Who mostly won WW2? (Rome, war, influence, general)

[Nolefan34]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

they were about to destroy the RAF, but they changed to Bombing London, Portsmouth, Leeds, Plymouth ect. Instead of airbases and similar infustructure asfter a British Bomber bombed Berlin.

You still haven't answered how the Germans would have transported a large invasion force across the channel and landed successfully. The Germans could not defeat the Royal Navy.

[Italian Commando]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

In the first paragraph, are you saying that your posts are the ridiculous BS, or that something else is? (Maybe I have read too many of your posts, so as to be misled into an incorrect interpretation?) In the second paragraph (which is totally confusing as to your meaning), who is the "they" that would fall apart before long? And what is the "that" which Churchill would hope for? Clarity in writing is a great thing.

BS was towards his post & they were the British. Clear enough?

Originally Posted by btownboss4

I would like to say that in reality the tide of the war in the west turned in 1940, (after the Battle of Britain) after that the German invasion of Yugoslavia was so successful because they were not organized due to a coup less than a week earlier. Greece due to their army engaged with the Italians, and the Soviets because they were also restructuring their army.
So, the Germans turned east once the war in the west was no longer winnable.

If Hitler actually bothered to send army forces...

Originally Posted by Nolefan34

And how were they going to take Britain? You act like it is just a simple choice where if the Germans just did one thing differently, the course of history would have changed entirely. The Germans could not defeat the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy. How were they going to transport such a large invasion force across the English Channel?

Not across the Channel, from Norway, at least that's what I would've done.

[Eugene L.]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Not across the Channel, from Norway, at least that's what I would've done.

Very ambitious program: present a cruise on the North Sea to German soldiers. They will be very excited and fight to the death (that better not feed the fishes). They will fight even with no ammo.

But there is a simplest way. How you could forget about Italian fleet? Is there one who could come close to defenseless Germans against Italian protection?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

C'mon, be fair, Goat. The only reason the above unit surrendered was that the Allies had an overwhelming number of tanks and the XX Roma had not been supplied with armor piercing rocks.

Originally Posted by Eugene L.

Hitler lost the war, when he decided to play in it. He had to fight in earnest: militarize economics and society of Reich at all. Also he lost many potential allies because of its rigid ideology.

Sensible. There is a very valid argument that Hitler was doomed to failure from the start given the way the Germans approached the war with luck basically being what victory hinged on. He got lucky in France. His luck ran out in Russia.

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

You call 51mm armor & a 75mm gun obsolete? You critics on Axis armor, especially German, are just completely ridiculous.

Yet, no one is challenging me but you. Maybe it's because everyone else understands what I am saying and/or independently understands the topic. I've already explained several times. I won't explain it again. It is obvious you have no understanding of even the basic concepts of armored warfare in WW2.

It was the whole reason they were in that destructive war & they were betrayed lost thousands of men & saved several fronts, for nothing in return. That brings up an interesting fact, Italy sustained the least casualties(deaths at least) out of all the major powers in both world wars.

Why didn't mighty Italy force the issue? It's not like France or England was going to go to war over it. In WW1 they sustained the least deaths because they were in the war less time then the other powers and only fought along a relatively low intensity front (relative to other fronts in WW1) against rather poor Austro-Hungarian troops. In WW2 they surrendered before too many of them were killed.

You think their wouldn't have been one other fascist who wanted revenge, like the one who took Fiume?

Maybe.

I meant who's contribution led to Italy's capitulation, not how many forces were in a certain area. Though for the British it still wasn't 90%.

Which capitulation? You can divide up the numbers however you want. The fact remains it was the Allied armies that caused it.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Germans did more to defend Sicily then the Italians, who had hundreds of more troops then them!?

Yes, yes I am. The Germans constituted the actual effective forces. When the decision was made to withdrawal them, the Italian commander immediately considered his position untenable.

Of course you'd ask that...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Auslandseins%C3%A4tze_der_Bundeswehr.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Italian_Armed_Forces_operations.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

That doesn't prove anything, it's just a color coded map showing where the Italians have troops. At least the German map shows how many. For all I know the Italians dispatched a pasta chef to a US base and counted it as an "overseas military operation".

