Biggest Mistake of WWII

In my opinion, the biggest mistake of the war was a tie between three different things that might have produced the same result and therefore are equivalent:

1) Not assassinating Churchill.
2) Not finishing with Britain before attacking Russia or before the US could get into the war.
3) Not realizing that the invasion of Calais was a ruse for three weeks.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 25 2005, 06:49 AM
In my opinion, the biggest mistake of the war was a tie between three different things that might have produced the same result and therefore are equivalent:

1) Not assassinating Churchill.
2) Not finishing with Britain before attacking Russia or before the US could get into the war.
3) Not realizing that the invasion of Calais was a ruse for three weeks.
[post=39401]Quoted post[/post]

Would you actually call these mistakes?

1 & 2 are basically theoretical - that is - you are making the assumption that if they occurred they would have changed the course of the war.

3 - The invasion of Normandy, was the greatest and most successful deception in the history of warfare. Hitler and the German High Command to have ignored this information on Pas de Calais ad hoc, would mean they would have had to question every piece of intelligence throughout the war.

 

Originally posted by spidge+Sep 25 2005, 08:51 AM-->(spidge @ Sep 25 2005, 08:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jimbotosome@Sep 25 2005, 06:49 AM
In my opinion, the biggest mistake of the war was a tie between three different things that might have produced the same result and therefore are equivalent:

1) Not assassinating Churchill.
2) Not finishing with Britain before attacking Russia or before the US could get into the war.
3) Not realizing that the invasion of Calais was a ruse for three weeks.
[post=39401]Quoted post[/post]

Would you actually call these mistakes?

1 & 2 are basically theoretical - that is - you are making the assumption that if they occurred they would have changed the course of the war.

3 - The invasion of Normandy, was the greatest and most successful deception in the history of warfare. Hitler and the German High Command to have ignored this information on Pas de Calais ad hoc, would mean they would have had to question every piece of intelligence throughout the war.
[post=39420]Quoted post[/post]
[/b] As to 1 & 2, making the assumption that if Britain had fallen, without the British Isles, the US would not have been able to mount a proper challenge and would have probably opted to stay out of the in Germany for lack of a sufficient front to attack Germany. You may be underestimating the devastation that the long range strategic bombing did to Germany's ability to continue wage war. Seems like people are so shocked by the initial losses to allied bombers in daylight raids before fighter escorts that they fail to recognize how utterly devastating precision bombing (relative term) was to Hitler's war industry especially the Luftwaffe itself. The fact that the Luftwaffe was not able to mount an assault in June 1944 is more than a trivial details of the success of a massive ship borne invasion through the channel. Imagine if it had to be done across the Atlantic. With the full support of a beefed up Luftwaffe able to launch defensive raids from continental Europe as well as the Isles.

As to #3, the opinion of the ruse in Calais constituted intelligence of an imminent invasion there even after the invasion itself, was not shared by the German generals. Had he released all the divisions in the north, there probably would not have been a surrounding at Caen and COBRA would not have been possible either. As Bradley said a simple count of divisions would have told them that the Allies had no other troops to send. You could say the primary intelligence that was ignored was actually the number of Allied divisions in Normandy. Just my opinion.

 

In my opinion Western Allies should have concentrated theirs attention on Mediterranean, continued campaign in Italy with better results (took the chance at Anzio) and established a main second front in Balkans in 1943 or 1944 instead of France. They should made every political effort to break the alliance of Germany with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria as well.

 

Counterfactuals like these are very complex and get based on a series of compound assumptions. But they are a lot of fun.

Would Hitler still have declared war on America? Probably more so than before.
I don’t believe Hitler would have declared war on the US until he had his full strength after defeating Russia. He had to view the industrial might in the US as a threat and had to make sure he had taken care to not induce a battle on two fronts with a major enemy capable of mounting serious offensives. I don’t think he viewed Britain as a major enemy, especially after the Dunkirk. Hitler declared war on the US since he viewed it as a foregone conclusion. If Britain had fallen, the US would not have declared war on him since it would be a much more difficult win and the US would not want to be so divided between two theatres, both of which involve long distance warfare. A friendly Britain was an incredible asset to the success in Europe. You might make a case that it was not impossible to win without the launching base of the British Isles but it would have been a much more intense war for the US, lacking both the great military resources that British brought to the party and the huge isolated base that could only be attacked by Germany from the air. Japan would have fallen much sooner not later because they would have the entire US forces arrayed against them.

