Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dare say that the Germans defeated themselves by having been their own worst enemy in WWII.
After occupying the Sudetenland the Nazis should have laid low for a few years, even decades. And they should have integrated the German-feeling Jewish population, which didn't feel much sympathy towards the poor, uneducated, eastern European jews. Germany would have had a long, stable (yet undemocratic) period like Spain under Franco. Allied states like Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey etc would have been annexed over time like Austria. After Pearl Harbor, they should have ditched the Japanese and sided with the USA against them--just to get the USA off their back. Evtl. Hitler would have died of natural causes with no real successor. Modern literature, technology, media and science would have shaped a more liberal generation as it did in Spain and Portugal. Israel would have been not such a hotspot in the midst of Arab states, maybe not even it's own state. Germany would dominate Europe and be a technologically driven, wealthy, militaristic yet politically savvy, superpower.
I stop now, because I describe increasingly the current E.U. Ouch!
I like your analogy with Spain. The scenario you describe would have required a Hilter who was much more rational and whose aims were more modest. Alas, that was not the case, and Hitler, like Japan, over-reached, resulting in the incredible and wide-spead destruction of Euope extending from the bomb damage in London to the gates of Moscow.
As for the similarities with the current E.U., militaristic? You think the E.U. is militaristic???
I like your analogy with Spain. The scenario you describe would have required a Hilter who was much more rational and whose aims were more modest. Alas, that was not the case, and Hitler, like Japan, over-reached, resulting in the incredible and wide-spead destruction of Euope extending from the bomb damage in London to the gates of Moscow.
As for the similarities with the current E.U., militaristic? You think the E.U. is militaristic???
I think he was pointing out how ironic it is that Germany today wound up getting everything Hitler wanted anyway, just not militaristically.
the German intervention came directly afterthe failure of the Italian spring offensive with the new Italian reenforcements failed.
The reinforcements I'm referring to were sent afterwards, for the Battle of Greece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
You seemed to miss the macro point. Wilson certainly had a say in it, but Wilson was opposed to honoring the secret treaty giving Italy that territory. Wilson had promised nothing to Italy and didn't feel that is was right to give them those possessions. The Allies needed to reach consensus. On one side you had Wilson and his points and on the other we had Italy who wanted what they had been promised. Wilson won the argument. The "promise breakers" were England and France, but in Wilson's POV they shouldn't have made those promises anyway.
Doesn't make them any less stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
My only argument with you this entire time has been your often gross exaggeration of the facts and jingoism. Here you have finally reached something I can agree with. The Italian forces involved post capitulation in Italy served an important role for both sides. I would argue that they were far more of a factor for the Germans just given the sheer numbers involved that actively fought on the German side. Where we disagreed was that it was an all Italian effort and they were most responsible. Heck, if it wasn't for the Allied troops invading, there wouldn't have even been an armistice. Certainly the Italian soldiers played a role in liberating (or attempting to subjugate depending on your view) their own country. However, the Italian forces were largely dependent on the Allies or Germans to conduct operations and sustain campaigns.
Imagine the same campaign but one of the sides doesn't have an Italian force. The opposer would've definitely lost, & this includes without the Mafia as well for Sicily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The Italian divisions served almost entirely as supporting elements for the Germans. Many individual units fought well, but they were disorganized and accomplished little but short term tactical gains on their own. Most of their brilliant actions occurred fighting in direct concert with German units under German commanders. When the Germans left, they were done. Albert Kesselring was even more condemning of the Italian effort claiming that the Germans were "fighting alone".
They were done because they had lost everything but where they were evacuating from. Plus, there were Italian forces in the evacuation as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
This is incorrect. The British captured El Agheila and were then ordered to halt so that forces could be moved to support the Greek front. Had those forces been used to further reinforce the gains made during Compass it is reasonable that the British could have thrown the Italians out of North Africa. The Italians, while still fielding 150,000 troops, had stripped all of their better guns and almost all of their motor transport and placed it in the now destroyed 10th Army. The British had to make a choice...
1. Defend Greece from a looming German invasion in an attempt to create a Greece, Yugoslav, Turkey front to resist the Germans. This would mean abandoning the offensive in North Africa.
