Quote:
Originally posted by nolanbuc@Apr 5 2005, 11:30 AM
In addition to the aforementioned points, I'd like to ask this: Do you think it would have made a significant difference in the Germany's fortunes if they hadn't had to commit troops to the Balkans & North Africa to bail the Italians out of their messes, all while the Germans were trying to prepare for Barbarrosa?
|
In the case of the Balkans I would say that it caused a delay but as to whether it was significant I don’t know. It wasn’t possible to launch an attack before April anyway as the weather would not permit a major campaign into Russia. Perhaps the 6 weeks gained would have been crucial but remember that if the Balkans were ignored, would it have been safe to leave pro-allied Governments in Yugoslavia and Greece unchecked whilst you committed all your forces to the attack against Soviet Union? Knowing Chuchill he would have landed troops in Greece and Yugoslavia confident in the knowledge that he could harass the Germans from the Balkans. Also it should be remembered that the only reason that the British didn’t defeat the Italians in North Africa in early 1941 was because at the crucial moment of victory, Wavell was forced to send troops to the Balkans to help defeat the Germans!! So by not invading the Balkans, the Italians would have lost the Med far quicker and thus the British would have had freedom to land a force in the Balkans!!
As for North Africa, I would say initially no. They sent two major formations initially to the North African front and until the Allies invaded Tunisia, Hitler considered it a sideshow. The fact that more men were captured here than at Stalingrad shows you how many troops the Germans poured in here when it was too late. If Hitler had given Rommel more troops earlier, especially after the fall of Tobruk then the outcome would have been different.