Hitler having empowered himself of Western Europe, would still be confronting the Soviet Union. North Africa would still have been an allied win as that is where most of the British forces Land & Sea & Air would have ended up and Italy would still have been put out of the war. Rommel would still have suffered the same logistical issues.
It all depends on if the US had stayed out of the war with Germany, things would have been different. Again it is critical to note that Hitler only declared war on the US because he was certain they would declare war on him. I don't think he would have thought they would or that they actually would have if the British Isles were gone because it would have been too difficult to fight was a long distance war in the Pacific as well. Such a war would be too naval-centric and the US would not have a Navy that could take on the Japanese, the Italians, the German navies. I don’t think that the British would have been victorious in North Africa if it were not for the presence of the US troops and reinforcement of armor and artillery from the US, as well as lots of new tanks and equipment supplied to them at the onset of the US entry into WWII. The British were in pretty bad shape when the US entered the war. I doubt El Alamain would have occurred if the German troops having to fight Patton were freed to direct their efforts and equipment at a far less equipped Monty. It may have been that the green US troops took a real beating at Kasserine Pass, but you cannot ignore the fact they also drove Rommel back through the pass immediately after that. Once Patton took over, Rommel had a much bigger problem because he faced much more artillery from the US which was his undoing in North Africa. Patton was not green but seasoned and highly aggressive. With the capture of the British Isles, the British, at the least, would have run out of sufficient supply. Without supply their armor would become ineffective and broken down quickly because of the environment they were in.

Germany would still have had to garisson the British Isles and feed the people however I concede he would have inherited the manufacturing facilities of Britain.
I also feel that most of the war production capability in Britain would have been destroyed before Germany marched in and reaped the benefit.
True but it would not have taken near as many divisions as garrisoning the Atlantic wall from invasion forces did. These troops and armor would have been directed at Stalingrad. Had Stalingrad have fallen, so would Russia. With the control of the Caucuses, Germany would have had all the resources needed and a great deal of impunity to fight the US along with the production capacity and work force of Russia as well.

Scandinavia would have become more important to both the Russians and America. The remaining allies alliance with the Soviet Union would have been forged stronger by necessity.
That’s a bit of conjecture because all of Europe was terrified of communist expansionism of the Soviet Union and of Stalin. Stalin was thought of as more brutal than Hitler (especially before the end of WWII) I believe that Hitler looked like the lesser of two evils to them.

The Japanese would still have been defeated albeit not as early as 1945
Again, I believe that Hitler would have not have declared war on the US if Britain had fallen. His worse fear was an alliance based in Britain because he then would have to think of Britain as a major threat because they would suddenly had the resources to mount an offensive war against him. I think that the reason Hitler attacked Russia is because he viewed Britain not as a front capable of mounting an effective offensive but rather a defensive position alone. Had the US have declared war on Hitler before he attacked Russia, I think he would have kept his pacts with Russia until he defeated the Allies and waited until he had his strength from the conquest of the Allies. Its true he might not have beaten the Allies even with Russia as neutral but my point was that he didn’t believe Britain to be a threat until they were linked up with the US.

You may be underestimating the devastation that the long range strategic bombing did to Germany's ability to continue to wage war. Seems like people are so shocked by the initial losses to allied bombers in daylight raids before fighter escorts that they fail to recognize how utterly devastating precision bombing (relative term) was to Hitler's war industry especially the Luftwaffe itself.


That is due to the fact that the Germans did not conquer Britain.
You seem to be concurring with me here. Is this misstated? It looks like you are saying that if he had conquered Britain that there would be no strategic bombing that crippled his ability to wage war with Russia. That was my point. Are you conceding that here?

There would have been The Soviet Union. Different arrangement - Same "Theatre" - same result.
The reason I don’t believe this is that the Soviet Union survived by the “skin of their teeth”. The lack of additional divisions and the timing because with the extra divisions of the western front, Yugoslavia would have fallen easier and they would have been able to invade at least two months earlier making the Russian winter a lot less of a saving factor. In addition, Russia would not have received lend-lease support from the US. They were not a friend to the US but rather a necessary ally when there was war. The lend-lease act was developed because of Britain in response to Churchill's friendship with Roosevelt who lobbied congress to set it up. Roosevelt would not have gone to bat for Stalin. The only redeeming attribute the Soviets offered as an ally was that they divided Hitler's fighting forces. I believe the US would have looked at Russia as a loosing cause and would not have supported them both for lack of desire to "save" an expansionist communist state and desire not to waste war materials when they thought they were going to need them (which they would). The US trusted Britain. They did NOT trust Russia. They only reason they supplied Russia is because Russia aided Britain by dividing Hitler’s armies. There was no love between the US and Russia. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. There is a big difference between a communist nation led by a ruthless dictator and a like-minded civilized nation.

