Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Germany committed a tremendous amount of men amd material to North Africa to bail out Italy.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.
bro I MENT THEY LOST EUROPE OMG THAT OBVIOUSLY A HUGE LOSS BUT IT DIDNT MATTER BECAUSE AMERICA EXISTSNo 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.
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.
America saved the world ion don't know what to tell youYeah, because 'Merica!!
yes, it was a team effort but...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.
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.
yes i agreeIf 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.
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.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
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.
true datI 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.
yeahsuporting partisans through albania or through portThe 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.
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.The question is whether Germany got more out of Italy's presence than they would have from their absence. .
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
America saved the world ion don't know what to tell you