The question to ask about The Italians

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
ORIGINAL: warspite1

And just to clarify so there is no confusion. I haven't read (or if I have I've forgotten) what studies the army and air force may have carried out in 1939 about taking the war to the United Kingdom. My guess is - and it is a guess - is that any such studies don't assume the defeat of France, rather it assumes war with France is on-going and air and naval war against the UK is to be conducted within that framework.

In the absence of any confirmation otherwise then I am assuming that Directive No.9 reflected those studies and looked at taking the war to the UK, but only in the context that war with France is on-going.

If that is wrong then no problem, and I'd certainly be interested in what they came up with.
What they came up with included both an Army invasion study and a Navy one. Both were soon rejected as no invasion could even be considered until Britain had been broken militarily and economically first. I'll try to find them but remember, this particular theater of war isn't my preferred ride.[:'(]

Edit - I just noticed the late '39 invasion studies are both briefly described in the Wikipedia entry for Operation Sea Lion. You'll just have to take me on my word that's not where I first read of them during my earlier scholarly pursuits.[:D]
warspite1

Thank-you. So I looked at those and yes, these studies assume that, as per Directive No.6, the Germans have taken the Low Countries and some coastal territory in North East France such that they are then able to consider taking the war to the UK while fighting the French at the same time.

It's interesting given what happened in real life subsequently, that the Germans appeared to be looking at fighting France in an almost WWI style situation.

I love the German Army study that suggested invasion forces being sent from The Low Countries. Wow!! So not only would they consider sending invasion barges such a distance, they would do so while still fighting the French.....

Well I think this member of the firing squad said it best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzbZRXYRwp0




Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

To be fair, I think that a certain ex-member of the forum, long since banished for some pretty weird views, did at least have it right on one occasion. He gave us these very wise words to ponder.

The answer is always:

Image
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

The question to ask the Italians is "Why didn't you stay neutral?" Would of been so much better for Hitler if they did.

It’s an interesting question. I don’t think it makes too much difference to Germany in the long run to be honest – although it would certainly have meant less distraction, less diversion of resources. But enough to tip the scales in the USSR? No, I don’t think so.

But I think Italy is a more interesting question. Could Italy have stayed neutral? Yes, I think the example of Franco shows us that Italy could and Mussolini could have survived into old age running the country.

But the question was “Why didn’t [Italy] stay neutral?” and this is interesting because it’s clear Italy could have.

Mussolini wasn’t interested in living out his life to a grand old age – he wanted a New Roman Empire – North and East Africa, large parts of south east Europe, parts of France. He not only wanted Mare Nostrum for the Mediterranean, but he wanted an Italy free of the jailers that, as he saw it, were preventing Italy from accessing the oceans of the world.
Italy couldn’t achieve any of this alone. As much as he hated it, often railed against it, and even feared it, Mussolini knew that if his dreams of glory were going to become a reality then Italy would have to throw in its lot with Germany at some point. As he said in September 1939:

I…. believe…. Even if we march on separate paths – that Destiny will nevertheless continue to bind us together. If National Socialist Germany is destroyed by the western democracies, Fascist Italy would face a hard future.

But Mussolini, in his sane moments, knew the extent of Italian limitations. I think that Ciano – who feared Italy getting involved, did try his best to avoid war, but with a boss fixated on ‘Empire’, there really wasn’t much he could do and offer by way of alternatives.
Mussolini and many others in Italy – including many close to Il Duce – knew full well that Italy was not prepared – even for a short war.

The spending in the thirties – on Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil war in particular, meant that Italy was spending money she couldn’t afford on foreign adventures, while ignoring what was needed to be done at home – Lira reserves at the bank of Italy were 20bn in 1927 and just 3bn in 1939. So, in late August 1939, just before war came to Poland, Mussolini had no choice but to tell Hitler of his decision to stay neutral. Both the army and the air force had fuel stocks of less than two months (only the navy had built up reserves of around 12 month). Annual steel production was 2.4 million tons – a tenth of Germany and way behind Britain’s 13.3 million tons. Coal and other vital raw materials were low to zero.

