I dispute - Italy was drag on the Axis in WWII
Aug 30, 2022 16:16:36 GMT
via mobile
stevep, gillan1220, and 1 more like this
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 30, 2022 16:16:36 GMT
[lightly edited a day later to correct the errors introduced by the 'auto-correct' feature. This AI feature still needs to improve its mind-reading skills]
Was Italy a drag on the Axis in WWII?
The answer, as always, depends on “Compared to what?”
If compared to a competent, hard-core, industrialized, or resource rich *hypothetical* Italy that did not exist in 1940, of course Italy was a drag in its Allies.
Compared with Italy sitting the war out as a neutral, it was *not* a drag on its allies, and it’s unglamorous, inelegant, ankle-biting participation in the war helped the Germans and Japanese last longer and do better than they otherwise would have.
People used to say if Italy is not in the war, Germany does not need to spend time on the April-May Balkans campaign, so it has time to start Barbarossa in May and with an extra month before winter it can get to Moscow.
The problem that people have noted with that in recent decades is, even if you take away the need for the Balkan campaign, the Germans could not invade the USSR much earlier than OTL because spring rains kept the ground too muddy and messy through May and early June to permit the Germans to make the swift advances and encirclements they needed. The problem with attacking Russia when the ground is still soggy is you can’t do as well at first but the Russians are getting alerted the war is on.
The only way to really resolve this dispute one way or the other is to get our hands on Soviet weather reports (and Nazi ones) from May and June 1941.
The only thing that improves for the Germans in a no Italy scenario is the units are less worn out from the Balkan campaign.
The Italians lost battles regularly and steadily, but they kept the British busy for years, mainly fighting them, with German augmentation, instead of fighting in Northern Europe or the Far East.
The Germans helped the Italians with air and armor units in Africa, but the Italians provided the naval escort and supply system. The Italians also sent more men to Russia than Germany sent to Africa or the Med until 1943.
So yeah, if Italy stays neutral, Germany gains a couple things- a leakier blockade (but not too much for too long -Britain will ration imports eventually), no African or Yugoslav or Greek deployments and less wear and tear on their units involved as they get ready for Barbarossa. And Britain, even with fuller concentration on Germany, still cannot D-Day in France in 1941.
However, Britain also gains a lot of advantages from a neutral Italy, they show up quickly, and multiply cumulatively over time.
Without war in the Med, shipping is much easier, and it is easier to fight the U Boat threat from late 1940 on.
With building UK forces more concentrated at home and not in the Middle East, the German garrison in France and Norway, even during Barbarossa 1941 will have to be a little bit bigger.
Germany will not be able to entirely ignore its southern borders- the problem will be small and manageable at first, but grow over time. Germany will need some troops in case Italy turns on her or Yugoslavia is persuaded to join the British side.
After Barbarossa, the advantages for Britain and the Allies only increase. Without Italy in the Axis and a strong consequent German presence in Greece, the Aegean, and southern Balkans, the British and Americans will be able to ship aid to Russia via the Turkish straits with merchant vessels and unload it at Soviet Black Sea ports, from where it can be distributed far more efficiently and quickly than via the Murmansk, Iran, or Pacific routes to Russian front-line forces and industries.
Without being knocked on their heels in Egypt, or losing in Greece, the British could be able to reinforce Malaya and Burma and hold out against the Japanese.
These pluses all add up, even if Britain can’t start an actual land front for a long time.
Even if the Germans, through some better units, a couple extra weeks, and luck, did seize Moscow city center before the end of 1941, that’s not necessarily game over for the USSR or even European Russia- there is still plenty of important territory before you reach the Volga. It could just turn into a 1941-42 version of Stalingrad, but in Moscow, with the German captors of the city besieged there and then defeated.
Was Italy a drag on the Axis in WWII?
The answer, as always, depends on “Compared to what?”
If compared to a competent, hard-core, industrialized, or resource rich *hypothetical* Italy that did not exist in 1940, of course Italy was a drag in its Allies.
Compared with Italy sitting the war out as a neutral, it was *not* a drag on its allies, and it’s unglamorous, inelegant, ankle-biting participation in the war helped the Germans and Japanese last longer and do better than they otherwise would have.
People used to say if Italy is not in the war, Germany does not need to spend time on the April-May Balkans campaign, so it has time to start Barbarossa in May and with an extra month before winter it can get to Moscow.
The problem that people have noted with that in recent decades is, even if you take away the need for the Balkan campaign, the Germans could not invade the USSR much earlier than OTL because spring rains kept the ground too muddy and messy through May and early June to permit the Germans to make the swift advances and encirclements they needed. The problem with attacking Russia when the ground is still soggy is you can’t do as well at first but the Russians are getting alerted the war is on.
The only way to really resolve this dispute one way or the other is to get our hands on Soviet weather reports (and Nazi ones) from May and June 1941.
The only thing that improves for the Germans in a no Italy scenario is the units are less worn out from the Balkan campaign.
The Italians lost battles regularly and steadily, but they kept the British busy for years, mainly fighting them, with German augmentation, instead of fighting in Northern Europe or the Far East.
The Germans helped the Italians with air and armor units in Africa, but the Italians provided the naval escort and supply system. The Italians also sent more men to Russia than Germany sent to Africa or the Med until 1943.
So yeah, if Italy stays neutral, Germany gains a couple things- a leakier blockade (but not too much for too long -Britain will ration imports eventually), no African or Yugoslav or Greek deployments and less wear and tear on their units involved as they get ready for Barbarossa. And Britain, even with fuller concentration on Germany, still cannot D-Day in France in 1941.
However, Britain also gains a lot of advantages from a neutral Italy, they show up quickly, and multiply cumulatively over time.
Without war in the Med, shipping is much easier, and it is easier to fight the U Boat threat from late 1940 on.
With building UK forces more concentrated at home and not in the Middle East, the German garrison in France and Norway, even during Barbarossa 1941 will have to be a little bit bigger.
Germany will not be able to entirely ignore its southern borders- the problem will be small and manageable at first, but grow over time. Germany will need some troops in case Italy turns on her or Yugoslavia is persuaded to join the British side.
After Barbarossa, the advantages for Britain and the Allies only increase. Without Italy in the Axis and a strong consequent German presence in Greece, the Aegean, and southern Balkans, the British and Americans will be able to ship aid to Russia via the Turkish straits with merchant vessels and unload it at Soviet Black Sea ports, from where it can be distributed far more efficiently and quickly than via the Murmansk, Iran, or Pacific routes to Russian front-line forces and industries.
Without being knocked on their heels in Egypt, or losing in Greece, the British could be able to reinforce Malaya and Burma and hold out against the Japanese.
These pluses all add up, even if Britain can’t start an actual land front for a long time.
Even if the Germans, through some better units, a couple extra weeks, and luck, did seize Moscow city center before the end of 1941, that’s not necessarily game over for the USSR or even European Russia- there is still plenty of important territory before you reach the Volga. It could just turn into a 1941-42 version of Stalingrad, but in Moscow, with the German captors of the city besieged there and then defeated.
