Do you think an Invasion at 1944 from a Balkans (As Churhil wanted) would a be a failure? Would those mountain region in Bulgaria (that helped us to beat the Ottomans the Byzantium and the Crusaders) would helped the German Bulgarians and Rumanian armys to stop the invasion? Here is a map of Balkans region:
No it wouldn't have worked. It didn't in WW1-Gallipoli and Salonika. Italy was a long slog, too many rivers and too many mountains. Best way to attack Germany, was the way they did it, across the flat bit of northern Europe.
Bulgaria was used as a diversion for Normandy. I bought a book not so long ago (unfortunately have not had the time to read it yet) which describes the activities of some British agents who helped co-ordinate Bulgarian resistance and sabotage activities. The book details are: “Agents Extraordinary” by Stowers Johnson Published by Robert Hale (London) in 1975 ISBN: 0709151624 “This book tells the true adventures of the young British parachutists who by invading Bulgaria led the German High Command to pour anti-invasion forces into South Serbia and to move the Hungarian Army of Occupation into the Central Balkans, thus aiding both D Day in Normandy and the Red Army in the East. It covers an unexplored area of war-time military history.” It also tells of the attempts to forestall Tito's intervention and the involvement of Kim Philby (British spy and communist traitor) Thought it might interest you.
Hmmm never know that the Bulgarian resistence was so organized. The Bulgarian king Boris was a good friend with Adolf Hitler but he doesn't really shere Hitler's vision for the world.I dont really know how much of you people know but the British asked king Boris befor the war to convince Hitler to stop the Ivasion of Poland.But Boris write in his book that Hitler was a man who never listen outhers even his own generals.So Boris contact with the Bulgarian resistence and they make a plan.The Bulgarian resistence supported by some soldier attack a train full of jews and free the jews.This was maybe one of the best thing that Bulgarian army ever did and this helped us a lot.Even now Israel and Bulgaria are really close friend.And we are the only nazi country that never gived jews to Germany.But i balive that the Germans understand about this cooperation and poisoned king Boris.
Probably not...the terrain would work against such an invasion and it would be a logistical nightmare in that terrain.
I think uou all have valid points but i think the main problem with an attack is not just to supply an army on the ground but supplying the army from your home base witch would have been Cairo? The italians/Germans would with little effort wreacked havoc on the transport ships.
I think uou all have valid points but i think the main problem with an attack is not just to supply an army on the ground but supplying the army from your home base witch would have been Cairo? The italians/Germans would with little effort wreacked havoc on the transport ships. They can come from Italy they have nice airbases there.And if the ivasion starts it would be from Ygoslavia where Tito and his mans would helped the invasion thats what Churchill though.If you ask me a posible invasion from Ygoslavia can be done with help by the Greek army and the british in Greece.How ever Romania and Bulgaria can could have done havy demege to the invasion helped by the terrain.But unfortionatly i balive that such an mass invesion could have worked.Bulgaria had bad aviation a paratroopers would easy enter.
Just reading Alanbrooke's War Diaries and in November 1943 he was annoyed with the Americans for only wanting a cross Channel attack on France. Alanbrooke wanted to use the Mediterranean to be the main Theartre to lure German Troops away from the Soviets. He hoped to have Crete and Rhodes taken by the Allies, have the Dardanelles forced and the partisans in the Balkans rise up again the Germans with Allied aid [with no western troops needed]and perhaps the Turks joining the Allies. He was upset the Americans were withdrawing forces fron Italy ready for the invasion of France and didn't give enough thought to keeping the Germans busy in southern Europe. Later he says he didn't want the Greek partisans helped as they were pro-communist and they didn't fit in the strategic plans for that area. All in all, if it was a missed opportunity, blame the Americans.
Balkans were very similar to the terrain of Italy, which was tough going for the Allies even with Material Schacht. Good defensive Terrain for infantry, very bad for tanks. My solution Invasion in Southern France as the main push with the diversion in Italy.
Balkans were very similar to the terrain of Italy, which was tough going for the Allies even with Material Schacht. Good defensive Terrain for infantry, very bad for tanks. My solution Invasion in Southern France as the main push with the diversion in Italy. It would be hard to conceal the main invasion force if it had to travel all the way to southern France. Chances are good the Germans would discover the Allies' intentions and have time to prepare. Logistically it's much less practical. I don't remember the specifics, but hose was laid in the sea and fuel was pumped directly to the landing zone in Normandy. I'm certain this wouldn't have been possible all the way to southern France, and for a mechanized army fuel is essential. The ability to ship supplies would also be hampered by the greater distance. Shipping capacity to south-west France would be reduced by (roughly) 700 percent; south-east France it would be reduced by 2400 percent; and to the Balkans 3200 percent. (Each ship has to travel a greater distance and back to deliver the same amount of cargo.) You would lose the benefit of tactical fighter support because they can't fly that far; at least not the ones that aren't busy escorting bombers. This was the Allies' greatest asset in the early days of the invasion. Last but not least, you would be forced to fight the Germans across twice as much territory.
Simply no. We should be grateful that some people learnt from history. As Owen said this area was a disaster in WW1 and would have been a waste of manpower and would have been a logistical nightmare . Admittedly, Italy should have/would have been won "easier" if not for Mark Clarke's incompetence however there could have been worse scenarios than the one presented in Italy. IMO, I do not think Italy could have been attacked as a "diversion" and although I disagreed with Churchills venture into Greece which was a mediterranean "Dieppe" which, with luck, could have come off. The push for Italy was in hindsight a learning curve and Normandy was a masterstroke that did come off. An invasion through the south of France took away the defence of the English Channel and opened the invasion force to the depths of the Atlantic and the hazard of U-Boats and greater logistical dangers.
Tito and his partisan army maybe would helped the British and US soldiers. They could have helped a great deal more if supplied with even more equipment without the need for Allied combat troops to be there. I quote Alanbrooke again. "..success in Crete and Rhodes might have had the happiest repercussions in Turkey and the Balkans without ever committing a single man in the Balkans; we could have benefited better than before by the actions of the Resistance movements in these countires. ....all partisans in the Balkan states had been inspired by our successes and stirred to new activities... No liberation of the Balkans should be undertaken. This was unnecessary and would commit too much force."
