Norman D. Landings wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 4:18 pm
No Balkan war means no post-war Soviet dominance of the Balkan nations.
Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were all German allies, and Tito was likely to get power in Jugoslavia anyway, so no real changes in the east, except of course, had Barbarossa started earlier, could they have taken Moscow, which would have been curtains for the western Russia defense.
So trade a Russia dominated Eastern Europe for a Nazi backing one.
levied troop wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:46 pm
There’s a review in this weeks Guardian of ‘Mussolini’s War....
Might be a good read, but I still can't bring myself to buy a copy. Not to be seen buying it round here anyway.
Would there have been any chance, however sight, of Italy joining the Allies, say after DDay and Germany inevitably being seen to lose? Or would they have stayed neutral and just survived like Spain?
FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 9:09 pm
After D Day, allies would not have had them.
I agree with that, we wouldn't have needed their navy and they still didn't have a decent tank by 1943. As Mussolini's War summarised it, they lacked the industrial structure to go onto a modern war footing, this was worsened by a reluctance to let women into production roles.
I know when to go out
I know when to stay in
Get things done
levied troop wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:46 pm
There’s a review in this weeks Guardian of ‘Mussolini’s War....
Might be a good read, but I still can't bring myself to buy a copy. Not to be seen buying it round here anyway.
Would there have been any chance, however sight, of Italy joining the Allies, say after DDay and Germany inevitably being seen to lose? Or would they have stayed neutral and just survived like Spain?
You're safe, today's Times covered it. Staying neutral didn't do Franco any harm did it?
I know when to go out
I know when to stay in
Get things done
The Murray/Holland podcast discussed Portugal's neutrality a week or so ago. Surprisingly (to me, at least) it was unconnected with Brazil's neutrality, although both declared for the Allies late on. The UK, citing an alliance made in 1373, encouraged Portuguese neutrality as it's non-aggression pact with Spain meant that both nations stayed out of the war and were thus able to assist refugees and escaping Allied servicemen. Both the UK and US were allowed clandestine use of bases in the Azores (which the Germans had threatened to seize earlier on in the war) and diplomats from both countries remarked on how much easier it had been to deal with the right-wing, but neutral government of Salazar, than the socialist government of Portugal in WW1 when it was supposedly an ally.
Kein Plan überlebt den ersten Kontakt mit den Würfeln. (No plan survives the first contact with the dice.) Baron Mannshed von Wreckedoften, First Sea Lord of the Bavarian Admiralty.
grizzlymc wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:23 pm
It would have meant that the route to the Far East was through the Med. Better battleship escort for convoys, more naval assets to deploy to Singapore. Perhaps more assets to Greece, or even an earlier Torch.
Who knows, maybe the Italian Geological Survey might have examined the issue of who was polluting wells in Libya.
No Greek or Balkan campaign at all, since it was basically pulling Italy's chestnuts out of the fire.
levied troop wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:46 pm
There’s a review in this weeks Guardian of ‘Mussolini’s War: Facist Italy from Triumph to Collapse’ by John Gooch which argues that Italy was deficient in all resources required for war and was heavily dependent on on a Germany often reluctant to supply it but happy to use it as a distraction.