That's one of the reasons why the war was so long & brutal their, they could send thousands of forces from China after they take the Philippines.

The war in China for the Japanese started long before they went after the Phillipines. Given your compelte lack of understanding of Europe, maybe we shouldn't venture into the Pacific.

I've heard this lame theory before & no, the German forces sent to the Balkans did not cause them to lose in Moscow & then eventually the war!

HOLY MOLY BATMAN...he's right!

You are correct. The forces Hitler committed to bail out the Italian forces in Greece in no way interrupted the timetables for Barbarossa. Barbarossa was delayed do to late spring rains. The choice to move the date of invasion back was made before German forces were sent into the Balkans and all of them were back in place a couple weeks before Barbarossa kicked off.

Originally Posted by btownboss4

I strongly believe that the German's loss was rooted in 1940, when the Allies destroyed about 1/2 the German Navy in Norway, making it impossible for any attempt of an invasion of Britian. This allowed both the African front against the Western Axis and the Burman Cront against the Japanese which allowed the Chinese and Russians to continue fighting.
Coupled with Crete in 1941 which lead to the ban of Paratroopers which they planned on using in Brabarossa, leads me to believe that the German defeat came from early stratigic failings, masked by a tactical victory.

A German invasion of England was never anything more than a pipe dream. The Germans could have had every ship they had in 1939 still afloat and it wouldn't have made any difference. The Royal Navy's Home Fleet outnumbered them over 10 to 1. It was IMPOSSIBLE for the Germans to gain the naval supremacy necessary to execute a cross Channel invasion.

Originally Posted by btownboss4

they were about to destroy the RAF, but they changed to Bombing London, Portsmouth, Leeds, Plymouth ect. Instead of airbases and similar infustructure asfter a British Bomber bombed Berlin.

This statement is completely false, but an oft repeated myth. Changing tactics was a desperation and revenge move that made the battle impossible to win. However, the Germans were never actually winning to begin with. All of that bombing never managed to knock out an airfield for more than hour. RAF Fighter Command grew stronger with each passing day. They were replacing losses of pilots and equipment faster than the Germans could destroy them. Throughout the Battle of Britain the RAF got stronger each day...the Luftwaffe got weaker. The shift in tactics isn't what doomed them to failure, they had no chance to begin with.

No naval dominance and no air dominance means any attempt at an invasion where both are required is impossible. Add on the fact they had no transports and invasion craft and would have to use barges that were susceptible to bad weather and the entire idea of invading England starts to look like pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Not across the Channel, from Norway, at least that's what I would've done.

They didn't have the navy or transport craft to make it from France to southern England and your stroke of brilliance is to invade from Norway?

[Eugene L.]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Sensible. There is a very valid argument that Hitler was doomed to failure from the start given the way the Germans approached the war with luck basically being what victory hinged on. He got lucky in France. His luck ran out in Russia.

There is no luck, just numbers. Acceptable divisions ratio, our and enemy recovery ratio, etc. (You (British/American) traditionally call it the war of attrition and set against the war of movement. The Germans had to destroy the Soviet troops faster than we mobilize new. But it was impossible.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Eugene L.

There is no luck, just numbers. Acceptable divisions ratio, our and enemy recovery ratio, etc. (You (British/American) traditionally call it the war of attrition and set against the war of movement. The Germans had to destroy the Soviet troops faster than we mobilize new. But it was impossible.

Spoken like a true Russian.

[Eugene L.]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Spoken like a true Russian.

Yes, someone has to do the crap job while you are dancing

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Once again, German assistance in the Balkans did not cause the failures in Moscow & the Eastern Front, that's an old wives tale told by the Germans who were being sore losers. You wanna actually read my posts before you continue talking about this ridiculous BS!

That wouldn't happen. I'm pretty sure Churchill would hope for that, but after a takeover of Britain or something similarly devastating, it wouldn't take long before they fall apart.

