|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 14, 2019 10:27:35 GMT
There is a timeline on AH.com about a USSR that saw the survival of Stalin long enough to see a Second Great Purge that resulted in a war against Mao's China, and other nastiness that led to the division of what looks like the former USSR in terms of territory, aptly named "Twilight of the Red Tsar". Another thing too is that if Italy didn't get involved in the whole Greek misadventure that dragged Hitler into the Balkans, that might have saved Hitler from a headache that the British would exploit. Perhaps if reconstruction was a far more important priority than reckless expansion for Mussolini, then it would have happened. However, Mussolini being Mussolini would needlessly get involved in one misadventure after another misadventure.
The 1st bit sounds a bit odd. Mao broke with Moscow over Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin. However I suppose if Stalin held power long enough that his paranoia and desire to control everything would probably mean a clash with Mao at some point.
Mussolini being the person he was then something like his adventure in Greece was very likely. However the real disaster for the allies was the death of Metaxas as he as both PM and effective dictator had vetoed any British direct involvement in Greece because he feared that would prompt a German invasion. Which coupled with the anti-German coup in Belgrade it did. You might have seen it stay a purely Greek-Italian war at least until the Germans were committed to the invasion of Russia. [While Greece had been doing spectacularly well they were running out of manpower while Italy, with a much higher population had much more staying power.]
The general view is that the intervention in the Balkans didn't greatly affect Operation Barbarossa. Wet weather and the traditional spring mud period would have delayed the attack until pretty much historical date anyway. There is the question of the relatively light losses in the campaign and probably more importantly wear and tear on the men and machines involved but again its probably not significant in the wider campaign given that the German offensive was running out of steam by early Oct at the latest, given the heavy casualties and logistical problems.
The intervention in the Balkans had massive effects on Barbarossa, from significant equipment shortages that delayed Army Group South's progress to the complete removal of the 11th Army from the same for occupation duty in Yugoslavia. That meant the invasion started late in that sector and with widespread shortages, AGS was only ever capable of frontal attacks that lacked the deep encirclements AGN and AGC were able to accomplish; this ultimately led to the diversion to Kiev in August. Likewise, the significant loss of paratroopers on Crete rendered them incapable of action during Barbarossa which is important due to the various actions that occurred under AGN during 1941; a paradrop in the Baltics in general could've cut off and allowed for the destruction of more Soviet armies/secure crossings over the Dvina, opening ports in the region faster for German logistics and allowing them to take Leningrad. As for everything else, the seeds of the Sino-Soviet split was apparently while Stalin was still alive. One important aspect is that Stalin was known to repeatedly snub Mao when he visited the former, which was just one personal, but obviously major given the personalities involved, issue that was building the tensions to the same. As for the Greeks they had exhausted their artillery supply, were over-extended beyond their defensive lines and by early 1941 the Italians had rotated in something like three times as many fresh divisions as the Greeks had divisions in their entire army. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,837 
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Sept 14, 2019 12:01:04 GMT
The 1st bit sounds a bit odd. Mao broke with Moscow over Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin. However I suppose if Stalin held power long enough that his paranoia and desire to control everything would probably mean a clash with Mao at some point.
Mussolini being the person he was then something like his adventure in Greece was very likely. However the real disaster for the allies was the death of Metaxas as he as both PM and effective dictator had vetoed any British direct involvement in Greece because he feared that would prompt a German invasion. Which coupled with the anti-German coup in Belgrade it did. You might have seen it stay a purely Greek-Italian war at least until the Germans were committed to the invasion of Russia. [While Greece had been doing spectacularly well they were running out of manpower while Italy, with a much higher population had much more staying power.]
The general view is that the intervention in the Balkans didn't greatly affect Operation Barbarossa. Wet weather and the traditional spring mud period would have delayed the attack until pretty much historical date anyway. There is the question of the relatively light losses in the campaign and probably more importantly wear and tear on the men and machines involved but again its probably not significant in the wider campaign given that the German offensive was running out of steam by early Oct at the latest, given the heavy casualties and logistical problems.
The intervention in the Balkans had massive effects on Barbarossa, from significant equipment shortages that delayed Army Group South's progress to the complete removal of the 11th Army from the same for occupation duty in Yugoslavia. That meant the invasion started late in that sector and with widespread shortages, AGS was only ever capable of frontal attacks that lacked the deep encirclements AGN and AGC were able to accomplish; this ultimately led to the diversion to Kiev in August. Likewise, the significant loss of paratroopers on Crete rendered them incapable of action during Barbarossa which is important due to the various actions that occurred under AGN during 1941; a paradrop in the Baltics in general could've cut off and allowed for the destruction of more Soviet armies/secure crossings over the Dvina, opening ports in the region faster for German logistics and allowing them to take Leningrad. As for everything else, the seeds of the Sino-Soviet split was apparently while Stalin was still alive. One important aspect is that Stalin was known to repeatedly snub Mao when he visited the former, which was just one personal, but obviously major given the personalities involved, issue that was building the tensions to the same. As for the Greeks they had exhausted their artillery supply, were over-extended beyond their defensive lines and by early 1941 the Italians had rotated in something like three times as many fresh divisions as the Greeks had divisions in their entire army.
For a good summary of the issues the Germans faced I suggest you look at the Military History Visualized YouTube channel as that has a lot of very informative presentations on WWII. If you search on the eastern front videos. Can't remember which ones as some time since I've read them but several stand out and a short one titled "Barbarossa, would an earlier start date have made a difference?" is only 4 minutes long but covers many details. It doesn't even consider the weather conditions that would have delayed any start date even without the Balkans distraction.
Another one, forget which one, actually records how many new divisions the Red Army raised in 1941 - something like 800 IIRC. True the quality of the training and equipment were poor but against the exhausted Germans, even before winter hit, it was crucial. Germany had critical manpower shortages and as a recent TV documentary pointed out one result of the Versailles Treaty was that Germany lacked the reserves of trained conscripts who could quickly replace losses, even without the question of equipment.
True OTL meant that Germany had losses, and had the 11th Army committed to garrison duties but how much would Germany have kept in reserve for action in the area in Britain had intervened at a later date? From what I've read the main problems in the south, other than the very large Soviet forces was in part the initial terrain with the hills of Bessarabia and parallel running rivers delaying the initial breakthrough. Would another predominantly infantry army have made a significant difference there? Definitely not in terms of deep penetrations, which needed motorised units.
|
|
