or to disappear if Hitler won 
That the results of all 3 choices were very bad for Poland does not mean that Poland had no choice .


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 1, 2021)

Denmark had a choice, too. It chose Option 1: a non-aggression pact with Germany. And things went pretty well until the Gestapo showed up in force and demanded the country turn over all its Jewish people.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2021)

Choosing Pepsi or Coke is a choice.

Choosing which brutal dictatorship would invade you and murder your people is not a choice.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 1, 2021)

deleted


----------



## pbehn (Jun 1, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, I see where this is going now...


Eventually it will be revealed that it was actually all Churchill's fault.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> No one is talking about the good intentions of Stalin .



Didn't you mention him rescuing 8 million Russians?



ljadw said:


> Bessarabia ,till WWI a part of Russia,was not the business of Germany and not the interest of Germany .And, that the Soviets occupied Bessarabia, is not a proof that Eastern Europe was divided : it was NOT so that Eastern Europe was divided between Germany and the USSR : Hungary and Romania did not become German allies/satellites because of the Pact .Romania continued to export oil to the West till the fall of France .
> The big winner of the Pact was Germany,whose conquests were mostly territories that had belonged to Russia .Stalin got only some crumbs .



Did you read the text of the secret protocol? I did. It specifically contradicts what you wrote earlier, yet here you are still arguing with history.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts,

I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 1, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> Denmark had a choice, too. It chose Option 1: a non-aggression pact with Germany. And things went pretty well until the Gestapo showed up in force and demanded the country turn over all its Jewish people.


Of course, the Danes managed to smuggle their Jews out.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 1, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Of course, the Danes managed to smuggle their Jews out.



Indeed, a magnificant effort. They also formed a resistance organiztion and I think the entire Danish military quit as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Didn't you mention him rescuing 8 million Russians?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did not say that he was rescuing 8 million Russians . That is your interpretation : the biggest group in Easteren Poland were Ukrainians ,and Stalin had not the intention to give Hitler the occasion to create an independent Ukrainian state,that would act as a magnet on Soviet Ukraine . It is obvious that you don't know that the OUN continued the fight against Poland and the USSR til 1947 .
And the secret protocol did not divide Eastern Europe : Romania was not divided, neither was Hungary .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Eventually it will be revealed that it was actually all Churchill's fault.


No: it was all the responsibility of Hitler and the Germans who tried to change by force the borders of the Versailles Treaty .Besides, before the war,Churchill's role was insignificant .


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 1, 2021)




----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

The Basket said:


> Choosing Pepsi or Coke is a choice.
> 
> Choosing which brutal dictatorship would invade you and murder your people is not a choice.


Yes : it is a choice .
Example : when North Korea invaded in 1950 South Korea, the inhabitants of SK had the choice to support the dictator of NK or the dictator of SK.
Most Ukrainians fought for Stalin, but others fought against Stalin .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> Most Ukrainians fought for Stalin, but others fought against Stalin .


Fighting for Stalin isnt a choice, you got killed if you didnt, you frequently got killed by him after fighting for him. Are these "Ukrainians" in Ukraine or had they left Ukraine for some reason or other?


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2021)

I'm trying to work what this has to do with the Italians

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Fighting for Stalin isnt a choice, you got killed if you didnt, you frequently got killed by him after fighting for him. Are these "Ukrainians" in Ukraine or had they left Ukraine for some reason or other?


More than 4,5 million Ukrainians fought (for several reasons ) for Stalin,less than 450000 fought for Hitler .
Heydrich said that the Germans were welcomed as liberators in the former Polish Ukrainian territories, but not in Soviet Ukraine .
That's the main reason why Stalin occupied Eastern Poland ,which was dominated by the anti Polish and anti Soviet OUN.
Source : Collaboration in German occupied Ukraine .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 1, 2021)

Glider said:


> I'm trying to work what this has to do with the Italians


A lot , some people said that if the Italians joined the Wallies in 1939,this would help the Wallies. Other people have a different opinion .
But ,NO ONE has answered the question : WHY would Italy join the Wallies ? What was in it for the Italians ?
The experience of WWI was not inciting Italy to join the Wallies .In 1915 Italy declared war on AH (a year later on Germany ) against the promise that it would receive parts of AH and of the Ottoman Empire .But Italy got almost nothing,the excuse of LG and Clemenceau was that Wilson opposed it ,and they took the promised territories for themselves .
Than the discussion was going to the USSR, some people talking about the role/strength of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in the USSR.
Finally the Cold War propaganda was coming : clichés as brutal dictators ,freedom fighters, (all dictators are brutal ) ,the wrongly called collaboration between the USSR and Germany, the Western Betrayal,etc .
The truth is that Italy was more useful as ally to Germany,than it could be as ally for the West . Also in WWI : Italy would be more useful for Germany and AH than for the West : the only thing Italy accomplished was the massacre at the Isonzo . Neutrality of Italy would also help Germany more than the Wallies . In both world wars .
Now, I expect the old Allo Allo clichés of the coward and incompetent Italians who prevented Rommel the Great from conquering the ME .


----------



## pbehn (Jun 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> More than 4,5 million Ukrainians fought (for several reasons ) for Stalin,less than 450000 fought for Hitler .
> Heydrich said that the Germans were welcomed as liberators in the former Polish Ukrainian territories, but not in Soviet Ukraine .
> That's the main reason why Stalin occupied Eastern Poland ,which was dominated by the anti Polish and anti Soviet OUN.
> Source : Collaboration in German occupied Ukraine .


How many said "Sorry Joe, I am not interested"?


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2021)

ljadw said:


> A lot , some people said that if the Italians joined the Wallies in 1939,this would help the Wallies. Other people have a different opinion .
> But ,NO ONE has answered the question : WHY would Italy join the Wallies ? What was in it for the Italians ?
> The experience of WWI was not inciting Italy to join the Wallies .In 1915 Italy declared war on AH (a year later on Germany ) against the promise that it would receive parts of AH and of the Ottoman Empire .But Italy got almost nothing,the excuse of LG and Clemenceau was that Wilson opposed it ,and they took the promised territories for themselves .
> Than the discussion was going to the USSR, some people talking about the role/strength of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in the USSR.
> ...



Clearly you didn't read my earlier posting when I mentioned the Italian forces.

_I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. *The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. *This they could have been trained and supplied with.
Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy._

_*The Italian Army on many occasions fought well but were let down by the quality and quantity of their trucks, soft vehicles and other equipment. Their navy was a similar example. The ships themselves of all types were generally as good as anyone's and some had very clever and unique features*, but they were let down by the lack of modern fire control, anti submarine, anti aircraft and radar systems._

I don't see any Allo Allo comment in what I said. Neither do I see any negative comments about their bravery. Just an acknowledgement of the truth, they lacked the technology. 

Why would the Italians join the western allies?
I would suggest for the economic benefits and modernisation of its infrastructure and industry. Spain was a dictatorship of the time and tried to play one card against another staying out of the conflict and it did considerable economic damage which took decades to recover from. Italy had a lot to offer the Allies and could have played the cards of fate in a very different manner.
Also why not, there were strong forces within Japan to not join the German in a formal pact. If Japan could do that why not the Italians.

If you want to drag Russia into a thread about Italy fine but it's worth remembering that many countries (including Spain) sent forces or Volunteers to fight in Russia. Indeed the core of the final defence of Berlin at the end were French SS units, not German. 

The cruelty of the Russian System is well laid out in history from well before the start of the war. Debate and defend it if you wish, but do so in its own thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 1, 2021)

If Italy had offered to join the Allies, they would have been welcomed with open arms and offers of assistance. I do not know how many people in this discussion are aware of the fact that Mussolini was applauded by the Wallstreet Journal, and other economic oriented media, here in the US and in various European nations. The corporate-fascism part of fascism used by Mussolini - along with his anti-communist behavior - was openly admired by much of the western world, and most of the very wealthy and titans of US industry loved him. Much of the pre-war US based resistance to fighting against Germany was as a reaction to the expected loss of income by big business, and the rich and powerful.

In the early-1930s France broached the idea of invading and occupying Germany when it was realized that Germans were seriously rearming. The reason France did not move into Germany pre-start date of the historical hostilities is due to the US and UK urging them not to - the reasons given by the US were almost entirely self-interested and economic in nature. (Usually the decision is blamed on the UK and France.) At the time France could have easily rolled over any German resistance, the problems that might be brought about by the ensuing occupation being secondary in French eyes.

If Italy had approached the French before/at the start of the war, I suspect France would have been rather happy. I know that many in the UK and the US would have been ecstatic.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 1, 2021)

As it was, Italy remained neutral until the fall of France was assured, then jumped in hoping to secure a slice of the French silk pie.
So I could see a scenario where Mussolini waited for the outcome of the German invasion of the West, and if Hitler got bogged down, to suddenly have an epiphany and side with the Allies, hoping to get a slice of the German chocolate cake.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2021)

My logic says Italy is not going to fight Germany.

But could go for belligerent neutrality.

To act as Germany weapon builder and allow her ports to break the British blockade.

So they would have to throw gold and diamonds at Mussolini to keep him sweet. So Mussolini would have still been ruler of Italy rolling around in dollars living a life of luxury. Or not.

If any guy chose the wrong horse in history, it was Benito.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 1, 2021)

The Basket said:


> To act as Germany weapon builder and allow her ports to break the British blockade.



This might have been more trouble to the Germans than it was worth. The Italians made about 1/14 (yes 1/14th) the amount of steel per year as Germany did and had to use imported coal from Germany to do it. If the Allies discover too much "contraband" going into Italian ports then Italy's status as a neutral is really on shaky ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 2, 2021)

Glider said:


> Clearly you didn't read my earlier posting when I mentioned the Italian forces.
> 
> _I think to be honest the only major advantage I can think if should the Italians joined the allies in WW2 would be the availability of well trained pilots. *The Italian piloting skills were always considered to be high, what they lacked were tactical training and modern aircraft. *This they could have been trained and supplied with.
> Giving the Italians the Merlin design as quickly as possible would have helped transform their air force and a similar improvement would have been seen in the Italian Army and Navy._
> ...