2. Abandon Greece to Germany, give up any hope of a Balkan's Front and continue the offensive in Africa.
Ultimately the British chose option one. They knew the Italians were reinforcing North Africa and they knew the Germans were sending troops as well. They thought that it would take several months for these forces to become a threat again. They also believed that British support to the Greek army would allow the Greeks to hold the Aliakmon Line for an extended time. This would tie up German and Italian troops and provide the basis for the second front that the British desperately wanted to open. According to Churchill the idea of a German invasion of the Soviet Union while thought likely, was still not a reality. Had it been a reality, the strategy chosen might have been different.
As it turned out, the British were wrong about Africa and Greece. The Greek army failed to withdrawal and reinforce the Aliakmon Line. The troops of the BEF were no match against the German invasion without the Greek army in strong defensive positions. The Italo-German buildup moved much faster in North Africa than they anticipated and Rommel was a much more aggressive commander than they were used to facing.
Um...The Italians invaded Ethiopia in 1935. Germany annexed Austria during Anschluss in 1938. Mussolini was "outraged" because Hitler didn't consult with him on any of the moves he was making.
He was outraged because he condemned Hitler's decision to invade & he acted anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Junior members are informed of things after they happen. Senior/equal members are consulted before action is taken. Just about everyone points to Austria as the moment that Hitler basically told Mussolini he was the junior partner. From there on out Mussolini tries to go tit for Hitler's tat and enjoys his highest level of fame and power when he organizes the Munich Conference...which was basically giving Hitler a stage to play on. Then we have the fact that Germany started the war in 1939 despite having pledged to Italy in the Pact of Steel that neither power would begin hostilities prior to 1943.
Hitler didn't inform anyone of any of his plans, unless if they were involved in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Mussolini in his own words saw the German military as far and away the greater military power. Italy's economy was a fraction of that of Britain and France and their military utilized mostly obsolete weapons, at least by "beginning of WW2" standards. Italy was completely unprepared for war and had really just begun the latest round of modernization. Italy, while counted among the "Great Powers" was more of an emerging industrial nation than a "Great Power". I don't think anyone regarded the Italian ability to wage war "highly".
I was saying they were highly viewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Italy invaded originally and got mauled. During the counter-attack the Greeks took upwards of a quarter of Albania and tied down over 500,000 Italian troops. The Italians then launched a counter-attack in March that featured 17 Italian divisions against 13 Greek in strong defensive positions. Mussolini personally oversaw the offensive in the hopes of breaking open the Albanian front before the Germans intervened in April. This offensive failed and the stalemate resumed. The Germans invaded from Bulgaria in April in the hopes of ending Greek resistance before even more British units could arrive. The Germans destroyed the Greek and British forces in the span of around 4 weeks.
Those forces came much later & only half of the number of division you listed for both sides were actually there.
The reinforcements I'm referring to were sent afterwards, for the Battle of Greece.
Nothing you say changes his point which was that Italy's invasion of Greece failed until German troops arrived. Only after German troops arrived did the war against Greece go in Axis favor. Prior to German arrival, Italy's armies were ineffective against the Greeks.
Doesn't make them any less stupid.
No, but it negates the earlier argument you were trying to make.
Imagine the same campaign but one of the sides doesn't have an Italian force. The opposer would've definitely lost, & this includes without the Mafia as well for Sicily.
Nope. The Allies would have won regardless, it just would have been more costly. Even if you were correct, it does not change the fact that the Italians were the weakest link in the chain. German, British, and American divisions were vastly superior to Italian divisions on average.
They were done because they had lost everything but where they were evacuating from. Plus, there were Italian forces in the evacuation as well.
And why had they "lost everything"? Because of previous Italian failures. They were good at evacuating though.
What does that prove? He proved you wrong about the British troops being re-deplyed and you dodged that part. Your map does nothing to negate what he said. Overall, you continue to make excuses about why the Italians lost despite having a 7:1 troop advantage. You are claiming some sort of victory.
He was outraged because he condemned Hitler's decision to invade & he acted anyway.
You are delusional if you think Hitler cared what the Italians thought. The Italians were a junior partner and a pawn in Hitler's game. If you believe otherwise, nobody will take you seriously ever.
Hitler didn't inform anyone of any of his plans, unless if they were involved in it.
You are correct. He did not inform the Soviets about Barbarossa either. What is your point? All this shows is that the Italians played second-fiddle to the Germans.