Like Hitler, Mussolini loved numbers (quantity over quality) and as such he was determined to have a big army. But a big army could not be supported given Italy’s industrial position. Instead of say 20 fully equipped division, Mussolini insisted on more than 70. To achieve these ‘numbers’ he had to reduce the manpower in each division, but this did not solve the fact that many of the divisions were simply not properly equipped. At the time of Albania the air force boasted of 3,000 aircraft – a report that year showed less than a thousand – and the mainstay of the fighter arm was a biplane. The navy started the war with two updated WWI battleships (although two more plus two Littorios were on the way), but the submarine service, while enormous, contained boats that were not up to scratch and there was little to nothing by way of naval air co-operation.

So in a moment of clarity, but to his own disgust (Verrat (traitor) is how he was heard to be mumbling to himself), Mussolini told Hitler he couldn’t honour the Pact of Steel. As we’ve seen in previous posts, Mussolini then went through periods of pro-German and positively anti-German moods.

But… nothing had materially changed between September 1939 and June 1940 in terms of Italy’s overall preparedness for war. So why did he declare war? Ultimately there is one reason. Mussolini’s dreams of a New Roman Empire. So, fatefully for Italy, in June 1940 Mussolini thought the war was won and so all he had to do was present a few thousand dead to the peace table, sit back and then grab Italy’s share of the booty. Sadly for Italy, the war wasn’t won and Britain refused to surrender……

So ultimately there was one reason Italy didn’t stay neutral, and that was Benito Mussolini.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Bo Rearguard »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
He not only wanted Mare Nostrum for the Mediterranean, but he wanted an Italy free of the jailers that, as he saw it, were preventing Italy from accessing the oceans of the world.

This was a chronic complaint Mussolini was fond of harping on. He often wailed that Italy was a prisoner in the Mediterranean. He called Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, and Cyprus "the bars of this prison", and described Gibraltar and Suez as the prison guards.

Well, his WW2 prison break sure didn't go well. He probably should have gone the Shawshank route and gotten one of those little geological hammers and a poster of Raquel Welch.

Image
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: warspite1
He not only wanted Mare Nostrum for the Mediterranean, but he wanted an Italy free of the jailers that, as he saw it, were preventing Italy from accessing the oceans of the world.

This was a chronic complaint Mussolini was fond of harping on. He often wailed that Italy was a prisoner in the Mediterranean. He called Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, and Cyprus "the bars of this prison", and described Gibraltar and Suez as the prison guards.
warspite1

Which is why Mussolini would have been very, very worried at the invasion of Spain by Germany and would have been desperate for the capture of Suez to be an Italian feat of arms.

We don't have to think about these things when pushing cardboard counters, or clicking on pixels, but for anyone interested in discussing counterfactuals and history, then yes, they very much do have to.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4035
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The question to ask the Italians is "Why didn't you stay neutral?" Would of been so much better for Hitler if they did.

It’s an interesting question. I don’t think it makes too much difference to Germany in the long run to be honest – although it would certainly have meant less distraction, less diversion of resources. But enough to tip the scales in the USSR? No, I don’t think so.

But I think Italy is a more interesting question. Could Italy have stayed neutral? Yes, I think the example of Franco shows us that Italy could and Mussolini could have survived into old age running the country.

But the question was “Why didn’t [Italy] stay neutral?” and this is interesting because it’s clear Italy could have.

Mussolini wasn’t interested in living out his life to a grand old age – he wanted a New Roman Empire – North and East Africa, large parts of south east Europe, parts of France. He not only wanted Mare Nostrum for the Mediterranean, but he wanted an Italy free of the jailers that, as he saw it, were preventing Italy from accessing the oceans of the world.
Italy couldn’t achieve any of this alone. As much as he hated it, often railed against it, and even feared it, Mussolini knew that if his dreams of glory were going to become a reality then Italy would have to throw in its lot with Germany at some point. As he said in September 1939:

I…. believe…. Even if we march on separate paths – that Destiny will nevertheless continue to bind us together. If National Socialist Germany is destroyed by the western democracies, Fascist Italy would face a hard future.