Bradley was speaking of the physical and the visible. In Operation Quicksilver the Allies created an entire fake army. FUSAG, the First United States Army Group, was largely fake except for its leader, General George Patton, some token units and a complete signals outfit sending made up traffic. Patton was unpopular with the Allied high command, but he was regarded by leaders on both sides as one of the Allies' best mechanized warfare experts. The Germans knew this and other "forces" were still facing them at Pas de Calais so the ruse even at this late stage was still working magnificently.
I do believe Hitler was duped. He had enough spies in Germany to find out it was a fake if he were so inclined to do so. Also, low level reconnaissance would have revealed that most of the units were fakes. I do agree you could have a point here, but it is a major mistake to allow yourself to be duped by not doing the intelligence due diligence in the evaluation of your enemy’s true strength. It was probably a real dup for mistaking the landing beach. I would think you would want to get a closer look at FUSAG when you see enumerated the divisions on the beaches because it would certainly have exaggerated the number of divisions you believed the allies to have. When you went to count the divisions of FUSAG it would have revealed the fake. But I will give you that #3 is the weakest case of my three.


The bulk of my argument here based on the premise there would not be war between the US and Germany at least until Russia was in the bag which I believe would have occurred much quicker.

 

Counterfactuals like these are very complex and get based on a series of compound assumptions. But they are a lot of fun.

its okay to think that, but i'll stand back and hold the jackets! :P :P

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Sep 27 2005, 07:11 PM
its okay to think that, but i'll stand back and hold the jackets! :P :P

A counterfactual is another name for a "What if". A type of hypothesis where the facts are known but an alternative is conjectured. It is not a derisive term and does not mean to lie. Is that what you thought?

 

Originally posted by spidge@Sep 27 2005, 09:47 PM
I will revert to the other areas over the weekend as I have a load of quarterly bookwork to catch up on before the end of the month.
I look forward to your subsequent posts. I know you have thought through this scenario and probably have some ideas I haven't considered.

There are couple of additional points I wanted to make. First of all, the 1, 2, and 3 were "either or" scenarios in which any one of them might be claimed as a “worst” mistake. #3 was Hitler and the FUSAG ruse. To me it was like ignoring the intelligence at Market Garden of the Panzer groups refitting. I believe he was told by his generals and intelligence that it was a feign and chose to disbelieve it. I will read what Rommel had to say about it. But I think his generals were not accustomed to challenging his “wisdom” that often transcended military logic.

Then there was Churchill’s assassination. I read a book on Roosevelt where his relationship with Churchill was detailed. Unless you understand this relationship you don’t realize how tenuous US support would have been without it. Churchill’s appeal to Roosevelt reminds me of when Ben Franklin appealed to the French for help in our Revolutionary War. Franklin persuaded the French to give us help in supplies and Naval support even though we had been at war with the French only 20 years before. Franklin absolutely charmed the sox off of Louis XIV with his quips and wit. Without this intervention, Cornwallis would never have been trapped at Yorktown and the British would have won the war and the US might still be a colony of Britain. You could even say Franklin was the father of this country instead of George Washington.

The British made a terrific ally in WWII. I don’t know of another nation (allied or axis) I would rather have in the fight against Germany because of their relative strength, quantity of men, and brash determination. But, I believe if I had a choice between the British military OR the British Isles as a base of US operations alone, I would take the Isles instead. That’s not a statement against the British military, which was an absolutely terrific, but it is instead a statement of how important the geographical location was to waging a war against Nazi Europe. It was perfect.