I was saying they were highly viewed.
So because you said it makes it true? Nobody believes that except you. You have provided no proof of that. Nowhere in any history books does it say that.
Those forces came much later & only half of the number of division you listed for both sides were actually there.
You are wrong here too. Not even worth replying to. If you cannot except simple facts about troop statistics and continually make up make-believe statistics then its not worth arguing with you.
I think what is overlooked is the British singlehandedly (besides some exceptional Free Polish and Czech pilots) defeated, to a large extent, the Kreigsmarine and the Lufwuaffe before the Eastern front was even opened. Also they defeated the Italians with Commonweath Forces.
Then the 75/25 distribution started in June of 1941.
I think what is overlooked is the British singlehandedly (besides some exceptional Free Polish and Czech pilots) defeated, to a large extent, the Kreigsmarine and the Lufwuaffe before the Eastern front was even opened. Also they defeated the Italians with Commonweath Forces.
Then the 75/25 distribution started in June of 1941.
Well the Royal Navy's dominance against the Kreigsmarine was to be expected. The British were widely considered to have the world's best navy. The British had far more ships than the Germans. The trump card for the Germans was the U-boats which remained effective until 1943.
The British defeated the Italians, but that was due more to the incompetence of the Italians than the greatness of the British. The British had a small force of 36,000 troops defending Egypt against the Italian invasion force of 250,000 troops. The British forces totally routed the Italian army and chased them back to Libya. The only thing preventing the British from expelling the Italians from the continent was the British having to re-deploy those forces to Greece due to the Italian invasion of Greece. The British/Greek force then thwarted the Italians twice in Greece despite facing a 550,000 strong Italian invasion force. It took German intervention to defeat Greece.
Nothing you say changes his point which was that Italy's invasion of Greece failed until German troops arrived. Only after German troops arrived did the war against Greece go in Axis favor. Prior to German arrival, Italy's armies were ineffective against the Greeks.
No, but it negates the earlier argument you were trying to make.
Nope. The Allies would have won regardless, it just would have been more costly. Even if you were correct, it does not change the fact that the Italians were the weakest link in the chain. German, British, and American divisions were vastly superior to Italian divisions on average.
And why had they "lost everything"? Because of previous Italian failures. They were good at evacuating though.
What does that prove? He proved you wrong about the British troops being re-deplyed and you dodged that part. Your map does nothing to negate what he said. Overall, you continue to make excuses about why the Italians lost despite having a 7:1 troop advantage. You are claiming some sort of victory.
You are delusional if you think Hitler cared what the Italians thought. The Italians were a junior partner and a pawn in Hitler's game. If you believe otherwise, nobody will take you seriously ever.
You are correct. He did not inform the Soviets about Barbarossa either. What is your point? All this shows is that the Italians played second-fiddle to the Germans.
So because you said it makes it true? Nobody believes that except you. You have provided no proof of that. Nowhere in any history books does it say that.
You are wrong here too. Not even worth replying to. If you cannot except simple facts about troop statistics and continually make up make-believe statistics then its not worth arguing with you.
That was mere timing & coincidence
I was saying they broke their promise & that was wrong & stupid, how does that negate my previous my earlier argument.
They were disorganized because of the Civil War, but that didn't make them much weaker. Plus, on the Allies' side, that included the partisans, who freed multiple cities behind enemy lines & drew away troops from both of the Axis forces.
The Italian forces weren't the only reason they lost. What next, they lost the whole war for the Axis?
I went over that point earlier & he recently said that they took El Agheila, & I was proving him wrong. Maybe if you'd actually read ANYTHING, you'd get somewhere. No I'm not claiming it as a victory, I was just saying the defeat wasn't as bad as people claim & had logical reasons for it other then 'they suck'.
I know he didn't care, I was just saying what happened.
The Nazis treated ALL their allies like second fiddle, dint's just say that about the Italians.
I said both sides had half the divisions, not just one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
I think what is overlooked is the British singlehandedly (besides some exceptional Free Polish and Czech pilots) defeated, to a large extent, the Kreigsmarine and the Lufwuaffe before the Eastern front was even opened. Also they defeated the Italians with Commonweath Forces.