But Mussolini, in his sane moments, knew the extent of Italian limitations. I think that Ciano – who feared Italy getting involved, did try his best to avoid war, but with a boss fixated on ‘Empire’, there really wasn’t much he could do and offer by way of alternatives.
Mussolini and many others in Italy – including many close to Il Duce – knew full well that Italy was not prepared – even for a short war.

The spending in the thirties – on Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil war in particular, meant that Italy was spending money she couldn’t afford on foreign adventures, while ignoring what was needed to be done at home – Lira reserves at the bank of Italy were 20bn in 1927 and just 3bn in 1939. So, in late August 1939, just before war came to Poland, Mussolini had no choice but to tell Hitler of his decision to stay neutral. Both the army and the air force had fuel stocks of less than two months (only the navy had built up reserves of around 12 month). Annual steel production was 2.4 million tons – a tenth of Germany and way behind Britain’s 13.3 million tons. Coal and other vital raw materials were low to zero.

Like Hitler, Mussolini loved numbers (quantity over quality) and as such he was determined to have a big army. But a big army could not be supported given Italy’s industrial position. Instead of say 20 fully equipped division, Mussolini insisted on more than 70. To achieve these ‘numbers’ he had to reduce the manpower in each division, but this did not solve the fact that many of the divisions were simply not properly equipped. At the time of Albania the air force boasted of 3,000 aircraft – a report that year showed less than a thousand – and the mainstay of the fighter arm was a biplane. The navy started the war with two updated WWI battleships (although two more plus two Littorios were on the way), but the submarine service, while enormous, contained boats that were not up to scratch and there was little to nothing by way of naval air co-operation.

So in a moment of clarity, but to his own disgust (Verrat (traitor) is how he was heard to be mumbling to himself), Mussolini told Hitler he couldn’t honour the Pact of Steel. As we’ve seen in previous posts, Mussolini then went through periods of pro-German and positively anti-German moods.

But… nothing had materially changed between September 1939 and June 1940 in terms of Italy’s overall preparedness for war. So why did he declare war? Ultimately there is one reason. Mussolini’s dreams of a New Roman Empire. So, fatefully for Italy, in June 1940 Mussolini thought the war was won and so all he had to do was present a few thousand dead to the peace table, sit back and then grab Italy’s share of the booty. Sadly for Italy, the war wasn’t won and Britain refused to surrender……

So ultimately there was one reason Italy didn’t stay neutral, and that was Benito Mussolini.

Very well put and well thought out.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
UP844
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by UP844 »

Warspite, your post #1343 is right on target! [&o].

While I agree that old Benito was the main cause Italy went to war, it is not altogether inconcevaible that he should have remained neutral. Unfortunately, he believed his own bombastic speeches about "eight million bayonets".
ORIGINAL: warspite1

We don't have to think about these things when pushing cardboard counters, or clicking on pixels, but for anyone interested in discussing counterfactuals and history, then yes, they very much do have to.

[&o][&o][&o]

P.S. On a marginal note, even though the Regia Marina got the use of Gibraltar, its ships were conceived for sailing in the Mediterranean, so they were short-ranged (the "Soldati" class destroyers had a range of 2,200 miles, against the 5,500 miles of the RN "J/K" or the USN "Fletcher" destroyers).

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP
User avatar
Bo Rearguard
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Basement of the Alamo

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Bo Rearguard »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Which is why Mussolini would have been very, very worried at the invasion of Spain by Germany and would have been desperate for the capture of Suez to be an Italian feat of arms.


Roger that. "Each day of battle brings us closer to the goal."