The only way Italy could fight against the Germans was to attack on the Alps . They did it between 1915 and 1918,with as result Caporetto and half a million deaths .The Italians did not fight at the Somme or at Verdun ,or at Gallipoli . Thus, where would they fight the Germans in WWII ?
There were also the ideological obstacles : a coalition of the Wallies, Italy and the Soviets was out of the question .
About Japan : a pact with Germany is not the same as becoming a German ally . Both Italy and Japan had a meaningless pact with Germany . But that was not the reason why they became German allies . 
For Italy the reason was that in June 1940 most people were convinced that Germany had won and that Mussolini decided that it was now the moment to jump on the bandwagon .
That the communist system was cruel and ineffective is a fact and I did not defend it .
About the Regia Aeronautica :
Italian aircraft production in WWII 
1939 :1750
1940 :2723
1941 :3487
1942 ;2818
1943 :2741
1944 :1043 
Total :14562 + 914 imported aircraft .
Fighters 6101
Bombers 3773
Recon 2344
Transporters 480
Training 1864
Not included are the aircraft Italy produced for Germany after September 1943 
Italian losses (til September 1943 ) : 12748 men and 6483 aircraft .
The source is : Am Himmel Europas Luftstreitkräfte an deutscher Seite 1939-1945

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

So I assume the stupid term "wallies" means western allies, so then what do we refer to our chinese allies as?
Callies, Challies, Oallies, Aallies?

Then there's the issue of the Australians and New Zealandars - or are they "wallies" too?

Благодаря Ви предварително, другарю


----------



## ljadw (Jun 2, 2021)

Wallies is a short term for the Western Allies in WWII,first Britain and France,later also US.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> This might have been more trouble to the Germans than it was worth. The Italians made about 1/14 (yes 1/14th) the amount of steel per year as Germany did and had to use imported coal from Germany to do it. If the Allies discover too much "contraband" going into Italian ports then Italy's status as a neutral is really on shaky ground.


On the average Italy imported almost 12 million tons of coal per year ,during WW II mostly from Germany ,80 trains a day, which was one of the major obstacles to the increase of transports to NA .
Some examples (rough figures ) 
1913 : 10,8 million tons 
1914 : 9,7
1915 : 8,3 
1916 : 8
1917 : 5 
1918 : 5,8
1919 : 6,2
1934 : 11,7
1935 : 13,5 
1936 : 8,7
1937 : 12,5
1938 : 11,9

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2021)

You can't bomb Italian factories. So would be worthwhile.

What the Allies would have done if Italy was breaking the blockades is up to the pearls of historical whimsy.

I personally believe the British or Americans would have simply give Italy vast sums of cash to keep out.

This plan would be a lot cheaper than a war plus all the spaghetti you can eat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2021)

Before WW II Italy imported a lot of their coal from England. 

British turned to Packard for MTB engines after the supply from Italy was shut off (Isotta-Fraschini). 

Italy was by far the weakest of the major powers and probably only achieved that status from being an ally of the west in WW I and getting into the naval treaties recognizing her as a major power. 

Japan made about 4 times as much steel per year compared to Italy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 2, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Before WW II Italy imported a lot of their coal from England.
> 
> British turned to Packard for MTB engines after the supply from Italy was shut off (Isotta-Fraschini).
> 
> ...


Italy imported its coal from Britain mostly before WWI,after WWI British coal exports decreased because the coal production also decreased . And Germany took the place of Britain .


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting.
> The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was annexed by the Russian Empire in the 1700's. It never "belonged" to Russia.
> Latvia was originally ruled by the Germans. The Poles.and Lithuanians took it from the Germans. Then the Swedes assumed control in the 1600's after their war with Poland. Imperial Russia took over the Latvia in the 1700's.
> Estonia was ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes and even Denmark before becoming a part of thw Russian Empire.
> ...


Yeah the Estonian and finnish weren't Russian for centuries it is like saying Italy owns grece because the roman empire owned it or the ottomans own bulgaria


----------



## ljadw (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Yeah the Estonian and finnish weren't Russian for centuries it is like saying Italy owns grece because the roman empire owned it or the ottomans own bulgaria


The Baltics were a part of Russia in 1914 and 25 years later Stalin said that he wanted to recuperate what Russia had lost in WWI .What the population of thee 3 Baltic states wanted,was not a concern for Stalin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Yeah the Estonian and finnish weren't Russian for centuries it is like saying Italy owns grece because the roman empire owned it or the ottomans own bulgaria





ljadw said:


> The Baltics were a part of Russia in 1914 and 25 years later Stalin said that he wanted to recuperate what Russia had lost in WWI .What the population of thee 3 Baltic states wanted,was not a concern for Stalin.



The term being looked for is "revanchism," where countries try to recover what is "rightfully" theirs. Usually, it's only applied to territory lost in the past few decades, but some people will decide territory is "rightfully" theirs based on far older losses. Revanchism was part of the reason that France was so embittered by the loss of Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War, and part of the basis of the irredentist movement in Italy, trying to recover Illyria. I believe this was part of the reason for the Soviet _re_conquest of the Baltic States, Georgia, Ukraine, and Poland post-WW1. It's been used by some people to justify Germany's invasion of Poland.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2021)

Italians did some good stuff.

Nice Beretta Pistols and SMG.

Fiat 500 is a pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Big Jake (Jun 3, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> I think if Italy were to stand up to Germany with Britain and France they would have won.



Have I missed something? Britain and France didn't win?

If Italy have joined Britain and France, there wouldn't have been the North Africa part of the war, nor Sicily. The war would have been over in 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

i


Big Jake said:


> Have I missed something? Britain and France didn't win?
> 
> If Italy have joined Britain and France, there wouldn't have been the North Africa part of the war, nor Sicily. The war would have been over in 1943.


I meant in 1940 they lost


----------



## Airframes (Jun 3, 2021)

No they didn't.
The war continued, with Britain, and those French and Belgian ( and other ) troops who could get to England, re-grouping.
It is generally agreed that what followed ( the Battle of Britain ) was the turning point of WW2, with the German ( and their allies ) forces experiencing their first failure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

Big Jake said:


> Have I missed something? Britain and France didn't win?
> 
> If Italy have joined Britain and France, there wouldn't have been the North Africa part of the war, nor Sicily. The war would have been over in 1943.


Germany committed a tremendous amount of men amd material to North Africa to bail out Italy.
If Italy had joined the Allies, all those German assets would still be in Europe and either committed to the Western front or worse, available for the Eastern front (where they were to go initially).
Italy being on the Axis side actually did the Allies a favor by draining German resources.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

Airframes said:


> No they didn't.
> The war continued, with Britain, and those French and Belgian ( and other ) troops who could get to England, re-grouping.
> It is generally agreed that what followed ( the Battle of Britain ) was the turning point of WW2, with the German ( and their allies ) forces experiencing their first failure.


bro I MENT THEY LOST EUROPE OMG THAT OBVIOUSLY A HUGE LOSS BUT IT DIDNT MATTER BECAUSE AMERICA EXISTS


----------



## Airframes (Jun 3, 2021)

Oh dear ................................... I'm out of here !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

Yeah, because 'Merica!!


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Germany committed a tremendous amount of men amd material to North Africa to bail out Italy.
> If Italy had joined the Allies, all those German assets would still be in Europe and either committed to the Western front or worse, available for the Eastern front (where they were to go initially).
> Italy being on the Axis side actually did the Allies a favor by draining German resources.





GrauGeist said:


> Yeah, because 'Merica!!


America saved the world ion don't know what to tell you


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

The U.S. "saved the world" through the joint efforts and sacrifices of her Allies. It was a team effort.

No nation could have done it single-handed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The U.S. "saved the world" through the joint efforts and sacrifices of her Allies. It was a team effort.
> 
> No nation could have done it single-handed.


yes, it was a team effort but...
usa was the one who beat the Japanese gave arms to Russia and Britain helped with the day bombing campaign over Germany so they couldn't make stuff as effeciently, helped defeat the Africa corps, were on the bloodiest beaches of Normandy, the liberation of France was mostly done by mostly America


----------



## Big Jake (Jun 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Germany committed a tremendous amount of men amd material to North Africa to bail out Italy.
> If Italy had joined the Allies, all those German assets would still be in Europe and either committed to the Western front or worse, available for the Eastern front (where they were to go initially).
> Italy being on the Axis side actually did the Allies a favor by draining German resources.



If Italy had joined the allies at the beginning of the war then North Africa wouldn't have happened. The Brits could have sent their troops, with Australians, South Africans etc. to Italy and together with the Italians attack Germany/Austria from the South. At the same time, they should have invaded Germany via Belgium with the French in the north. Germany would have had a big problem and if it's 1939 - 1940 then the Brits don't have to worry about the Far East yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

Big Jake said:


> If Italy had joined the allies at the beginning of the war then North Africa wouldn't happen. The Brits would have sent their troops to Italy and together with the Italians attack Germany/Austria from the South while at the same time should have invaded Germany via Belgium with the French in the north. Germany would have had a big problem fighting on three fronts at the same time. Lets not forget - the Brits don't have to worry about the Far East yet.


yes i agree


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yes, it was a team effort but...
> usa was the one who beat the Japanese gave arms to Russia and Britain helped with the day bombing campaign over Germany so they couldn't make stuff as effeciently, helped defeat the Africa corps, were on the bloodiest beaches of Normandy, the liberation of France was mostly done by mostly America


I think that day bombing campaign rested on having somewhere called Britain to mount it from, which means the Battle of Britain had to be won first, then the British had to order some plane called a Mustang and then order some engines called Merlins to be built in the USA ( along with a lot of other orders that kick started or augmented USA military industry). Without those three events the USA would have the choice of supporting the USSR to take over northern Europe Africa and the middle east or accepting a German Reich in Europe in 1940.


