Political Crossfire Forums

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

I recently read a book about the campaign in North Africa 1940-1943

Hitler's Mediterranean Gamble : The North African and the Mediterranean Campaigns in World War II by Douglas Porch

It's a fine book though the author, an American academic, makes one or two factual errors regarding the British Army (I know that the British Army's regimental system can be confusing sometimes!)

The overriding theme of the book was that Hitler and the Germans were foolish to bail out Mussolini and the Italians in North Africa. By late 1940, the Italian invasion of Egypt had ground to a halt. Just 35,000 British and Commonwealth troops had repulsed and defeated a third of a million Italians. The Italian Army was in retreat to Italian occupied Libya. At this juncture Rommel and a small force of German armoured units entered the theatre. What followed was two years of see-saw action between the Axis and the Allies in Libya/Egypt. Late 1942 saw Operation Torch and the fighting in Tunisia. Then the invasion of Sicily, then of Italy. The campaign in Italy dragged on until the war's end.

Porch in his book makes the case that if the Germans had left the Italians to be defeated by the British in 1940/1941, then the long term effect would have been highly beneficial for the Axis:
*No need to divert considerable air forces to North Africa/Italy during the crucial 1941/1942 period of the war in the USSR.
*An absence of any great US involvement in the Mediterrenean. The British would have been too weak to launch an invasion of Sicily/Italy alone so...
*No need to garrison Italy with German troops
*With no North Africa/Sicily/Italy theatre, the Soviet and public pressure for the Western Allies to launch a cross channel invasion in 1943 would have been immense. Would a landing in 1943 in France have met with success? Quite probably not.
*And with no Mediterrenean theatre, where would the Western Allies have had chance to work on new tactics and to 'battle harden' our armies? Imagine pitting the British Army of 1941 or the US Army of 1942/43 against the Atlantic Wall?

Any thoughts?

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 7400

The trains would never have run on time.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:

Its highly unlikely that the Germans could have beat the russians, even IF and thats a big If they had actually manged to take leningrad moscow and stalingrad, these cities were by this stage of purely symbolic importance with most of the soveit infastructure and industry behind the urals.

Winter comes, tanks freeze, then the mud, soviet counter officensive. Game over

Frankly the germans could never have hoped for victory in russia, it was an impossible pipe dream, the soviets would never have given in. Even with Baku under there belt (who knows how well blitzkrieg works in moutains) it would have been over for a long time past that.

And honeslty, i think its a mistake to say the british would have been too weak to lauch a land invasion.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Its highly unlikely that the Germans could have beat the russians, even IF and thats a big If they had actually manged to take leningrad moscow and stalingrad, these cities were by this stage of purely symbolic importance with most of the soveit infastructure and industry behind the urals.

Winter comes, tanks freeze, then the mud, soviet counter officensive. Game over

Frankly the germans could never have hoped for victory in russia, it was an impossible pipe dream, the soviets would never have given in. Even with Baku under there belt (who knows how well blitzkrieg works in moutains) it would have been over for a long time past that.

And honeslty, i think its a mistake to say the british would have been too weak to lauch a land invasion.

The British without US assistance in the Med really weren't strong enough to launch an invasion into Italy IMO. I think the example of that is the little known Dodecanese campaign of 1943. This was the last major British defeat of the war. Churchill wanted to invade the Dodecanese islands, disarm the Italians and have a base for possible operations into Greece. The US would not participate, they thought the operation folly. Churchill decided that the UK would go it alone and ordered GHQ Egypt to put as many resources into the operation as possible. The operation went ahead and was a total disaster. Thousands of British troops killed and captured.

I think we British do occasionally underestimate just how much those first three years of the war - 39-42 - took out of us. By the time that an invasion of Italy might have been a goer - 42/43 - the UK really wasn't strong enough to launch a major land offensive in continental Europe independent of the US. Hence why we were so against the US Operation Sledgehammer - the plan to invade France in 1942 that would have depended almost wholly on British troops.

dkong911 · Joined: 21 Jan 2005 Posts: 593 Location: Arizona

Germany also delayed the invasion of Russia 4-5 weeks because the Italians were pushed out of Greece by poorly armed rebels, and Hitler had to send troops down there to crush them. Those 4-5 weeks could have easily resulted in Moscow falling; the German army was literally 13 miles away from Moscow before winter stopped them cold. In addition, the African theater really hurt Germany; I'd go into detail, but it has already been covered thoroughly.

The possibility of a German victory in Russia was very real, and it is naive to dismiss WWII as a "sure win" for the Allies. The Italian debacles along with USA involvement is what sealed the deal for Germany's defeat.

Italy defeated Nazi Germany...and they were on the same side. :lol:

Without those mistakes, it would've been difficult for the Allies to have a "total victory" as they did, but I have confidence that, with USA's protected and unprecedented production, Germany would've lost.