Image
Attachments
1fca7c7308..0c3fc32a.jpg
1fca7c7308..0c3fc32a.jpg (245.79 KiB) Viewed 501 times
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864
User avatar
RFalvo69
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: Lamezia Terme (Italy)

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RFalvo69 »

ORIGINAL: UP844

Warspite, your post #1343 is right on target! [&o].

While I agree that old Benito was the main cause Italy went to war, it is not altogether inconcevaible that he should have remained neutral. Unfortunately, he believed his own bombastic speeches about "eight million bayonets".
And notice how, quite ironically, the rhetoric itself betrayed Mussolini's unpreparedness. He boasted about "bayonets" in the age of mechanised warfare...
"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 16283
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: UP844

Warspite, your post #1343 is right on target! [&o].

While I agree that old Benito was the main cause Italy went to war, it is not altogether inconcevaible that he should have remained neutral. Unfortunately, he believed his own bombastic speeches about "eight million bayonets".
And notice how, quite ironically, the rhetoric itself betrayed Mussolini's unpreparedness. He boasted about "bayonets" in the age of mechanised warfare...

Too bad someone did not feed him ravioli stuffed with poisonous mushrooms . . . [:(]
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: UP844

P.S. On a marginal note, even though the Regia Marina got the use of Gibraltar, its ships were conceived for sailing in the Mediterranean, so they were short-ranged (the "Soldati" class destroyers had a range of 2,200 miles, against the 5,500 miles of the RN "J/K" or the USN "Fletcher" destroyers).
warspite1

Indeed, and the range was not their only problem. Many RM destroyers were not good sea boats and pretty fragile too - as amply demonstrated after the 2nd Battle of Sirte.... maybe not ideal for the Atlantic! Obviously just having Gibraltar and denying it to the British would have been advantageous to the Axis, but so long as the British had taken bases in the Canaries (and possibly the Portuguese islands (depending how war in the Iberian Peninsular panned out)) then the impact would have been lessened, and there would likely be limited options for the RM - at least until the Mediterranean Fleet had been dealt with.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Buckrock »

Though they had Operation Puma for the Canaries on the books in 1940 (post French defeat), Churchill and the Defence Committee considered the islands too exposed (enemy land based air) to hold and use as a potential Gibraltar replacement. The Azores (even though they were Portuguese) instead were the primary option in 1940, with the Cape Verde islands possibly thrown in for good measure. It was only after Barbarossa that the British military leadership really felt confident enough to believe the Canaries might be taken and kept as a major operating base.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Though they had Operation Puma for the Canaries on the books in 1940 (post French defeat), Churchill and the Defence Committee considered the islands too exposed (enemy land based air) to hold and use as a potential Gibraltar replacement. The Azores (even though they were Portuguese) instead were the primary option in 1940, with the Cape Verde islands possibly thrown in for good measure. It was only after Barbarossa that the British military leadership really felt confident enough to believe the Canaries might be taken and kept as a major operating base.
warspite1

Well obviously we'll never know, but it would have been interesting to know what Churchill's reaction to an actual German invasion of Spain would be.

The CoS' would have been discussing 'Felix' i.e. a pro-German Spain (because who really believed that Hitler would invade Spain?). Therefore the Canaries would need to be taken by force and then occupied with a reluctant and resentful population. The British would also be discussing and accepting or rejecting a mere hypothetical.

But now - in this counterfactual - the British would be faced with a very different - and now very real - proposition; Germany have invaded Spain and Gibraltar isn't going to survive this. As with Greece in 1941, I don't think Churchill would have resisted any chance to take the war to Germany (whether sensible or not).

Now, Britain would be seen as an ally coming to assist the Spanish (and as mentioned previously they would do what they could). Therefore there would be agreement to British forces on the islands, time to get defences deployed - and a perhaps very important piece of Spanish soil to house Franco and a Government-in-exile.

Not having the faintest interest in The Canaries, even though push is now coming to shove, and the Admiralty are having to face up to the reality of the loss of The Rock - in this scenario would appear very strange on many levels. This is particularly true given what we know of Churchill's Modus Operandi.