----------



## rochie (Jun 3, 2021)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 3, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Germany committed a tremendous amount of men amd material to North Africa to bail out Italy.
> If Italy had joined the Allies, all those German assets would still be in Europe and either committed to the Western front or worse, available for the Eastern front (where they were to go initially).
> Italy being on the Axis side actually did the Allies a favor by draining German resources.



The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. Obviously, this is a matter of conjecture. I happen to disagree, as the Italian Navy tied up major portions of the RN, as the British needed to maintain the security of the Suez Canal. With a neutral or allied Italy, this would not be an RN worry: the British would be able to maintain complete control of the Mediterranean. However, since the invasion of Yugoslavia was German-led, this means that there remains a German vulnerability, but the German Navy could not project the sort of power into the Mediterranean as did the Royal [Italian] Navy. If Italy is neutral, this means that the RN could use the Adriatic with reasonable risk; if Italy is allied, then the Adriatic becomes an allied lake, and German forces in the Balkans are subject to the sort of harassment as, say, Malta. This also leaves Germany's allies, Romania and Hungary, vulnerable to a potential invasion through a liberated Yugoslavia. Also, supporting the various partisan movements in Yugoslavia would be far easier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think that day bombing campaign rested on having somewhere called Britain to mount it from, which means the Battle of Britain had to be won first, then the British had to order some plane called a Mustang and then order some engines called Merlins to be built in the USA ( along with a lot of other orders that kick started or augmented USA military industry). Without those three events the USA would have the choice of supporting the USSR to take over northern Europe Africa and the middle east or accepting a German Reich in Europe in 1940.


true dat


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 3, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. Obviously, this is a matter of conjecture. I happen to disagree, as the Italian Navy tied up major portions of the RN, as the British needed to maintain the security of the Suez Canal. With a neutral or allied Italy, this would not be an RN worry: the British would be able to maintain complete control of the Mediterranean. However, since the invasion of Yugoslavia was German-led, this means that there remains a German vulnerability, but the German Navy could not project the sort of power into the Mediterranean as did the Royal [Italian] Navy. If Italy is neutral, this means that the RN could use the Adriatic with reasonable risk; if Italy is allied, then the Adriatic becomes an allied lake, and German forces in the Balkans are subject to the sort of harassment as, say, Malta. This also leaves Germany's allies, Romania and Hungary, vulnerable to a potential invasion through a liberated Yugoslavia. Also, supporting the various partisan movements in Yugoslavia would be far easier.


yeahsuporting partisans through albania or through port


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. .


With all of Germanys conquests, they didnt get as much as they expected from them, in fact they got more from the USSR pre war than they did by invading it, and very little from France considering they had to garrison and defend it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yes, it was a team effort but...
> usa was the one who beat the Japanese gave arms to Russia and Britain helped with the day bombing campaign over Germany so they couldn't make stuff as effeciently, helped defeat the Africa corps, were on the bloodiest beaches of Normandy, the liberation of France was mostly done by mostly America



I will say this once, and only once...

disrespecting the entire allied effort and the blood spilled by all the allied soldiers will result in a banning.

You need to learn some WW2 history kid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2021)

rochie said:


> View attachment 625992



Unfortunately the propaganda brainwashing has been highly successful here in the USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> America saved the world ion don't know what to tell you



We Americans _helped_ in the fight. We didn't win it. Fully 60% of all, repeat all, Wehrmacht casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front. Of the remaining 40%, I doubt us Americans counted up to half of them.

America played a part in saving the world, but it was only a part.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

To Britain, the US provided food, raw materials, weapons, ammunition, tanks, aircraft and warships, just for starters.
To the Soviet Union, the US provided food, raw materials, weapons, ammunition, trucks and warplanes, just to name a few.
To Australia went supplies, weapons, warplanes and so on.
There were many other nations that the US provided material for as well.

Then there's the US' combat support in North Africa, Italy, the Western Front with British, Commonwealth, Brazilian and Allied elements.
Co-ordinated Eastern Front action with the Soviets.
Then the Pacific with the help of the Tenacious Australians, New Zealanders, British and Mexicans.

The list goes on, but the point is, again, it was a team effort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 4, 2021)

So many things in wartime hinge on what precedes them. When your alternate reality departs from the historical record, you really don't know what would happen.
No Axis is going to change Hitler's calculations as to what he can get away with. Ditto Japan. Many of Hitler's southeastern allies only came on board after the successful campaign in France. Japan's aggression was timed to coincide with the high water mark of Axis expansion in the Soviet Union and North Africa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

Big Jake said:


> Have I missed something?
> 
> The war would have been over in 1943.


This is a very unlikely and unproved assumption,as : no Torch does not make Overlord possible in 1943.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> So many things in wartime hinge on what precedes them. When your alternate reality departs from the historical record, you really don't know what would happen.
> No Axis is going to change Hitler's calculations as to what he can get away with. Ditto Japan. Many of Hitler's southeastern allies only came on board after the successful campaign in France. Japan's aggression was timed to coincide with the high water mark of Axis expansion in the Soviet Union and North Africa.


Pearl Harbour coincided with the final failure of Barbarossa and the start of the Soviet Winter Offensive,and Rommel's first retreat in North Africa .


----------



## rochie (Jun 4, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Unfortunately the propaganda brainwashing has been highly successful here in the USA.


we all have people who drink the kool-aid my friend

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 4, 2021)

Pearl Harbor happened when it did due the the Japanese steadily running out of oil after the US led oil embargo. IIRC the approximate date of the attack was determined by the Japanese high command, based on a minimum of 13 months of oil required to have any chance of winning a war with the US. The 13 months required was the amount needed to accomplish the operations laid out in their war plan, plus a reserve. Japan waited until they only had an additional 2 month of oil over the minimum.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Pearl Harbor happened when it did due the the Japanese steadily running out of oil after the US led oil embargo. IIRC the approximate date of the attack was determined by the Japanese high command, based on a minimum of 13 months of oil required to have any chance of winning a war with the US. The 13 months required was the amount needed to accomplish the operations laid out in their war plan, plus a reserve. Japan waited until they only had an additional 2 month of oil over the minimum.


This is an absolute and exaggerated claim : Japan did not lose because it had not enough oil, with more oil it would also use .
Even after the oil embargo, it took two years before Japan had oil problems .
Japan produced/imported in 1941 26,2 million barrels of oil,with a consumption of 37 million barrels .
In 1942 it was 28,9 million with a consumption of 41, 8 million : the IJN had enough oil for Midway .
In 1943 it was 32,4 million with a consumption of 44 million .
In 1944 there were big problems : consumption was 25 million with imports/production was 16,1 million .
But, even in 1944 there was sufficient oil for Leyte .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

He didn't write that Japan lost because of declining oil stocks. He wrote that Japan's decision to attack in the Pacific when it did was driven by declining oil stocks.

Those are significantly different points.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> We Americans _helped_ in the fight. We didn't win it. Fully 60% of all, repeat all, Wehrmacht casualties were incurred on the Eastern Front. Of the remaining 40%, I doubt us Americans counted up to half of them.
> 
> America played a part in saving the world, but it was only a part.


David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:

Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 4, 2021)

What? A complete post (#467) in perfect English with no grammar errors, no misspelling, no fragmented thoughts. What happened?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:
> 
> Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same



Yeah, and those Dodge trucks and 15 million pair of boots moved Soviets soldiers into battles that accounted for 60% of all Wehrmacht casualties. You seem to think the passage you've quoted contradicts what I'm saying. It doesn't.

The Allied effort was a team effort. Saying that "America won the war" is a vast oversimplification which derogates the contributions and sacrifices of the many Allies, and invites invidious comparisons to be made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

special ed said:


> What? A complete post (#467) in perfect English with no grammar errors, no misspelling, no fragmented thoughts. What happened?


i just am too nice


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yeah, and those Dodge trucks and 15 million pair of boots moved Soviets soldiers into battles that accounted for 60% of all Wehrmacht casualties. You seem to think the passage you've quoted contradicts what I'm saying. It doesn't.
> 
> The Allied effort was a team effort. Saying that "America won the war" is a vast oversimplification which derogates the contributions and sacrifices of the many Allies, and invites invidious comparisons to be made.


i know but without logistics you cannot win ill say it this way 
Polish, Czech, Dutch, Norwegian, French, British, Russian, Ukrainian, ANZAC all proved their worth and without them, the war would have been longer and harder but the US was the pipe line in which their operations could be logistically successful


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i know but without logistics you cannot win ill say it this way
> Polish, Czech, Dutch, Norwegian, French, British, Russian, Ukrainian, ANZAC all proved their worth and without them, the war would have been longer and harder but the US was the pipe line in which their operations could be logistically successful



I know this; you're talking to someone who has been reading about this subject since long before you were born.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I know this; you're talking to someone who has been reading about this subject since long before you were born.


yeah


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> yeah



Now get off'n my lawn! <waves cane furiously>

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Now get off'n my lawn! <waves cane furiously>


am i the youngest kid here?
i feel alone

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> am i the youngest kid here?
> i feel alone



I believe so. Don't feel alone, though. There's so much to learn here from so many others, this is an opportunity!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

There may be someone else but the quality of his posts might make him seem older than his years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

special ed said:


> What? A complete post (#467) in perfect English with no grammar errors, no misspelling, no fragmented thoughts. What happened?


I had to give him a like for that.


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I had to give him a like for that.


yipeee


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> There may be someone else but the quality of his posts might make him seem older than his years.


without conflict there is no fun in life


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

It was mostly for the rest of us.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> without conflict there is no fun in life


Said the guy who’s younger than my car. Wait a few years and see how much fun and how expensive conflict really is.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Said the guy who’s younger than my car. Wait a few years and see how much fun and how expensive conflict really is.


bro my dad has cars older then his father so


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

Punctuation.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

Conflict is overrated. I'm a lot happier for learning how to accept what I can't change, rather than fighting it every step of the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> He didn't write that Japan lost because of declining oil stocks. He wrote that Japan's decision to attack in the Pacific when it did was driven by declining oil stocks.
> 
> Those are significantly different points.


