From: east coast, usa
The two cents is appreciated, and I agree with what you have said. It doesn't make sense and that is why the US wouldn't go along. It was something Churchill wanted to do in order to have British influence on the area after the war.
Its not a stand alone scenario, its an add on to an Axis solitaire scenario of the ETO, so its another way of keeping the Axis player on his toes.
So I was more interested in debate/ideas on the operational aspects as I outlined them in posts 1 and 2 (I don't mind doing something silly, but for the integrity of the scenario it should have a thread of reason to stand on). I can forget all the arguements against it and focus on the premise that Eisenhower has been ordered to make it happen.
All other operations would happen as historical, with the exception of Overlord in Normandy. Once Sicily and southern Italy are under Allied control, enough airbases are available to support the operation. Ports and other airbases all over the Mediteranean would be used. Once the 'lodgement area' is established in Greece and the buildup complete, the British would advance thru Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary to piss Stalin off, and then thru eastern Germany. The US would push thru Albania-Yugoslavia to outflank Axis forces in Italy and then join with the Allied forces from Italy to drive into southern Germany via Vienna and Prague. Dragoon would still occur in southern France, with emphasis on driving to Brittany and Cherbourg. Extra forces that could not be supplied thru the Mediteranean-Balkans net would be available to reinforce Dragoon to some extent, while the balance of units would arrive in northern France as ports become available. For example, US V Corp thru Normandy historically grew to eight divisions, but thru the Balkans it can only support three divisions, the other five assisting in Dragoon or waiting in England for ports in northern France to open.