I personally believe that what won the war was the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Air superiority was the definition of victory. Without the Isles, no air superiority. Without air superiority no mobile victory of any sort, no supplies. No supplies, a quick surrender. I don’t think there is a way to stress that point enough. Between you and me, in the ETO, I think both Patton and Monty were in a relative sense, inconsequential. Not that there was anything wrong with either one of them but I think that there were relatively few places where “tank tactics” were effective. In North Africa, ok, they were out in the open. Tactics and strategy help there. But in rural fighting in Europe where there were many ways to hide and ambush with armor, the artillery and the air strikes by the tactical groups did most of the work. The tank divisions were for mopping up. Neither Shermans, Churchills, nor Challengers or their variations were any match for German armor. German armor was dominated from the sky. I am not trying to make light of armor, I just know that whoever has air superiority will dominate the enemy’s armor regardless of what kind it was and their armor would go relatively unchallenged. How do you overstress the importance of air superiority, again, I don’t think you can. (Boy I hope there are no WWII tankers reading this post).

I bought the book “The Rommel Papers” which is the letters and communications of Rommel in WWII and in it he sends a letter to Hitler telling him that he no longer believes the Germans can win the mobile war, not because of air superiority alone but because the German armaments industry could no longer keep up from its ongoing destruction. Imagine if the Luftwaffe had been able to attack ground troops and the US’s armor with fighter/bombers like we did theirs. It was a death sentence. The annihilation of supply, the sinking of merchant ships of the supply by an unchallenged Luftwaffe, the fact the US Navy would not have been able to get into range of Europe for fear of Luftwaffe attacks, it would devastate any fighting force. You have to have boots on the ground to clean up but without wings in the sky the boots on the ground are on dead men. The only time the US saw German fighters ruling the sky was in North Africa and it devastated them. They were eventually stopped by the RAF and the USAAF but before that it showed that tactics and strategies are useless against air superiority. I don’t think the US could have defeated Germany on the ground with the air superiority probably even with the British fighting beside them they still could not have stopped the German armor. It was simply better and the Germans were better trained from the fact they had been preparing for war and learning and polishing their tactics and equipment from the Spanish war.

The destruction of the Luftwaffe in the 1942-mid 1944 timeframe so that they could not interfere with the Channel crossing was crucial. There was a composite reduction in the Luftwaffe not just by shooting down aircraft but also diminishing the rates at which they could replace them by the continuous bombing. Had the bombing been thwarted, the Luftwaffe could have swelled in size both with planes and trained pilots (much easier to train new pilots without allied fighters patrolling). The Germans would also have had heavy bombers (Wellingtons, Halifaxes, etc) and the plans to and facilities to make new ones. The US could barely mount raids from Britain into Germany. Any other country would have made it virtually prohibitive. Fighter support would never have “saved daylight bombing”. The US would have had to have used Superforts (B-29s) which were very expensive and less robust than the B-17s. Long, long range bombing would have had prohibitive losses with a huge and unchallenged Luftwaffe, Jets would have been perfected, Germany would have a super variation of the T-34, massive heavy artillery. The US would have been deep do-do. I have to believe that I Hitler had had all his divisions in the Eastern front that Russia would have fallen easily just from being overwhelmed by the numerical strength of a better army and defeated before the winter had even set in. V1s and V2s would have been used in Russia to take out their factories deep into Russia. With Russia out of the way, the production capability of Germany would have eclipsed the US’s production capability. The capture of one major city in Russia, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, would have set up a base with which to launch offensives that would have divided Russia and conquered it.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming the war on the Eastern front would have been the same. It would have been radically different. There would have been no Lend-Lease with Russia (none) and probably not with Britain (in the no Churchill scenario). With Churchill, Roosevelt knew that Britain was in it to win it and were worth investing in. He knew they would make life hell for the Germans should they invade. The Lend-Lease was offered to Russia, not because of their friendship to the US but rather because they were a help to Britain against Germany keeping the Eastern front tied up. For that reason only were they included. Without Lend-Lease, aircraft, armor, artillery, food, fuel, Russia could not have withstood the Germans under the pressure of the offensive. Britain and her allies was the hope of Europe as far as the US was concerned.

The affect of Britain has to be viewed as a whole, with the whole being much larger than the sum of its parts.

Jim

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 28 2005, 12:40 AM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 28 2005, 12:40 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 27 2005, 07:11 PM
its okay to think that, but i'll stand back and hold the jackets! :P :P

A counterfactual is another name for a "What if". A type of hypothesis where the facts are known but an alternative is conjectured. It is not a derisive term and does not mean to lie. Is that what you thought?
[post=39484]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.