I doubt strongly that this is the case :the stocks were 49 million barrels at the end of 1941,while they were only 44 million at the end of 1940 . And Japan did not attack US in 1940 .
While the US embargo was bad for Japan, PH did not result in Japan having more oil : there was no oil in Hawaii .
The truth is that even without oil embargo, it was possible that Japan still would attack US. And, it is also possible that with oil embargo,PH could be avoided . 
There is no automatism between the oil embargo and PH .
Japan needed oil (how much is open for interpretation ) ,to have oil,Japan needed 
a someone willing to sell oil
b money to buy oil
c tankers to transport oil ( the seller could do this ) 
d refineries to refine the crude oil .
The embargo meant only that US were no longer willing to sell oil , but there were other potential sellers .But,even without embargo, it was possible that Japan no longer had the money to buy oil and that it would be forced to attack the DEI who produced enough oil for Japan's needs : before the war : 65 million barrels ,in 1943 : 49,6 million barrels .
It was the refusal of the authorities of the DEI to sell oil/sufficient oil to Japan,which forced Japan to attack them .And, for military reasons, it was needed to eliminate the US Pacific Fleet BEFORE an invasion of the DEI.
But, even if the DEI were willing to sell oil to Japan, Japan would need the money to buy the oil, tankers to transport the oil and refineries to refine the oil .
Too much importance has been given to the US oil embargo and the decision of the DEI to sell no longer oil to Japan has been neglected .
Embargo does not mean war, no embargo does not mean peace .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> David Glantz, the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front, concludes:
> 
> Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same


The Soviet railways were sufficient strong to supply the Red Army, the LL rail engines were a luxury .The same for LL food and raw materials .
The importance of trucks for the Red Army was very low: trucks need roads and there were few roads in the USSR,most of them were destroyed by the retreating Germans .
WWII was 80 YEARS ago : no Tesla, no highways, no petrol stations, no garages .
And, what Glantz ''forgets '' : most Soviet offensives /advances stalled after a few days . Bagration was an exception,but the Red Army did not advance to Warsaw because it had LL trucks,it would also have advanced without LL trucks .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> He didn't write that Japan lost because of declining oil stocks. He wrote that Japan's decision to attack in the Pacific when it did was driven by declining oil stocks.
> 
> Those are significantly different points.


There was no minimum of 13 months of oil ( a meaningless notion ) needed to have a chance to ''win '': Japan could ''win '' with less oil and lose with more oil .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 4, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. Obviously, this is a matter of conjecture. I happen to disagree, as the Italian Navy tied up major portions of the RN, as the British needed to maintain the security of the Suez Canal. With a neutral or allied Italy, this would not be an RN worry: the British would be able to maintain complete control of the Mediterranean. However, since the invasion of Yugoslavia was German-led, this means that there remains a German vulnerability, but the German Navy could not project the sort of power into the Mediterranean as did the Royal [Italian] Navy. If Italy is neutral, this means that the RN could use the Adriatic with reasonable risk; if Italy is allied, then the Adriatic becomes an allied lake, and German forces in the Balkans are subject to the sort of harassment as, say, Malta. This also leaves Germany's allies, Romania and Hungary, vulnerable to a potential invasion through a liberated Yugoslavia. Also, supporting the various partisan movements in Yugoslavia would be far easier.


ONE point : if Italy was neutral or a Western ally ,there would be no German invasion of Yugoslavia .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I doubt strongly that this is the case :the stocks were 49 million barrels at the end of 1941,while they were only 44 million at the end of 1940 . And Japan did not attack US in 1940 .
> While the US embargo was bad for Japan, PH did not result in Japan having more oil : there was no oil in Hawaii .
> The truth is that even without oil embargo, it was possible that Japan still would attack US. And, it is also possible that with oil embargo,PH could be avoided .
> There is no automatism between the oil embargo and PH .
> ...



Yet --



> By 13 March 1941, the Japanese had managed to stockpile about 42.7 million barrels of oil, primarily from California and Tarakan. This was stored in some 7000 oil storage tanks, also purchased from the United States. Navy petroleum product reserves on 1 December 1941 were 1,435,000 tons of crude oil; 3,634,000 tons of of bunker fuel; 473,000 tons of aviation gasoline; 27,000 tons of isooctane; 6400 tons of aircraft lubricants; 13,600 tons of ordinary lubricants; and 921,000 tons of petroleum derivatives already loaded on ships or distributed to overseas bases. This was thought to be sufficient for the first year of war, but consumption greatly exceeded prewar projections. The Army estimated it would require 5.7 million barrels of oil per year while Navy requirements were estimated at 17.6 million barrels per year and civilian requirements at 12.6 million barrels per year. This proved to be a considerable underestimate in the first two years of the war.



The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Oil

At around 300lbs/barrel, the IJN had about 43.5 million barrels of reserve POLs of all sorts, which gives roughly 30 months of combat ops -- but with stepped-up training and operations in the last half of 1941, that estimate shrank to roughly 18 months. That's why the IJN argued for the push south into NEI -- to secure more fuel.

Toland goes into the war discussions of the Imperial Cabinet in the autumn of 1941, in which the Navy successfully argued its case, in _The Rising Sun_.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the oil embargo made their decision to go to war certain, but I do think it was a significant factor, myself.



ljadw said:


> There was no minimum of 13 months of oil ( a meaningless notion ) needed to have a chance to ''win '': Japan could ''win '' with less oil and lose with more oil .



Tell that to the IJN's high command; they're the ones who calculated, in Oct 1941, the 18-month on-hand supply for combat ops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 4, 2021)

I believe the US got the Dutch Government in exile to either join the embargo or severely restrict sales to Japan. 
The US had also closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping meaning that may other oil fields would have difficulty supplying Japan. Many more tankers needed to move the same amount of product in the same time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. Obviously, this is a matter of conjecture. I happen to disagree, as the Italian Navy tied up major portions of the RN, as the British needed to maintain the security of the Suez Canal. With a neutral or allied Italy, this would not be an RN worry: the British would be able to maintain complete control of the Mediterranean. However, since the invasion of Yugoslavia was German-led, this means that there remains a German vulnerability, but the German Navy could not project the sort of power into the Mediterranean as did the Royal [Italian] Navy. If Italy is neutral, this means that the RN could use the Adriatic with reasonable risk; if Italy is allied, then the Adriatic becomes an allied lake, and German forces in the Balkans are subject to the sort of harassment as, say, Malta. This also leaves Germany's allies, Romania and Hungary, vulnerable to a potential invasion through a liberated Yugoslavia. Also, supporting the various partisan movements in Yugoslavia would be far easier.


Without Italy in the war then as you state the Mediterranean is almost a British lake and the heavy losses that the RN suffered would not have been incurred. It's a worth a thought that if the Japanese then launched the attack on Pearl Harbour the RN would almost certainly have been in a position to give significant assistance to the USN. The POW and Repulse would almost certainly have had at least one modern carrier, maybe two as its quite likely the Ark Royal wouldn't have been sunk. Not forgetting the additional modern cruisers and destroyers that would have been available. When Admiral King requested assistance it was turned down, that response might well have been yes not no. 

We tend to think of the ships that were sunk in the Med but just as important were the ships that were heavily damaged and out of action for many months. These would also have been available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 4, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

Please read what is written more carefully.

Note the words I used were "the US led oil embargo". DEI was willing to sell to Japan, even after the war in Europe started, until the US convinced them not to. Also, check where the oil they "imported" during the war was coming from. The US, UK, and DEI supplied around 80% of the oil Japan used before the war. When the war in Europe started the UK stopped selling oil to Japan, as did the French. After that point the US was selling Japan about 80% of their imported oil. In August 1941 the US put a full embargo of oil in place, reducing Japan's import of oil to ~20% of what they needed annually - in peacetime.

The estimates for oil needed, in the coming war were somewhere over 30 million bbl for the first year. In 1941 Japan produced only about 3 million bbl domestically (including synthetics), and after the total US oil embargo the expected peaceful import of oil for the next year was only about 5 million bbl. So the total oil supply would have been only about 8 million bbl out of the 24 million bbl needed during peacetime. The numbers I have read vary considerably on just how much oil the war required, but they seem to range 10-20 million bbl per year more that pre-war needs.

Note the words I used were "the approximate date of the attack was determined by the Japanese high command, based on a minimum of 13 months of oil required to have any chance of winning a war with the US. The 13 months required was the amount needed to accomplish the operations laid out in their war plan, plus a reserve." The Japanese high command were the ones who decided the 13 month supply was the trigger for attacking the US, not me or any other party. This has been documented thoroughly by historians, from US and other nation's debriefs after the war, and is included in the official history(s) of the US armed forces and of the Japanese armed forces. There are also some very good books on the subject. My favorite book on the thinking during the run up to war in the PTO is "War Plan Orange: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945" by Edward S. Miller, published by the United States Naval Institute, and by Shinchosa Ltd. in Japanese. Although the book is sold publicly it was originally written for the USN as an official historical study.

As to the chance of a Japanese "win", what you said does not make sense to me??

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yet --
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is not correct to say that 43,5 million barrels give 30 months of combat operations, because it is impossible to calculate in advance how many oil is needed for a month of combat operation and because it is impossible to know how the war will evolve .
PH could fail.
PH could result in the loss of the IJN.
Midway could be a success
Etc
The war could be over after a few months,with a Japanese or US victory .