However, the Italian invasion of Greece was a disaster that caused 550,000 Italian troops to be diverted from the African Campaign at a time when Britain was preoccupied with recouping losses in the Battle for France, and could have probably made major inroads in Africa.
Also Greece was rather friendly with Nazi Germany (probably due to fear, like Bulgaria and Romania) until the Italian invasion, so the Axis may well have lost an ally out of that Invasion too.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

However, the Italian invasion of Greece was a disaster that caused 550,000 Italian troops to be diverted from the African Campaign at a time when Britain was preoccupied with recouping losses in the Battle for France, and could have probably made major inroads in Africa.
Also Greece was rather friendly with Nazi Germany (probably due to fear, like Bulgaria and Romania) until the Italian invasion, so the Axis may well have lost an ally out of that Invasion too.

Surprisingly the invasion of Greece by the Italians may have actually helped them in North Africa. After the smashing success they had with Operation Compass which destroyed the entire Italian 10th Army and placed the British in control of nearly half of Libya, they stopped. Churchill ordered the cream of the British forces to redeploy to Greece to try and prop up the Greek army. Had those forces not been moved, the British may have kept going and completely tossed the Italians out of Africa.

[Italian Commando]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Yet, no one is challenging me but you. Maybe it's because everyone else understands what I am saying and/or independently understands the topic. I've already explained several times. I won't explain it again. It is obvious you have no understanding of even the basic concepts of armored warfare in WW2.

Maybe it's because their to busy arguing with them on other topics

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Why didn't mighty Italy force the issue? It's not like France or England was going to go to war over it. In WW1 they sustained the least deaths because they were in the war less time then the other powers and only fought along a relatively low intensity front (relative to other fronts in WW1) against rather poor Austro-Hungarian troops. In WW2 they surrendered before too many of them were killed.

They did, that's how they got the very small percentage of what they were promised. Meanwhile, England, France & the US stacked up on Italy & wouldn't let them have anything. Surprisingly one of those people was Wilson, guess keeping your promises wasn't in his fourteen points, huh?

It was by one year & meanwhile they had half of what the French & British had. Also the Italian Front wasn't the only front they were on. They had forces fighting Ottoman supported Guerrillas in Libya, In the Balkans, The Middle East & the Western Front, along with naval forces in the Mediterranean & Atlantic.
In WWII they had a lot of fighting before the armistice, & also had a third of their casualties from the Germans.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Which capitulation?

The Italian Armistice.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Yes, yes I am. The Germans constituted the actual effective forces. When the decision was made to withdrawal them, the Italian commander immediately considered his position untenable.

The Germans were not the only reinforcements that came & they were not the only ones on the offensive. If you'd bother to look up the forces I posted instead of pathetically trolling me with that pic you'd know that.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

That doesn't prove anything, it's just a color coded map showing where the Italians have troops. At least the German map shows how many. For all I know the Italians dispatched a pasta chef to a US base and counted it as an "overseas military operation".

Fine, I'll explain this slowly. They have 4 troops in India & Pakistan, 83 in Israel, 1 on Rafah Border Crossing, 83 in Egypt, 8 in Syria, 1,108 in Lebanon, 5 in the Western Sahara, 4 in Cyprus, 3 in Sudan, 10 in Bosnia & Herzegovina, 15 in Georgia, 258 in Somalia, 670 in Kosovo, 4,250 in Afghanistan, 1 officer in Macedonia, 17 soldiers in the Mediterranean & the Strait of Gibraltar, 13 on the West Bank, 26 in Malta, 17 in Albania & 10 in Libya. Clear enough?

Originally Posted by btownboss4

However, the Italian invasion of Greece was a disaster that caused 550,000 Italian troops to be diverted from the African Campaign at a time when Britain was preoccupied with recouping losses in the Battle for France, and could have probably made major inroads in Africa.
Also Greece was rather friendly with Nazi Germany (probably due to fear, like Bulgaria and Romania) until the Italian invasion, so the Axis may well have lost an ally out of that Invasion too.

That is a good point, attacking both at once wasn't very smart.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Surprisingly the invasion of Greece by the Italians may have actually helped them in North Africa. After the smashing success they had with Operation Compass which destroyed the entire Italian 10th Army and placed the British in control of nearly half of Libya, they stopped. Churchill ordered the cream of the British forces to redeploy to Greece to try and prop up the Greek army. Had those forces not been moved, the British may have kept going and completely tossed the Italians out of Africa.

While that last statement wouldn't have happened, the rest is also a good point.