Also: props to the limeys. For months, they stood alone against Germany, and they stood tall with seemingly no chance of victory or even survival. We can talk about Russia, the USA, Italy, and Africa all we want, but Germany's victory/defeat basically hinged on the fact that the UK showed some balls.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8417 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: Its highly unlikely that the Germans could have beat the russians, even IF and thats a big If they had actually manged to take leningrad moscow and stalingrad, these cities were by this stage of purely symbolic importance with most of the soveit infastructure and industry behind the urals.

But the main fear of Stalin and the Soviet Government was that if those cities fell essentially the last of the major cities west of the Urals, would the Soviet government have maintainted stability or control or a base of operations for those troops? Also with that gone, the Germans could have simply waltzed to the Baku oil fields relieving all of their oil woes and cutting off Russia. If Western Russia had fallen in essence those three cities had been breached Russia would most likely have collapsed, though not annexed, but a German imposed peace.

Remember also the Bitter Peace event Franz... :lol: :lol:

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:24 am Post subject:

superskippy wrote: Quote: Its highly unlikely that the Germans could have beat the russians, even IF and thats a big If they had actually manged to take leningrad moscow and stalingrad, these cities were by this stage of purely symbolic importance with most of the soveit infastructure and industry behind the urals.

But the main fear of Stalin and the Soviet Government was that if those cities fell essentially the last of the major cities west of the Urals, would the Soviet government have maintainted stability or control or a base of operations for those troops? Also with that gone, the Germans could have simply waltzed to the Baku oil fields relieving all of their oil woes and cutting off Russia. If Western Russia had fallen in essence those three cities had been breached Russia would most likely have collapsed, though not annexed, but a German imposed peace.
I think your underestimating the ruthless efficenceny of the NVKD, once you were in the soviety army, you where quite frankly 'In it to win it' and by the time the germans had reached these major cities the male population had been moblised and the industry was long gone.

The midset of the great patriotic war something stalin himself largely created was a massive influence over the soviet mindset.

Especially if your home city was under the control of the evil fascist invader hell you'd fight harder if anything.

Quote:
Remember also the Bitter Peace event Franz... :lol: :lol:
Leningrad, Baku, Moscow, Stalingrad and that werid one that begins with S

Hearts of Iron can be very accurate at times and very innacurate at other times, Can you honeslty imagine Stalin surrendering?

Not to mention by the time I Normally get the Urals Soviet resistance seriously Stiffens.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

dkong911 wrote: Germany also delayed the invasion of Russia 4-5 weeks because the Italians were pushed out of Greece by poorly armed rebels, and Hitler had to send troops down there to crush them. Those 4-5 weeks could have easily resulted in Moscow falling; the German army was literally 13 miles away from Moscow before winter stopped them cold. In addition, the African theater really hurt Germany; I'd go into detail, but it has already been covered thoroughly.

The possibility of a German victory in Russia was very real, and it is naive to dismiss WWII as a "sure win" for the Allies. The Italian debacles along with USA involvement is what sealed the deal for Germany's defeat.

Italy defeated Nazi Germany...and they were on the same side. :lol:

Without those mistakes, it would've been difficult for the Allies to have a "total victory" as they did, but I have confidence that, with USA's protected and unprecedented production, Germany would've lost.

Also: props to the limeys. For months, they stood alone against Germany, and they stood tall with seemingly no chance of victory or even survival. We can talk about Russia, the USA, Italy, and Africa all we want, but Germany's victory/defeat basically hinged on the fact that the UK showed some balls.

Those 4-5 weeks were crucial. It's about the only thing to say for the British intervention into Greece. Start Barbarossa even 2 weeks earlier and it could all have been very different.

And as a 'Limey', thanks for the thanks! Although don't forget - it wasn't Britain alone for 12 months, but also Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the countries of the British Empire that stood against the Axis.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:

DSwain wrote: More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

About god damn time, get your ass over to the lounge im trying to organise a game.

Ahh but if we are going to get into HOI2 style debating, lets not forget how much industry gets moved past the urals and your residual man power.

Yes I know its a bit ahistorical, but im confident of my conclusions.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

About god damn time, get your ass over to the lounge im trying to organise a game.

Ahh but if we are going to get into HOI2 style debating, lets not forget how much industry gets moved past the urals and your residual man power.

Yes I know its a bit ahistorical, but im confident of my conclusions.

This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject:

DSwain wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

About god damn time, get your ass over to the lounge im trying to organise a game.

Ahh but if we are going to get into HOI2 style debating, lets not forget how much industry gets moved past the urals and your residual man power.

Yes I know its a bit ahistorical, but im confident of my conclusions.

This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

:thrhj:

Yes very good, mainly becuase its the diffrence between playing again an AI another another human being can make massive diffrances in how you have to react.

The AI just acts as the AI allthough very good its to a level predictable

its also important to know that pressing 'tab' allows you to talk, took me ages to figure that out.

Im normally Britian or Germany, though i've been messing around with France lately (imperial france mk2 haha) and Russia.