Thumpalumpacus said:


> Yet --
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Predictions are guesses,unreliable guesses .No one can tell in advance how a war will evolve and how long he will last .
PH could be a failure
Midway could be a victory 
No one can predict how much oil will be consumed in one month of operations .
Japan could win the war ,even if the IJN was short on oil and lose him even if the IJN was swimming in oil .
Japan consumed 44 million barrels in 1943 and only 25 million in 1944.
The reason was not that the stocks were exhausted, but that there was less need of oil and that less oil was available because there were less tankers available than in 1943 .
The DEI produced in 1941 65 million barrels of oil,in 1942 25,9 million and in 1943 49,6 million .But that does not mean that the oil tankers could transport 49,6 million barrels to Japan .
About US oil exports to Japan 
they were 21 million barrels in 1935,22 million in 1936,28 million in 1937, 31 million in 1938, 28 million in 1939, 23 million in 1940, 21 million in 1941 (7 months annualized ) Source :Bankrupting the enemy P 177.
Japan did not attack US in 1940 because it got 5 million barrels less than in 1939 .
The exports were not determined by the US but by Japan : Japan imported what it needed and could pay .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

Japan could only win if US gave up ,and for this the oil stocks of the IJN were irrelevant ,because the war would not be decided by the IJN alone .
If US losses at Guadalcanal were the triple of the actual losses and US public opinion said that the war was too costly and that US should negotiate peace, Japan would have ''won ''.
If US attack on Iwo Jima failed ,there could be a negotiated end of the war .
And,again about the US oil exports : before the embargo Japan consumed less oil than after the embargo :1938 : 39 million of barrels,1943 : 44 million ,1942 :41,8 million .And the IJN was able to fight Midway notwithstanding the embargo .Thus, the threat of the US embargo was not that big .Neither was the benefit of the capture of the DEI .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

One can discuss the numbers of production,imports,consumption, stocks ,(Japanese oil puzzle gives different ones ) ,but one should not forget that the biggest problem for Japan was not the embargo,but the war in China : a war Japan could not win, not lose, not continue indefinitely .
The politicians blamed the Army for its failure,the army replied that China continued the war only because it received/hoped on moral and material support from the US ( a very big exaggeration ) and, that because the IJN had failed to intercept this aid,there was only one solution = to expel the US from the Pacific. This would mean the end of the war in China and the possibility to have oil for free from the DEI.
While this does not mean that the embargo had no effect, it is very possible that Japan would have started war with US even WITHOUT the embargo .It is also possible that a collapse of China would have stopped war with the US even WITH an embargo .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> It is not correct to say that 43,5 million barrels give 30 months of combat operations, because it is impossible to calculate in advance how many oil is needed for a month of combat operation and because it is impossible to know how the war will evolve .



The Japanese admirals clearly didn't get that memo, because they estimated that they had 18 months' stock on hand for combat ops. You don't think they had an idea of their plans, and of the fuel-use of their ships? From there, it's a simple bit of math to figure out how much your current stocks can hold out over time, barring exigencies.

You really should read up on this stuff some time. It's pretty interesting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The Japanese admirals clearly didn't get that memo, because they estimated that they had 18 months' stock on hand for combat ops. You don't think they had an idea of their plans, and of the fuel-use of their ships? From there, it's a simple bit of math to figure out how much your current stocks can hold out over time, barring exigencies.
> 
> You really should read up on this stuff some time. It's pretty interesting.


Combat operations were not decided by the IJN, but by the IJN AND the US Navy .The USN was not obliged to react as the IJN was expecting, guessing, theorizing
Estimates are guesses, mostly unreliable guesses. Nothing more . 
The Japanese admirals said: if we do A, the US will do B,and than we will reply by C. Their answer will be D.
Etc .
But if the USN remained defensive and did something else, the IJN would consume and need less oil .......
The German generals made the same mistake : Thomas said that there would be fuel for Barbarossa til September,and he was wrong : Typhoon started after September .
Before 1914, Fisher claimed that shortly after a declaration of war,there would be a super Trafalgar where the RN would defeat the Hochseeflotte . But this did not happen .Before 1939 the Trenchard lobby pontificated that the war would start with a big attack of the LW to destroy the British cities,on which Bomber Command would reply with the same attack on the German cities .
We know that this did not happen .
The German U Boat lobby said that they would do what their predecessors had failed to do = to starve Britain . We know that it was a failure .Doenitz had also plans and knew the oil consumption of his U Boats .
And Harris ..: he told Churchill that BC could force Germany to capitulate ...by destroying Berlin . He was wrong .
The IJN could act offensively or defensively ,but it could not say before PH how the naval war would evolve . It could even not say this after PH .
Besides : if politicians ask military how long their supplies will last , the answer will always be an underestimation of the supplies .A general who says : my supplies will last 6 months will not be fired if they last 12 months, but if he is saying that they will last 12 months and after 6 months,they are exhausted ,what will happen ? We know what will happen .
It is not because you make plans and know how many fuel your ships are consuming,that you know how long your stocks will last .


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 5, 2021)

Apparently you don't understand the concept of tentative projections. Managers of all sorts, including military leaders, understand making logistical projections in order to ensure that efforts are properly supplied.

That doesn't mean that exigencies and emergencies don't happen. But that's why we maintain reserves.

The Air Force taught me that _failing to plan is planning to fail_. I don't doubt the Japanese military understood the vital necessity of planning based on stocks and usage, even if you don't.

I should know better than to engage you. I won't make this mistake again. *plonk*


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2021)

When planning for anything you make assumptions and these form the basis of the plans. Are they perfect obviously no, and they are often way out in both directions. Also factors come into play which totally throw them out of the window, for example:-

_The German U Boat lobby said that they would do what their predecessors had failed to do = to starve Britain _
This was based on the assumption that the war wouldn't start until 1944. Had it done so the German U Boat forces would have been infinitely stronger when was was declared and there was a better than average chance that they would have succeeded.

_Before 1939 the Trenchard lobby pontificated that the war would start with a big attack of the LW to destroy the British cities,on which Bomber Command would reply with the same attack on the German cities_ .
Almost all airforces believed this to be the case, the phrase 'The Bomber will always get through' was widely believed and from the experience of the Spanish Civil War there was reason to believe this.

_And Harris ..: he told Churchill that BC could force Germany to capitulate ...by destroying Berlin . He was wrong_.
If I remember correctly, what he said was 'That some people don't believe this can be done, my reply is that no one has tried it yet'.

It is only in the intense cauldron of actual war, can we tell if the assumptions were correct.

The following is the only part of your posting which I suspect to be wrong.
_Besides : if politicians ask military how long their supplies will last , the answer will always be an underestimation of the supplies .A general who says : my supplies will last 6 months will not be fired if they last 12 months, but if he is saying that they will last 12 months and after 6 months,they are exhausted ,what will happen ? We know what will happen_ .

I have no experience of dealing with or presenting proposals to senior Politicians from a military perspective. But I do have experience of developing and presenting plans to senior civil servants and politicians, their advisors and senior business executives. From this experience its far more likely that the plans are presented with suitable care and include contingency, which is removed or ignored by the Politicians and business executives, because they want to look good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> ONE point : if Italy was neutral or a Western ally ,there would be no German invasion of Yugoslavia .


Part of the reason for the invasion of Yugoslavia was the coup that overthrew the pro-German government, which reportedly enraged Hitler. Whether Germany and its allies, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria could tolerate a neutral on their border brings in a second set of conjectures. Given thatvall three had pre-existing issues with Yugoslavia, one wonders whether one of them would instigate an invasion.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 5, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say? If you are saying that what was done/when it was done/how what was done, could have been done better (since it at least seems logical to you) and that the high commands could have/should have known better (even without hindsight) then possibly you are correct.

If however, you are trying to say that what was done/when it was done/how what was done, was not done for the reasons stated (ie estimation of oil needed for operations and other such, the expected oil supply/production number, the envisioned methods of operations, the envisioned chances of success, etc) then you are very incorrect. Unless you think that all the participants (military, civil, enemy and domestic) and record keepers (both at the time and the historians since) are lying, there is almost no rational argument possible as to what was done/when it was done/how what was done/ and why it was done.

Incidentally, the military planning for operations today (pick any nation you choose) are still done pretty much exactly the same in essence as it was done in WWII. Sometimes they still get it wrong. You do your best in the planning and preparation of the main plans as you can, hope for the best (while realizing that the plans may not work out the way you hope), and put as much preparation for contingency and back-up plans as is practicable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Part of the reason for the invasion of Yugoslavia was the coup that overthrew the pro-German government, which reportedly enraged Hitler. Whether Germany and its allies, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria could tolerate a neutral on their border brings in a second set of conjectures. Given thatvall three had pre-existing issues with Yugoslavia, one wonders whether one of them would instigate an invasion.


And, why was there an anti-German /anti Italian coup in Yugoslavia ? Because. Italy, an enemy of Yugoslavia since more than 20 years,was in big problems because of its failed attack on Greece . And there was the danger that Yugoslavia would attack the Italian forces in Albania .
If Italy was a Western ally, it would not attack Greece and I see no reason why Yugoslavia would attack a Western ally .


----------



## ljadw (Jun 5, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say? If you are saying that what was done/when it was done/how what was done, could have been done better (since it at least seems logical to you) and that the high commands could have/should have known better (even without hindsight) then possibly you are correct.
> 
> ...


I am saying that 
a Japan was saddled with the war in China and that Japan needed to finish him very fast victoriously for political and economic reasons .
b This war was started because of the pressure of the army, not of the navy .
c The army was unable to finish him,as it could not break the resistance of 500 million Chinese .
d The army could,of course, not admit its mistake,and found a scapegoat : the US .It claimed that the KMT continued the war because the help it received /the help it expected to receive from the US and that if the US were expelled from the Pacific, immediately the war in China would be over . (In 1956 the French Army which was fighting in Algeria said the same and claimed that if Nasser was eliminated, the war in NA would be over,and the French with Britain and Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 ) .There are other such examples : in 1941 Germany attacked the USSR hoping that the fall of the USSR would force Britain to give up .
e all depended now on the IJN : if it said that it could not win against the US, Japan had lost and would cease to be a big power and the politicians and the army would blame the navy .
f If the navy said that it had enough fuel to fight 10 years against the US ,and this would prove to be wrong , the navy would be blamed .
g Thus,what did the navy? It covered its behind and said that it had only fuel for 3 years (for which there was no proof ) .If they had more fuel, no one would attack them . The admirals knew what the politicians wanted them to say and decided that if things went wrong, they would not be blamed . The German generals also knew what Hitler wanted to hear ,which was that they could easily defeat the Soviets,but they took their precautions,so that after the war they could say that they had warned Hitler .
h The truth is that the admirals could not know how much oil they would need to defeat the USN. Besides: there is no proof that with more oil they would have done better .
i About the importance of the embargo : even with an embargo war with the US was not inevitable : Japan could have ignored the embargo and could have continued business as usual . China could have collapsed .
Without an embargo war would be still possible or even likely :if Japan had no longer the foreign currency to buy oil from the US or the DEI, it would be obliged to start a war .