I know this wouldn't suit Lemay's 'staff study' because he doesn't appear to take kindly to Allied leaders actually being able to react to different events (that is the preserve of the Axis only). But in this case, Churchill would be acting entirely in character.

As said, we will never know, but I think Puma would be taken off the shelf and dusted down - with appropriate revisions now that the Spanish are friendly - and a new Puma II drawn up [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Buckrock »

The British did believe Hitler might invade Spain (and Portugal) in 1940. The Joint Intel Committee actually stated (in Jan '41) they were surprised Germany had not done so during 1940 (and the Joint Planning Staff even laid out how the Germans might have conducted the operation during that period).

British military decision makers (DefComm and CoS) routinely looked at both potential options (Naughty Axis Spain and Innocent Neutral Victim Spain) while reviewing contingency plans that would involve a British intervention.
This was the only sig line I could think of.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41916
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

The British did believe Hitler might invade Spain (and Portugal) in 1940. The Joint Intel Committee actually stated (in Jan '41) they were surprised Germany had not done so during 1940 (and the Joint Planning Staff even laid out how the Germans might have conducted the operation during that period).

British military decision makers (DefComm and CoS) routinely looked at both potential options (Naughty Axis Spain and Innocent Neutral Victim Spain) while reviewing contingency plans that would involve a British intervention.
warspite1

Interesting, and I will conservatively assume that the no-no for the Canaries followed on from the Naughty Axis scenario - although its not clear from your post whether that was the case.

However, apart from some intelligence guys being surprised that Hitler didn't do something he appears to have had absolutely no intention to do (nice work intelligence guys [;)]), I don't really see (in my honest opinion) that this changes the way Churchill may well have reacted to an actual German move into the Iberian Peninsular.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
UP844
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by UP844 »

The RM destroyers (as well as the earlier classes of light and heavy cruisers) were mostly conceived to oppose French ships in the Mediterranean, which were the designed along similar lines, with high speed as the primary requirement (even though French ships had greater range, approx. 3,000 miles). This range limitation also affected all other ship classes: the "Littorio" battleship had a range of just 4,200 miles.

In addition to the range factor, hull shapes were optimized for speed rather than for seaworthiness and engines emphasized power over reliability: the loss of two vessels after the 2nd Sirte was due to engine troubles that left them incapable to manoeuvre in the storm.

Since even some German ships (namely, the "Narvik" class destroyers) had similar issues, the balance of naval power in the Atlantic would not be so shifted as the presence of ten Axis 9-factor fleet 1/2" cardboard counters (in Third Reich terms: why should AH be considered less reliable than SPI? [:D]) based in Gibraltar might suggest.
Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP
User avatar
UP844
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by UP844 »

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Though they had Operation Puma for the Canaries on the books in 1940 (post French defeat), Churchill and the Defence Committee considered the islands too exposed (enemy land based air) to hold and use as a potential Gibraltar replacement.

Unless the Luftwaffe was allowed to use French air bases in Morocco (*), only bombers could reach the Canaries from the Spanish peninsula: a few fighters and - above all - a radar stations should be enough force them to night missions.

(*) an unlikely, but not impossible, assumption: see Syria 1941.

Even with Germans based in Morocco, Santa Cruz de Tenerife is 320 km from the Moroccan coast, far enough to prevent Me109s from escorting bombers. Last but not least, supporting serious bombing strikes against the Canaries would not have been easy. Let's assume the Germans could safely ship bombs, fuel and spare parts to Casablanca (even though it can be assumed RN submarines would be waiting for them): they will still be 800 km away from the shortest route from Morocco to the Canaries.