 

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 28 2005, 05:16 PM-->(morse1001 @ Sep 28 2005, 05:16 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 28 2005, 12:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 27 2005, 07:11 PM
its okay to think that, but i'll stand back and hold the jackets!  :P  :P

A counterfactual is another name for a "What if". A type of hypothesis where the facts are known but an alternative is conjectured. It is not a derisive term and does not mean to lie. Is that what you thought?
[post=39484]Quoted post[/post]

What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.
[post=39493]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
You can be my "second" anytime!

You know I only get upset when Japanese posters say that the only reason they slaughtered the Chinese in Nanking was because they wouldn't submit and do what they were told!

 

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 28 2005, 03:16 AM-->(morse1001 @ Sep 28 2005, 03:16 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 28 2005, 12:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 27 2005, 07:11 PM
its okay to think that, but i'll stand back and hold the jackets!  :P  :P

A counterfactual is another name for a "What if". A type of hypothesis where the facts are known but an alternative is conjectured. It is not a derisive term and does not mean to lie. Is that what you thought?
[post=39484]Quoted post[/post]

What i mean, is that they tend to end up just being slanging matches as the participants try and force their ideas onto each other.
[post=39493]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Too true...remember that conjecture is just that...there are so many different ways history could have turned out. Some of it borders on satire. Robert Cowley's crwe at Military History Quarterly did two good books: "What If" and "What If 2," about such departures from military history...the Spanish conquer England in 1588, the Confederates win the American Civil War, the Moslems conquer Europe, the Americans drop the bomb on Cuba in 1962, and so on. Interesting stuff. Also very scary.

 

The French didn't decide to join in until after the second Battle of Saratoga gave them a glimpse that America could indeed win the war.
The French stayed out of the war because of economic problems in France, where Turgot, France’s finance minister, advised them to stay out of the war, even if the Americans could win the war it would be costly to the French and offered no benefit other than the fact the French and the British were always at odds. Solely because of the appeals of Franklin and his friendship with Louis XIV and immediately after a meeting between Franklin and Louis XIV, the French formed the alliance with the States in 1778. The French and Louis XIV were extremely impressed with Franklin who was the American Ambassador to France at the time. It was the French that blockaded Chesapeake Bay and then Washington bottled Cornwallis up there and shelled his troops for three weeks. Their lack of supplies forced Cornwallis to surrender his remaining forces and the British lost the will to continue the oppressive colonization of the States. Had the British have been re-supplied or rescued at Yorktown by the British fleet en route from New York; it might have had a completely different outcome.

This to me is exactly like Churchill’s appeal to FDR. If Roosevelt had been able to declare war like Louis XIV could, he would have. After meetings from Churchill, he was very distressed at the situations reported by his friend. It was in this distress that FDR came up with the solution of the Lend/Lease act and championed it before congress to get it passed. My point was that without Franklin’s appeal to Louis XIV, the French would not have intervened and the British would have eventually succeeded though the Americans would take occupation the same as the British would have taken occupation of Germany, it would never be truly over and independence was inevitable in both cases. Likewise, without the friendship between Churchill and his charm on the US and Canadians, it is doubtful that either would have intervened even after Pearl Harbor. I am not saying it is impossible, but I don’t see the passion of FDR going against the strong current of pacifism in the US if it was not fueled by the admiration and personal friendship he had with Churchill. JMHO

 

Based on spidge’s (Geoff) reference to Hitler's speech declaring war on the US, I decided to read a biography on Hitler (which as of now I have not finished). (he was not a nice fellow, did you folks realize that?) It brought several points to light. When Hitler "annexed" Austria, then "quietly occupied" the Saarland/Rhineland, and "reabsorbed" HIS half of Czech., then later all of Czech, Britain and France did nothing (probably wouldn't have happened that way if Churchill had been PM at the time). The most he got was a "rebuke" from the League of Nations, which it said was inept to follow through with threats sort of like a stern resolution of the UN. He was afraid of Britain and France at the time and boasted how he could push the limits of things without going beyond. All of these cases it said he was prepared to withdraw if it drew potential war with Britain and France. When Poland made a pact with Britain and France, it enraged Hitler. He made a pact with Russia (who trusted Britain less than Germany). He then set up yet another façade of causing trouble and making it look like the fault of those he wishes to conquer and invaded Poland. Britain and France ordered him to withdraw but he refused since they had done nothing before and believed they would again. When they did declare war, he still thought they were bluffing and could defend Poland anyway. (BTW: Is it proper to say France declared war on Germany? Can a government in exile declare war?)