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 5, 2021)

Pre-war projections are always wrong. The USN failed to reinforce Wake Island in time because operating a fleet in wartime consumed vastly greater amounts of fuel than operating a fleet in peacetime. The task force sent to reinforce Wake had to refuel and the delay allowed the Japanese to get there first. Which in the long run was in the US best interest. Not so much for the 1500 military and civilian personnel captured at Wake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 5, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Pre-war projections are always wrong. The USN failed to reinforce Wake Island in time because operating a fleet in wartime consumed vastly greater amounts of fuel than operating a fleet in peacetime. The task force sent to reinforce Wake had to refuel and the delay allowed the Japanese to get there first. Which in the long run was in the US best interest. Not so much for the 1500 military and civilian personnel captured at Wake.


I thought Wake and other outposts weren’t reinforced due to treaty obligations. Until it was too late.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> I am saying that
> a Japan was saddled with the war in China and that Japan needed to finish him very fast victoriously for political and economic reasons .
> b This war was started because of the pressure of the army, not of the navy .
> c The army was unable to finish him,as it could not break the resistance of 500 million Chinese .
> ...


Japan was only saddled with a war in China because they chose to start it. Perhaps it was out-of-control Japanese forces in China, but they were out control because the civilian government had no authority over them. A real government, as opposed to an imitation of one, could have dealt with the “rogues.”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 5, 2021)

Nobody knows when too late is, until it is. The Marine defense battalion arrived in August 1941 and VMF 211 flew in on 4 December. No radar was available on the island.
In a sense, Wake was lost the moment the Japanese declared war. The US could not keep an isolated garrison closer to the enemy than the nearest friendly base supplied during wartime.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 5, 2021)

Hey ljaew,

re your point i: "About the importance of the embargo : even with an embargo war with the US was not inevitable : Japan could have ignored the embargo and could have continued business as usual ."

Question#1: Since the August 1941 embargo reduced the total Japanese "peacetime" imports of oil to about 8 million bbl annually, and since there was a need for 24 million bbl annually during said "peacetime" (of which the split was about 4.2 IJA/8.6 IJN /11.2 civilian million bbl per year) - how was Japan's oil needs to be met? Note that 8 does not equal 24.

re your point g: "Thus,what did the navy? It covered its behind and said that it had only fuel for 3 years (for which there was no proof ) .If they had more fuel, no one would attack them ."

Question#2: Where did you find this? The 3 years was a bare minimum, with no naval operations (ie no war with the US/UK Commonwealth/DEI/etc) and in effect a near complete stand down of its navy. And as far as I am aware, no one in Japan ever said "If they had more fuel, no one would attack them ."

re your point i: "if Japan had no longer the foreign currency to buy oil from the US or the DEI, it would be obliged to start a war ."

I am not sure you understand the meaning of embargo. Prior to 1941 Japan was buying 80% of its oil imports from the US, UK, and DEI. An embargo as occurred against Japan, meant that the US and DEI stopped selling oil to Japan . . period, regardless if Japan had currency or not. The UK had already stopped selling to Japan because of its own war-time needs, prior to the US/DEI embargo.

The simple fact is that the US wanted Japan out of China. (Although it is often argued as to the true nature of the US reasoning, relative to this discussion I do not think it matters if they were economic reasons, humanitarian reasons, some combination of the 2, or some other reason entirely.) There is no way that Japan could continue "as usual" with 8 million bbl of oil a year. 8 million bbl was not even enough to supply its pre-war civilian needs. This was the point of the US enacting a full embargo on Japan, and pressuring DEI to do likewise. The US also knew (via MAGIC et al) that Japan would almost certainly to go to war with the US if the earlier partial embargo continued, and Japan would have no nationally/politically acceptable choice at all if the embargo became complete.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 5, 2021)

ljadw said:


> And, why was there an anti-German /anti Italian coup in Yugoslavia ? Because. Italy, an enemy of Yugoslavia since more than 20 years,was in big problems because of its failed attack on Greece . And there was the danger that Yugoslavia would attack the Italian forces in Albania .
> If Italy was a Western ally, it would not attack Greece and I see no reason why Yugoslavia would attack a Western ally .



The government of Yugoslavia before that coup was pro-German, which could mean 1) they would attack Albania or one of their other non-Axis neighbors 2) an anti-German coup could still occur, possibly because of refugees from German allies or because of general internal politics 3) there were pre-existing conflicts between Yugoslavia and its neighbors, including Hungary, Austria, Romania, and Bulgaria, although I’m not sure of their relative aggressiveness 4) there were significant German enclaves in Yugoslavia.

All the arguments that Italy was a net drag on Germany neglect that a) without Italy being a German ally, the Mediterranean is an Allied lake and Suez is under about as much threat as Panama b) there was a significant Italian presence on the Russian Front which, it should be remembered used about 70% of the German ground and air forces. The MTO was not a useless diversion for Germany, as there were significant RN losses there, many of which would not happen had Italy been uninvolved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 5, 2021)

Yugoslav history makes interesting reading. The Regent of Yugoslavia tried to stay neutral but sided with the Axis, in the hopes of protecting the country from Italian aggression. A pro-allied coup followed, resulting in the Italian-German invasion.
Prince Paul's conditions for joining the Axis were that the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia would be respected, that Yugoslavia would not be called upon to contribute troops to the war effort and that Yugoslavia would not grant passage to foreign armies. The Yugoslav generals didn't like those terms, deposed the regent, and lost the country.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 6, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljaew,
> 
> re your point i: "About the importance of the embargo : even with an embargo war with the US was not inevitable : Japan could have ignored the embargo and could have continued business as usual ."
> 
> ...


About point 1 : consumption of oil (which is not the same as needs ) does not only depend on imports :even with less imports,it would be possible to consume oil,because of the stocks .And, it was always possible to consume less oil .Japan consumed less oil in 1941/1942 than in 1940/1941 :22,65 million barrels against 28,6 million .
About the foreign currency : this is in the scenario without embargo : war would still be possible without embargo if Japan had no longer the needed money to buy oil or if US tankers could no longer transport the oil ( Japanese tankers could not do it on their own ) .
The truth is that embargo did not mean automatically war and that no embargo did not automatically mean no war .
The following figures are from ''Bankrupting the enemy '' P 165 ( I use rough figures ) 
Japan's oil fuel consumption 
First column civilian 
Second column military ( it is not specified how much was for the army and how much for the navy 
31-32 12,28 million barrels / 2,64
32/33 14,68 /3,6
33/34 15,35 /4,27
34/35 18,1 / 4,55
35/36 23,55 / 5
36/37 22,15 /5,55
37/38 23,64/6,3
38/39 20,86/ 7,1
39/40 17,4 / 7,8
40/41 19,33 /9,22
41/42 10,5 /12,15 
It was possible for Japan to diminish its imports already BEFORE the embargo :1937/1938 a total of 30 million and 25 million in 1939/1940 and even after the embargo it was possible to increase the consumption from 41,8 million in 41/42 to 44 million in 42/43 .


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 6, 2021)

Hey ljaew,

Do you understand that the decrease in consumption in 41/42 was largely due the effects of the embargo, and that the increase in oil consumption from 41/42 thru 44 was made possible by the capture of oil producing fields and refineries, as well as some stocks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 6, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Yugoslav history makes interesting reading. The Regent of Yugoslavia tried to stay neutral but sided with the Axis, in the hopes of protecting the country from Italian aggression. A pro-allied coup followed, resulting in the Italian-German invasion.
> Prince Paul's conditions for joining the Axis were that the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia would be respected, that Yugoslavia would not be called upon to contribute troops to the war effort and that Yugoslavia would not grant passage to foreign armies. The Yugoslav generals didn't like those terms, deposed the regent, and lost the country.


This is good stuff.

We are 100% axis but we not fight for you and we not let you in.

Er....let's see how this will end. I have zero knowledge on anything WW2 but this ain't gonna fly.

The Washington treaty did say no further fortification in the Pacific which was a win for the Japanese. But the treaty was dead by 1936 so plenty time to fix any fortification. Maybe Wake was never thought as a target. 

But the treaty did mean Japan made some flexible ships so swings and roundabout.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 6, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> Yugoslav history makes interesting reading. The Regent of Yugoslavia tried to stay neutral but sided with the Axis, in the hopes of protecting the country from Italian aggression. A pro-allied coup followed, resulting in the Italian-German invasion.
> Prince Paul's conditions for joining the Axis were that the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia would be respected, that Yugoslavia would not be called upon to contribute troops to the war effort and that Yugoslavia would not grant passage to foreign armies. The Yugoslav generals didn't like those terms, deposed the regent, and lost the country.




If Yugoslavia remains an ally of Germany, at least with those conditions (which I don't see lasting past, say, somebody noticing the ship traffic through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean), I can't see this ending particularly well for them in this case, as being allied with Germany makes the country fair game for the Allies in all sorts of ways.

So:
Case 1: Yugoslavia is a nominal ally of Germany but contributes nothing. Allies have choices here, ranging from all those fun activities for which the SOE was famous to invading. Germany has choices, too, ranging from acceptance (yeah, that'll happen) to bribery through invasion.
Case 2: Yugoslavia permits _Luftwaffe_ units to operate out of their country, inconveniencing the Allies, who respond in varied and sundry unpleasant ways. This also annoys those Yugoslav generals, who may depose the regency. The German forces on hand would likely take this badly, and turn Prince Paul into a Yugoslavian variant of Puyi (溥儀)
Case 3: Germany _insists_ Yugoslavia be more helpful and permit basing _Luftwaffe_ units and sufficient forces to protect them from Allied invasion. This also annoys those Yugoslav generals, who may depose the regency, possibly not the best plan with German forces rolling into the country.