Then the 75/25 distribution started in June of 1941.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
Well the Royal Navy's dominance against the Kreigsmarine was to be expected. The British were widely considered to have the world's best navy. The British had far more ships than the Germans. The trump card for the Germans was the U-boats which remained effective until 1943.
The British defeated the Italians, but that was due more to the incompetence of the Italians than the greatness of the British. The British had a small force of 36,000 troops defending Egypt against the Italian invasion force of 250,000 troops. The British forces totally routed the Italian army and chased them back to Libya. The only thing preventing the British from expelling the Italians from the continent was the British having to re-deploy those forces to Greece due to the Italian invasion of Greece. The British/Greek force then thwarted the Italians twice in Greece despite facing a 550,000 strong Italian invasion force. It took German intervention to defeat Greece.
Again, the Italians had little to no tanks & the British had almost all of their forces as tanks. Also, again, they were halted by resistance at El Agheila. Those forces were sent right before the Battle of Greece, not before. The German intervention was completely unnecessary.
I was saying they broke their promise & that was wrong & stupid, how does that negate my previous my earlier argument.
They were disorganized because of the Civil War, but that didn't make them much weaker. Plus, on the Allies' side, that included the partisans, who freed multiple cities behind enemy lines & drew away troops from both of the Axis forces.
The Italian forces weren't the only reason they lost. What next, they lost the whole war for the Axis?
I went over that point earlier & he recently said that they took El Agheila, & I was proving him wrong. Maybe if you'd actually read ANYTHING, you'd get somewhere. No I'm not claiming it as a victory, I was just saying the defeat wasn't as bad as people claim & had logical reasons for it other then 'they suck'.
I know he didn't care, I was just saying what happened.
The Nazis treated ALL their allies like second fiddle, dint's just say that about the Italians.
I said both sides had half the divisions, not just one of them.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Again, the Italians had little to no tanks & the British had almost all of their forces as tanks. Also, again, they were halted by resistance at El Agheila. Those forces were sent right before the Battle of Greece, not before. The German intervention was completely unnecessary.
The part about El Aghelia- You completely ignored most of his post and only provided a map showing a small battle. You dodged the rest of his post where he proved you wrong. You only answer the questions you want to answer and skip over everything else.
You keep talking about how the Italians had "little to no tanks" and how the British had many tanks. What proof do you have of this? If it is true, then that shows ill-equipped and unprepared the Italians were. You keep making excuses for why the Italians failed. Yet you seem to ignore the overall concept that the Italians performed horribly.
You are the one trying to re-write history here, so the burden is on you to prove to us that the Italians were much better in WW2 than common opinions suggest. So far, you've done little to advance your argument and have shot yourself in the foot numerous times.
The part about El Aghelia- You completely ignored most of his post and only provided a map showing a small battle. You dodged the rest of his post where he proved you wrong. You only answer the questions you want to answer and skip over everything else.
You keep talking about how the Italians had "little to no tanks" and how the British had many tanks. What proof do you have of this? If it is true, then that shows ill-equipped and unprepared the Italians were. You keep making excuses for why the Italians failed. Yet you seem to ignore the overall concept that the Italians performed horribly.
The map showed how far they got during Operation Compass, proving that they were stopped & didn't take it.
It was in the book "Desert War". I forget the author, but it was one of those books that had a black & white picture as both covers. I'm trying to prove that there was a logical explanation for the defeat as opposed to Italians sucking, & I'm well aware of their bad performance.
The map showed how far they got during Operation Compass, proving that they were stopped & didn't take it.
It was in the book "Desert War". I forget the author, but it was one of those books that had a black & white picture as both covers. I'm trying to prove that there was a logical explanation for the defeat as opposed to Italians sucking, & I'm well aware of their bad performance.
They didn't take it because the British were forced to stop their advance to transfer those troops to Greece. This is the part you conveniently ignored. You act as if the Italians "stopped" the British, which is simply false. The Italian army was in total disarray and their troops were being captured by the tens of thousands. They were running for their lives. The only thing that saved them was the British being forced to withdraw their troops and re-deploy them to Greece.
The only logical explanation for the defeat was for the Italians sucking. Yes. That is true. As I've said multiple times, the Italian armies were very poor. They had some good individual troops who fought well under German command. Without German command, the Italians were hopeless.
Now you're admitting that the Italians performed poorly? I thought the whole time you were trying to convince us that the Italians were great?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