Most people know all that. Then Demark and Belgium. When he invaded Norway, the British sent warships to defend the port town at Narvik. Hitler then sent the Luftwaffe to bomb the British fleet until they withdrew. That sort of settles the fact that the Navy is extremely vulnerable to land bombers. The Royal Navy (nor any Navy) could not have helped protect Britain from a German invasion; they would simply have become museums of honor like the USS Arizona. Their only hope was the RAF. The RAF was three weeks from annihilation (from attrition not from being bested), but were serendipitously saved by the inadvertent bombing of London by the Luftwaffe. But, it was the cunning move of Churchill to retaliate on Berlin whereas another leader would probably have sought an armistice or at least would not have understood that the best way to deal with a psychopath is to hit him in his pride. So, that sort of address the argument that Britain would have survived without Churchill, though it is not certain, it is doubtful.

Of course giving the RAF time to recover made his losses prohibitive and he “delayed” operation Sea Lion until the spring of 1941 (which never happened). Now, this goes to the point I was making about the US not wanting in the war. The reason he invaded Russia was fear that the US would jump into the war with the Allies. His plan was to quickly execute a Blitzkrieg on Russia which he and his generals expected to be at max three months. Then Italy, wanting to make a splash invaded North Africa. Greece stepped in North Africa and put up such a fierce fight that Hitler had to supplement him with troops. Churchill’s choice to move troops to contest them was a stroke of brilliance in retrospect because it forced Germany to attack to prevent the Allies from gaining a permanent foothold in North Africa and to prevent an Axis power from getting its behind kicked. Germany initially won that battle, but the biggest impact was that it delayed the invasion of Russia several months (along with the delays from the opposition of Yugoslavia). Since his generals were so sure that Blitzkrieg would win the war quickly, they only ordered winter uniforms for one fifth of their soldiers.

Since the US was building up its armed forces, Hitler assumed he had plenty of time to finish off Russia and that without Russia in the war, the US would have been reluctant to get involved (which may or may not have been true, I suspect it is true). Had he have just delayed Sea Lion from the start and attacked Russia, he could have taken them down quickly. It was the Luftwaffe that made Lightening war work, not armor, not artillery, but air power. He wasted so many bombers on Britain that he could not execute the same kind of war he did in France. If he had made short work of Russia, then he could have concentrated on Britain without any interference from the US. Despite conjectures from us who typically view things from the perspective of the Allies, I thought Hitler’s intent should weigh in here.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Oct 5 2005, 09:43 AM
Greece stepped in North Africa and put up such a fierce fight that Hitler had to supplement him with troops. Churchill’s choice to move troops to contest them was a stroke of brilliance in retrospect because it forced Germany to attack to prevent the Allies from gaining a permanent foothold in North Africa and to prevent an Axis power from getting its behind kicked.

Hi Jim,

What do you mean by this?

Churchill withdrew troops from North Africa to "deny" Greece (which is in Europe) to the Germans and was a disaster as was Crete. The Italians were in control of the Dodecanese after their ill-fated invasion of Greece.

With the need to put troops into Greece, General Wavell was not able to advance into Tripolitania and drive the Italians from North Africa. So men were taken from the desert to help out in Greece and Eritrea, where the Italians had been ordered to draw some of Wavell's fire. The 6th Australian Division, along with the New Zealanders and a Brigade from 2nd Armoured Division were sent to Greece, which left the defence of Cyrenaica, to one brigade and the support group of 2nd Armoured Division. At this time the 7th Armoured Division was in the Nile delta awaiting new equipment, but as a fighting force it had virtually disintegrated.

Taking the troops from North Africa denied Wavell & O'Connor the means to clear North Africa of the Italians and solidify it's defence against what was the eventual arrival of Rommel and the Africa Corp in Tripoli on February 13th.

The face of this theatre would have been altered dramatically had the Greek decision not been made.

 

Geoff, I do believe Jimbo is confusing North Africa with Albania. Indeed The greeks intervened there with Disastrous consequences for the Italians.

As regards Jimbo's question about a Government in Exile declaring war, I am a little confused. The French declared war on Germany in 1939 and its government did not go into exile until after France was invaded in `1940. So I'm not sure why you're asking that question given that it never needed to happen

 

Sorry mate, yes I was referring to the declaration of war and I know see where Jimbo and yourself were going with the conversation The penny didnt so much drop as slowly parachuted to the ground!!!