Germany _still_ doesn't get significant naval forces into the Mediterranean, and that sea remains an Allied lake.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljaew,
> 
> Do you understand that the decrease in consumption in 41/42 was largely due the effects of the embargo, and that the increase in oil consumption from 41/42 thru 44 was made possible by the capture of oil producing fields and refineries, as well as some stocks?


I doubt that this was the case.
All we know for 41/42 is that there was an embargo and a decrease of imports,but there are no proofs that the embargo was the main cause of the decrease of imports: there had been in the past also reductions of imports,thus it is perfectly possible that without the embargo,there would have been a decrease in 1941 .
About the impact of the oil of the DEI : it has been strongly exaggerated , only a small part could be transported to Japan, most of it remained in the DEI.
Oil production in SEA
1942 26 million barrels,of which 10 million went to Japan
1943 50 million,of which 14 million went to Japan
1944 37 million of which 5 million went to Japan .
If we look at the stocks, it is obvious that the main reason for the increase thru 1944 was the possibility to use the reserves of oil.
The stocks were going down from 48,9 million barrels in December 1941 to 13,8 million in December 1944,while in that period 104 million barrels were produced/imported and every year the consumption was higher than the imports/production . This was made possible by using the stocks .
And, not all imports from SEA were used.
One example :1941 Stocks 48,9 Imports/production 26,2 Consumption 37 Consumption was 11 million higher than Imports/Production .
The result was that in 1942 the stocks went down to 38 million : minus 11 .
In 1942 the consumption was 13 million higher than Imports/Production and ..the stocks went down ... by 13 million from 38 to 25 .
For 1943 the consumption was 12 million higher than imports/production and the stocks fell by 12 million .
For 1944 the consumption was 9 million higher and the stocks decreased by 9 million .


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

The DEI did not export any amount of crude oil, they had the refining facilities to process all the oil they produced, which pre-December 1941 was about 65 million bbl per year - over 2x what Japan consumption was pre-war. In 1942, despite the destruction of some of the facilities by the Dutch, the Japanese/DEI managed to produce around 25 million bbl of refined oil products, and in 1943 they managed to increase production to around 49 million bbl. This amount was more than the Japanese needed on the Japanese mainland, so only some of it was imported, while large stocks were built up in the DEI. Much of the refined products (FO, Avgas, motor oil, etc) was transported to other operational supply areas directly, as needed. The IJN for example routinely refueled in the DEI ports, and other ports directly supplied from the DEI.

The capture of the DEI oil fields and (more importantly) the refineries, all by itself, would have been capable of supplying the Japanese oil needs for the foreseeable future (we are talking decades here), and the production made up for any shortage of oil/oil products that might have occurred post US August 1941 embargo.

NOTE: I am not sure if you realize that the production numbers you listed for SE Asia are the numbers from the production for the DEI? During the war over 90% of the oil products that were consumed by the Japanese IJN, and over 80% of the oil products consumed by the IJA, originated in the DEI. Some were imported to the Japanese mainland and used or held in stock, while some were then transported to the Chinese front, or areas in the PTO.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey ljadw,
> 
> The DEI did not export any amount of crude oil, they had the refining facilities to process all the oil they produced, which pre-December 1941 was about 65 million bbl per year - over 2x what Japan consumption was pre-war. In 1942, despite the destruction of some of the facilities by the Dutch, the Japanese/DEI managed to produce around 25 million bbl of refined oil products, and in 1943 they managed to increase production to around 49 million bbl. This amount was more than the Japanese needed on the Japanese mainland, so only some of it was imported, while large stocks were built up in the DEI. Much of the refined products (FO, Avgas, motor oil, etc) was transported to other operational supply areas directly, as needed. The IJN for example routinely refueled in the DEI ports, and other ports directly supplied from the DEI.
> 
> ...


The fact remains that only a small part of the DEI oil was going to Japan,not because Japan did not need it , but because a shortage of tankers .In 1942 10 million barrels of DEI oil went to Japan, in 1943 14 million . That does not mean that Japan needed 4 million barrels more in 1943 than in 1942 .In 1944 5 million, that does not mean that Japan needed only 5 million in 1944 .
It is also questionable to say that the capture of the oil fields and refineries would have been capable of supplying the Japanese needs for the foreseeable future ,because Japan could not transport this oil:before the
war Japanese tankers could transport only 50 % of its oil imports .Other reason is that no one could known the Japanese oil needs in the future .
The traditional history (especially in the US ) is that the embargo was the main,or the only reason for PH .I strongly doubt this . In last instance ,the amount of the Japanese oil consumption was decided by Japan , not by the US .
Less imports/production does not automatically mean less consumption,it can also result in a higher consumption ( by using the stocks ) .
In 1939 the imports were lower than in 1938,but the stocks were higher,in 1942 the imports were higher than in 1941,but the stocks were lower .
Imports/Production, Stocks,Consumption are influencing each other and are influenced by each other ,but it is not so that imports/production are determining the stocks and consumption .In 1939 Japan bought less US oil than in 1938,it was not the US who decided to sell less oil to Japan .
In 1930 Japan bought $ 18,5 million on US oil, in 1931 16,3 million, in 193215,2 ,in 1933 14 and than Japan started to buy more : 1934 20,8 ,1935 25,3 ,etc .
Returning to the embargo : it is very well possible that even without the embargo Japan would have bought less oil and consumed less /or even more oil .
The decision to consume more /less oil was taken by the public/the government and less or more consumption would not obligatory mean /would not obligatory depend on the amount of the stocks or the amount of the production or imports .
To summarize : in 1941 there was an embargo and the production /imports went down by 50 % : from 50 million barrels in 1940 to 26 million barrels .
But there is no proof that this was caused by the embargo : it is possible that without embargo the imports/production would also have decreased by 50 % .It is also possible that without embargo the consumption would have decreased or that with embargo the consumption would have increased .


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2021)

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of debate over the Japanese imports when in the real world the Italians had a similar problem.


----------



## ljadw (Jun 7, 2021)

Glider said:


> What I find interesting is that there is a lot of debate over the Japanese imports when in the real world the Italians had a similar problem.


Yes and no . The Italian oil problems ( very exaggerated after the war for obvious reasons ) were caused because of 
1 the Italian DoW
2 the fact that the war was not evolving in the direction Italy had hoped .
Before the war,Italy bought oil from a lot of countries (including the USSR ) and the amount of oil was sufficient for Italy's ''needs ''. They could have bought more oil if needed, or less if less was needed .
Italy bought 143000 tons of oil in 1934 (1,3 million barrels ),220000 in 1935 (2 million bb) and 600000 ton in 1941(5 million bb) ,much less than Japan, because Italy was less depending on oil than Japan .
Example : the Regia Marina was operating as successfully as the IJN (or more successfully ) with less oil,because its missions were totally different .Its missions were mainly to protect the transports to the Balkans and to NA .
The missions of the IJN (which it had decided itself ) were different : the IJN was living with the past of the battle of Tsushima,which decided the war with Russia and wanted to copycat this battle .
Other difference : Japan started a war against an opponent who was superior in all aspects ,while Italy stated a war against what it thought to be two defeated opponents .Italy could have remained neutral in 1940,while the option of no war was much more difficult for Japan .


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

I am sorry ljadw, while much of the information you have brought up is interesting, most of your assumptions in your last 2 posts make no sense and/or are contradictory.

re: 1. "Before the war, Italy [Japan] bought oil from a lot of countries (including the USSR [US/UK/DEI]) and the amount of oil was sufficient for Italy's [Japan's] "needs"."

Obvious, but a non-sequitur.

re: 2. "The fact remains that only a small part of the DEI oil was going to Japan, not because Japan did not need it, but because a shortage of tankers."

Japan started the war with ~4.5 million tons of tankers/transports, and built ~6 million tons of tankers/transports during the war. Japan ended the war with ~2.5 million tons of tankers/transports (much of which was immobilized in harbor by the mining operations) due to the sinking of the rest by the Allies (primarily the USN).

re 3. "In 1942 10 million barrels of DEI oil went to Japan, in 1943 14 million. That does not mean that Japan needed 4 million barrels more in 1943 than in 1942. In 1944 5 million, that does not mean that Japan needed only 5 million in 1944."

This contradicts your logic in #1 above. This is not a discussion about the possibility of Schrödinger's cat where the cat may be both dead and alive at the same time. Either Japan perceived the need for more (correctly or incorrectly), or actually needed more oil, in either case the threat of no affordable/reliable access to the amount of oil deemed necessary led to war.

The transport of only 5 million bbl of oil products to the Japanese mainland in 1945 also does not mean that they did not want/need to ship more to the mainland. They tried to import more, but the continued sinking of their tankers/transports prevented it.

As to the need to import to the Japanese mainland, I think I partially addressed that in my previous post. Most of the refined oil product from the DEI was shipped directly to the operational area where it was needed. Again, until the sinking of their tankers/transport eventually prevented this.

re 4. "It is also questionable to say that the capture of the oil fields and refineries would have been capable of supplying the Japanese needs for the foreseeable future, because Japan could not transport this oil: before the war Japanese tankers could transport only 50% of its oil imports. Other reason is that no one could known the Japanese oil needs in the future."

Japan would have built the tanker fleet needed if they had the time, to think that they would not means you would have to think they had less brains than a cucumber. The Japanese were just as smart as any of the western nations then, and are today.

As to "no one could have known the Japanese oil needs in the future", short of a failed war or some other catastrophic event, yes you can predict future needs to a reasonable degree. A ten year period estimate is used today for planning purposes of infrastructure needs by most nations, and works pretty well.

re 5. "The traditional history (especially in the US ) is that the embargo was the main, or the only reason for PH. I strongly doubt this. In last instance, the amount of the Japanese oil consumption was decided by Japan, not by the US."