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Interesting, and I will conservatively assume that the no-no for the Canaries followed on from the Naughty Axis scenario - although its not clear from your post whether that was the case.
Both scenarios became major British concerns at different points during 1940, Germany taking the Iberian Peninsula and then bouncing into Spanish NW African territories or Spain joining the Axis and then the Luftwaffe deploying to Spanish controlled airfields in Iberia and NW Africa, etc. Both scenarios brought the identified problem of the potential British naval base being exposed to land-based enemy airpower.
Edit - Because compass headings are tricky.
However, apart from some intelligence guys being surprised that Hitler didn't do something he appears to have had absolutely no intention to do (nice work intelligence guys [;)]), I don't really see (in my honest opinion) that this changes the way Churchill may well have reacted to an actual German move into the Iberian Peninsular.
Believe whatever floats your boat.

Churchill was the Chair of the Defence Committee. The Defence Committee decided yay or nay on joint plans passed on by CoS after they had made their own recommendations regarding those plans. Churchill also regularly chaired the CoS Committees. There were few aspects of the plan cycle (miltary and political) that were beyond his purview as Chief Imperial Warlord, and that included the serious sandboxing of a plan that would occur when some German move was considered imminent and a decision to pull the trigger had to be made then or likely not at all. That happened in late 1940 with "Operation Grind", Churchill ordering the plan not to be activated (obviously) and to instead let Mr. Hitler have his wicked way with Spain if he so dared while Mr. Churchill would console the victim afterward.

Anyway, aren't you getting ahead of your own hypothetical timeline? Last time I checked, we still seemed to be stuck in the pre-France-Defeat stage with the Germans not yet allowed to have a Med Strategy. Isn't it time now to establish when actually they could've and would've come up with it, so that you can then start determining the next point, when the Germans would make their move into Iberia? Once that's done, you can then go through in great lyrical detail about how Churchill's brigades would go charging in to thwart the Bosche and rescue the bits of Spanish and Portuguese territory that were deemed worth "saving".[:'(]


This was the only sig line I could think of.
Buckrock
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:10 am
Location: Not all there

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Buckrock »

ORIGINAL: UP844

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Though they had Operation Puma for the Canaries on the books in 1940 (post French defeat), Churchill and the Defence Committee considered the islands too exposed (enemy land based air) to hold and use as a potential Gibraltar replacement.

Unless the Luftwaffe was allowed to use French air bases in Morocco (*), only bombers could reach the Canaries from the Spanish peninsula: a few fighters and - above all - a radar stations should be enough force them to night missions.

(*) an unlikely, but not impossible, assumption: see Syria 1941.

Even with Germans based in Morocco, Santa Cruz de Tenerife is 320 km from the Moroccan coast, far enough to prevent Me109s from escorting bombers. Last but not least, supporting serious bombing strikes against the Canaries would not have been easy. Let's assume the Germans could safely ship bombs, fuel and spare parts to Casablanca (even though it can be assumed RN submarines would be waiting for them): they will still be 800 km away from the shortest route from Morocco to the Canaries.
What particular airfields they thought the Germans might use wasn't mentioned in the minutes of the Defence Committee meeting, only that Churchill stated he did not want to consider the Canaries as an alternative base for Gibraltar in the current circumstances as they sat too close to potential enemy airfields.

If the opportunity comes, I'll see if I can find any more details on the decision for when Warspites' hypothesis finally reaches the appropriate point in its timeline. Should only take another 50 pages for this thread to get there.

This was the only sig line I could think of.
gamer78
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:33 am

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by gamer78 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

..Turkish division that was sent to Korea, later, was a joke of a division. SPI depicts most of them as static.


With Soviet help, Turkey is quickly subdued (though the Germans have a full year to achieve that if necessary). Leaving an Italian garrison (perhaps augmented by Armenians and Kurds).

I believe it was a division for diplomatically acceptance to Nato only. Nothing more than that. 25 years a ago I remember low rank soldiers-Veterans in Korean War- visiting barracks in İzmir telling about US soldiers even have cigarette case they don't have. It wasn't their war that is ok.

Armenians were sent in WW1 and Kurds were not as much populated as today in eastern cities. I don't see their threat at that time.

I believe 'Libya'is Roman and Egyptian name? İn Ottoman times separate regions as Trablus, Bingazi and Fizan was called 'Trablusgarp'.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”