Japans a favorite too, mainly due to the challege it presents, the U.S on the other hand i've never actually played as my mates who play in college have a habit of choosing the U.S (which as germany i reguarly kick the s**t into)

I think its Doomsday or stony road we will be playing mind.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

About god damn time, get your ass over to the lounge im trying to organise a game.

Ahh but if we are going to get into HOI2 style debating, lets not forget how much industry gets moved past the urals and your residual man power.

Yes I know its a bit ahistorical, but im confident of my conclusions.

This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

:thrhj:

Yes very good, mainly becuase its the diffrence between playing again an AI another another human being can make massive diffrances in how you have to react.

The AI just acts as the AI allthough very good its to a level predictable

its also important to know that pressing 'tab' allows you to talk, took me ages to figure that out.

Im normally Britian or Germany, though i've been messing around with France lately (imperial france mk2 haha) and Russia.

Japans a favorite too, mainly due to the challege it presents, the U.S on the other hand i've never actually played as my mates who play in college have a habit of choosing the U.S (which as germany i reguarly kick the s**t into)

I think its Doomsday or stony road we will be playing mind.

Guilty as charged! I'll take a look at it though I'm more of a fan of the grand game, 1936 to the bitter end; cheers for the advice

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject:

DSwain wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: DSwain wrote: More Hearts of Iron people? It's a good game!

I think the whole 'Bitter Peace' event has some credence. The USSR was a very centralised country. Take Moscow out of it and then I think you've got real incentives for the Soviets to sue for peace, the Axis to take it and then to turn on the UK/US.

About god damn time, get your ass over to the lounge im trying to organise a game.

Ahh but if we are going to get into HOI2 style debating, lets not forget how much industry gets moved past the urals and your residual man power.

Yes I know its a bit ahistorical, but im confident of my conclusions.

This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

:thrhj:

Yes very good, mainly becuase its the diffrence between playing again an AI another another human being can make massive diffrances in how you have to react.

The AI just acts as the AI allthough very good its to a level predictable

its also important to know that pressing 'tab' allows you to talk, took me ages to figure that out.

Im normally Britian or Germany, though i've been messing around with France lately (imperial france mk2 haha) and Russia.

Japans a favorite too, mainly due to the challege it presents, the U.S on the other hand i've never actually played as my mates who play in college have a habit of choosing the U.S (which as germany i reguarly kick the s**t into)

I think its Doomsday or stony road we will be playing mind.

Guilty as charged! I'll take a look at it though I'm more of a fan of the grand game, 1936 to the bitter end; cheers for the advice

When i mean doomsday i just ment playing with doomsday from 1936.

And stony road to war 2.07 (latest version) is just the grand campain but heavily modded to make it more realistic.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

have pm'd you franz

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8417 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: I think your underestimating the ruthless efficenceny of the NVKD, once you were in the soviety army, you where quite frankly 'In it to win it' and by the time the germans had reached these major cities the male population had been moblised and the industry was long gone.

However these cities were the last real bastions of Soviet control west of the Urals, without these cities it becomes a war the Germans can win, the Soviet armies that were the last line the Soviets had to throw into the war at the time would have been destroyed as the cities fell, the open steppes leading farther and farther east. The Soviets had industry behind the Urals this is true enough but their political, industrial, manpower support, control lay to the east with Russia's cities and industry.

I think with the fall of those cities the Germans would have had a free hand to take everything west of the Urals and force a "Bitter Peace" with the Soviets.

Quote: This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

Get your ass over to the lounge so we can organize a Doomsday game patch to version 1.2 though.

I normally play more minor powers such as Nat Spain or Bulgaria, Austria, etc. Though I'll pick a big power prob the USSR for a game involving all of us.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

superskippy wrote: Quote: I think your underestimating the ruthless efficenceny of the NVKD, once you were in the soviety army, you where quite frankly 'In it to win it' and by the time the germans had reached these major cities the male population had been moblised and the industry was long gone.

However these cities were the last real bastions of Soviet control west of the Urals, without these cities it becomes a war the Germans can win, the Soviet armies that were the last line the Soviets had to throw into the war at the time would have been destroyed as the cities fell, the open steppes leading farther and farther east. The Soviets had industry behind the Urals this is true enough but their political, industrial, manpower support, control lay to the east with Russia's cities and industry.

I think with the fall of those cities the Germans would have had a free hand to take everything west of the Urals and force a "Bitter Peace" with the Soviets.
I don't know I think the soviets would have realised how precaious the german position in Russia was without elimating their industry, not to mention the 3rd defensive line that was set up behind these major cities seems to suggest that the soviets had plans to carry on after they were taken.

Quote:
Quote: This is real sidebar stuff - so apologies to the others! but franz, is HOI2 good to play online? i've only played it on my own (ahem!) which nation do you usually take?

Get your ass over to the lounge so we can organize a Doomsday game patch to version 1.2 though.

I normally play more minor powers such as Nat Spain or Bulgaria, Austria, etc. Though I'll pick a big power prob the USSR for a game involving all of us. We've hijacked this thread enough, these an place for HOI2 on PCF now we should use that.