The propaganda fed to the masses at the time really does not matter relative to this discussion. The US intercepted diplomatic communications during the run-up to Pearl Harbor, that clearly state the main reasons for the start of the war. They were the demands by the US that Japan pull out of China, and the US led embargo. Post-war US led debrief of Japanese political and military officials confirmed this. There have been thorough historical studies done since then that confirm this. And if the conclusions made/published by the US and other world nations that say this is so is not enough for you, there have been many historical studies done by the Japanese since WWII (including recent ones) that draw the same conclusions.

If you are interested, you might like to read the actual translations of the messages intercepted by Magic et al, I would direct you to this post in another thread:

"Could the Japanese have captured Hawaii if they had won the battle of Midway?"

PS The rest of the thread has a lot of good information related to the subject also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> I am sorry ljadw, while much of the information you have brought up is interesting, most of your assumptions in your last 2 posts make no sense and/or are contradictory.
> 
> re: 1. "Before the war, Italy [Japan] bought oil from a lot of countries (including the USSR [US/UK/DEI]) and the amount of oil was sufficient for Italy's [Japan's] "needs"."
> 
> ...


About the importance of the embargo,war was also possible without embargo .
3 examples with no embargo but that still could result in war 
US is at war with Germany and Japan remains neutral .
1 US withdraws all its tankers from the Pacific which makes that Japan can only transport 50 % of the oil it ''needs ''
2 US withdraws the Pacific Fleet ,which gives Japan a free hand .
3 US doubles/triples the price of its oil,and Japan can not pay this price 
In these 3 examples, Japan can take the decision to take the oil of the DEI,which inevitably results in war with US .
Thus an embargo was not needed for war .
Now an example of peace with embargo : the day after the embargo is declared, the Chinese give up and Japan can withdraw a big part of its army and the military oil consumption decreases,this makes the embargo useless .
The importance of the embargo was depending on the military and economic situation of Japan, which was evolving independently of the embargo .In the HTL the consumption was in 1941 11 million barrels higher than the imports ,but if the consumption was not higher but lower than the imports,there was no reason for war .
The main reason for PH was the situation in China , not the embargo ( I never said that the embargo had no influence ),because ,with or without embargo, Japan could not continue indefinitely the war in China .
And,it could not lose him,neither win him .


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

Hey ljadw,

I am not trying to make fun of you when I say this, but re your examples 1,2,3 for "no embargo but that still could result in war" and the example "of peace with embargo : the day after the embargo is declared, the Chinese give up and Japan can withdraw a big part of its army and the military oil consumption decreases, this makes the embargo useless."

Another example of what could possibly have happened, resulting in an "example of peace with embargo", where Japan would not feel a need to go to war: Tiny green aliens could have appeared and given Japan a source of energy that could be used for powering their factories, ships, planes, land vehicle, etc, and only for defensive and peaceful purposes, along with a supply of whatever other natural resources they needed (steel, copper, etc).

There was/is no reason to think that any of them would have happened, except maybe #3 where the US would double/triple its prices.

To make decisions based on any of the examples above, based on assuming one or the other 'might' happen, would have been/would be at best incompetent on the part of the decision makers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2021)

Japan was going to be at war whether there was an embargo or not.

Japan's quest for the "Greater Asian Co-prosparity Sphere" was all inclusive of the Asian continent, regardless of what those nations wanted.

The problem was the Colonial possesions and the US - there was no way around getting their "Sphere" without involving ine or more western powers at some point.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

Hey GrauGeist,

I do not know if war was inevitable, but there is no question it was very likely.

I do however think that the reason that Pearl Harbor happened, when it happened, is primarily due to the embargo. Without an embargo, Japan could simply have ignored the US (and everyone else) until the US decided to use military means, which I agree would probably have happened. I have often speculated as to how soon/when and that would have occurred, and what the excuse/actual reason would have been.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2021)

Even without the embargo, the US possessed the Philippines, which lay directly in Japan's path to Southeast Asia.

Either Japan makes a monumental effort to keep the US neutral (much like they did with the Soviets) in order to conduct their ongoing conquest of Asia or they have to take the Philippines by force to ensure their security.
I feel the later option would have been the war cabinet's eventual option.
So *if* Pearl Harbor was not attacked, it would have just been a matter of time before the Philippines was invaded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 8, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Japan was going to be at war whether there was an embargo or not.
> 
> Japan's quest for the "Greater Asian Co-prosparity Sphere" was all inclusive of the Asian continent, regardless of what those nations wanted.



I'm not so sure about this part. My reading indicates that the debate between Northern and Southern attacks (i.e., Army plan vs Navy plan) extended into 1941. I don't know that GEACS was actually the motive; I suspect it was more a matter of trimming the Christmas tree after it had been raised.

I do agree that war was going to break out no matter the embargo. But I do think the embargo hastened its outbreak.



GrauGeist said:


> The problem was the Colonial possesions and the US - there was no way around getting their "Sphere" without involving ine or more western powers at some point.



... or attack the Soviets as the IJA wished to do. That cloistered feeling was the drive behind Japanese war ambitions at all, imo. No matter where they wished to expand, even against a sluggish China, they were going to have serious issues. None of those wars were really winnable for them, but they'd painted themselves into a corner, didn't they?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 8, 2021)

IJA didn't wish to attack USSR after Khalkhin Gol.

Inevitable is a funny word. Not sure if it perfectly suits. Germany and Japan went to war because they chose. It was not inevitable. Had they choose wiser actions then war would have been avoided.

Maybe on 7th December, war was inevitable but the choices to get there were not.

One good point raised is that Italy didn't go to war as France and Britain were already beaten and Mussolini wanted some easy action so jumped in late to try and get some prizes. So he chose easy pickings not war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2021)

Mussolini was poking the God of War in the eye with a stick with his shenanigans, though: Ethiopia, Albania, Greece and so on.
He was a loose cannon, to be honest.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 8, 2021)

Invading Albania like a boss.

Italy were the winner of the Axis participation trophy 3 years running.

Maybe the Thug Life is not for you.


----------



## Андрей (Jun 22, 2021)

This is extremely silly reasoning. History cannot be reversed and your hypothesis cannot be tested. In this case, the Russians have an expression (folk wisdom): *"If my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 22, 2021)

In Russia, aviation forums must be very boring.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Андрей (Jun 23, 2021)

The Basket said:


> In Russia, aviation forums must be very boring.



We're not boring, we're serious.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 23, 2021)

Андрей said:


> This is extremely silly reasoning. History cannot be reversed and your hypothesis cannot be tested. In this case, the Russians have an expression (folk wisdom): *"If my grandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather.*



I think what-ifs have value as thought-experiments. It's the same reason we analyze failures in order to avoid them in the future -- or successes in order to hopefully replicate them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Андрей (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think what-ifs have value as thought-experiments. It's the same reason we analyze failures in order to avoid them in the future -- or successes in order to hopefully replicate them.



I agree that analysis of events is necessary, but how can you analyze events that did not happen? I don't see the point in your conclusions. It takes an incredible analytical mind to take into account all the factors of an event. I don't want to offend anyone, but are there any of you certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2021)

Андрей said:


> I agree that analysis of events is necessary, but how can you analyze events that did not happen? I don't see the point in your conclusions. It takes an incredible analytical mind to take into account all the factors of an event. I don't want to offend anyone, but are there any of you certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians...


It's all hypothetical and no one has to be a "certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians." Are you?!?

If you don't like the discussion, don't participate, that simple

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 24, 2021)

Hey Andrey (is this correct for the English spelling of your name?)

re "I don't want to offend anyone, but are there any of you certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians..."

Yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 24, 2021)

Андрей said:


> I agree that analysis of events is necessary, but how can you analyze events that did not happen? I don't see the point in your conclusions. It takes an incredible analytical mind to take into account all the factors of an event. I don't want to offend anyone, but are there any of you certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians...



Actually, one of the members here who participates in these discussions sometimes was indeed a staff planner in the British military. I've studied history informally for a few decades, though I have no degree in it.

How does one analyze events that haven't happened? By laying a hypothetical and then turning it over in order to see what the potential ramifications might be. That makes me consider factors I may not have considered.

If you don't like what-if threads, or don't find them useful, that's great. Don't read 'em. Problem solved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Андрей (Jun 24, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Actually, one of the members here who participates in these discussions sometimes was indeed a staff planner in the British military. I've studied history informally for a few decades, though I have no degree in it.
> 
> How does one analyze events that haven't happened? By laying a hypothetical and then turning it over in order to see what the potential ramifications might be. That makes me consider factors I may not have considered.
> 
> If you don't like what-if threads, or don't find them useful, that's great. Don't read 'em. Problem solved.


This is the first really sane explanation for what's going on here.
Agree that you can predict the correct outcome of some fictitious event with a small fraction of probability. The French built the "Maginot Line" and the Germans simply bypassed it. And so there is a high probability of a fatal error, which will dramatically affect the true result. 
Although there is something interesting in this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ljadw (Jun 24, 2021)

Андрей said:


> This is the first really sane explanation for what's going on here.
> Agree that you can predict the correct outcome of some fictitious event with a small fraction of probability. The French built the "Maginot Line" and the Germans simply bypassed it. And so there is a high probability of a fatal error, which will dramatically affect the true result.
> Although there is something interesting in this.


It is questionable to say that there was a high probability of a fatal error that dramatically affected the true result .The truth is that France had not sufficient manpower and tried to solve this by building certifications .There could only be an error if there was an alternative that would produce better results .Without the ML,France would need more forces to defend its eastern border, but it had not these forces and would be compelled to take them from those who were located at the border with Belgium .


----------



## The Basket (Jun 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's all hypothetical and no one has to be a "certified analysts, military strategists, historians, economists, geopoliticians." Are you?!?
> 
> If you don't like the discussion, don't participate, that simple


I am not a qualified gynaecologist but it don't stop me trying.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I am not a qualified gynaecologist but it don't stop me trying.


Just try your best - that's all anyone can do, you know.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Андрей (Jun 25, 2021)

The Basket said:


> I am not a qualified gynaecologist but it don't stop me trying.


I can imagine what you'll dig up in history, with your gynecological knowledge.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

