|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
I have been reading lately about Mussolini and his contribution to the Axis side and it seems to me at times his military campaigns drastically effected the Axis effort to win the war. Hitler seemed to have had a blind spot when it came to Mussolini, he was a terrible ally who was petrified of entering the war and only entered and attacked France when France was about to fall. The French were able to hold off the Italians with inferior numbers even as their country was collapsing. Then Mussolini had to be bailed out in Greece, North Africa, and had the Italian held front/flank collapse at Stalingrad which led to the defeat. The Italian navy which seemed formidable was quickly put out of action by the British which out much of a fight, even the Airforce was very inept bombing Malta by dropping bombs to high and missing everything. Then after Mussolini's collapse large formations of German troops which could have been used on the Russian front had to occupy Italy.
I just wonder would Hitler been better served if Italy stayed out of the war since it was clear the Italians were not ready for war and the Italian Military was so poorly led it would have been better for the Germany if Italian troops remained within their borders and supported Hitler in other ways such securing the underbelly of Europe by not firing a shot and staying out as Franco did. Maybe Mussolini would have lived a long life as Franco did as well. Mussolini's campaigns did cause the allies to use it resources to defeat but by 1943 those resources were vast compared to the Axis. It just seems to me Mussolini was a great drag on Germany and was a major contributor to the German defeat and did more damage by attacking and may have served better just by being a sympathetic neighbor as Franco was. Thoughts?
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6378
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Really fascinating, Vin, and you’ve drawn attention to something that does make people think about an almost grotesque diversion of German potential to support of a fragile and wobbling ally.
Hitler had been under Benito’s spell in the early days of the Nazi party’s upsurge. The Italian was an accomplished and charismatic leader and Adolf looked up to him.
Hitler, as an Austrian, had an understandable fixation on the southern flank of Europe: always a Hapsburg obsession and, perhaps, at variance with the Prussian geopolitical sensibilities.
It’s a kind of replica of WW1, in so far as Berlin 1914-18 was constantly having to pull Vienna’s irons out of the fire.
Germany was “ shackled to a corpse” , lamented the German high command, as every time the Austrians were getting beaten, the Germans had to rescue them.
This syndrome was apparent with the Rome-Berlin Axis a generation later.
In fairness to Italian fighting prowess, I would like to emphasise that some of their units were of a high calibre, especially the Folgore Division which was better than many of its German counterparts.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Hi Phill
Thats a great comparison concerning Germany and Austro-Hungary that I didn't think of, I made a point in my initial post to not debase the Italian soldier or his fighting prowess. I believe they were poorly led, under-equipped and probably had no idea what they were fighting for other than Mussolini's vanity. I think any combat unit from any nation would be rendered impotent without leadership, support, and mission clarity. Hitler and Mussolini's relationship borders on weird and with all the friends Hitler betrayed, murdered, and imprisoned he was friends to the end with Mussolini whom did him much more harm, even rescuing Mussolini from Italian partisans in a daring raid by Otto Skorzeny. The relationship is hard to understand but then so is Hitler and so is mental illness which I think Hitler had in spades.
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT509er
Santa Rosa
CA USA
|
Posts: 1441
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
IMO, had it not been for Italian troops, Africa would have been if not conquered by Great Britain earlier, a no-go for the Nazi's. Limiting what troops they did, Germany depended upon the Italians for the manpower, especially in the defensive role for critical outposts. No doubt Italy's drive thru Africa eventually led to German forces contributing, this must have been a thorn in Hitler's side, regardless of how much he venerated Mussolini.
Mussolini's ineptitude in strategic military planning is apparent when he attacked East Africa, then decided to take on Great Britain. In the long run, it was Germany who saved the Italians in Africa but the commitment was never really there for the Axis forces.
Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13346
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Mussolini was actually watching and waiting before deciding whether to toss in his lot with Hitler.
The Italian government and Mussolini intervened on behalf of Austria in July of 1934 when the Austrian Nazis who supported Hitler attempted a putsch. Mussolini indicated that he would support Austrian independence and gave considerable support to the existing government in Austria. That may have had the effect to stymie a Nazi takeover in Austria.
Mussolini had also told the Austrians to avoid aligning or joining a greater Germany as part of the 1938 anschluss. Could it be that Mussolini eventually decided to side with Hitler because he had demonstrated that he was less of an ally than Hitler had thought? Add that to the fact that Mussolini had not quickly entered the war in 1939 and I think that Mussolini had reason to fear that Hitler may have had an axe to grind.
So I think that Mussolini tested the waters and finally decided that he had better support Hitler.
The British were watching the Italians warily in the early 1930's because Italy had the potential to disrupt communication with Empire outposts in Africa and as Britain watched Germany rearm there was concern that the Italian navy could destroy British shipping in the Mediterranean and force the RN to increase its commitment in the Med. The middle east was very important to Great Britain and the Italians sat in good position to dominate some parts of that territory and North Africa.
I stand to be corrected but is it not true that the Italians made overtures to Britain during the Phoney War that it wanted to act as an honest peace broker in the conflict between Poland and Germany. Italy was rebuffed by Britain.
As we know Mussolini and Hitler had signed the Pact of Steel in May of 1939. But I believe that the Italian foreign minister Ciano had approach Britain in December of 1939 to speak about rescinding the deal. He tried again in 1940. Now Ciano was not a fan of Mussolini so perhaps he was acting without authority.
Really I don't know much about this attempt at diplomacy or why Britain rejected it in favour of a blockade of Italy and an increase in the number of RN ships in the Mediterranean. I would be happy to hear from others about this.
So did the allies or rather Britain have the opportunity to neutralize Italy before Mussolini went to war against France in 1940?
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Hi Dan,
I wonder though was North Africa even on Hitler's radar or was it on Mussolini's radar it was Hitlers war not Mussolini's, he was just interested in sloppy seconds. What strategic significance was North Africa concerning Hitler's overall plans? Yes it would have been nice to take Egypt and the Suez Canal but I think this is beyond a secondary objective of Hitler's at that point in the war and the Italians started a fight with a bully buster(Britain) and Hitler had to intervene seeing a possible opportunity that presented itself suddenly concerning Egypt. But I think this stretched Hitler and was bailout of an ally over their heads rather than an intentional preplanned mission by the German Military high command to win the war it was a secondary front not needed or wanted. Attacking Gibraltar through Spain may have been a less costly endeavor to shut down the Mediterranean but Im not confident in my assertions I will admit I feel I may be missing something. Maybe Hitler trusted Italy to take care of this secondary battlefield for him but his own generals told him how inept the Italian military was I dunno.
Its amazing to think how much German WW2 armaments' (tanks, artillery, ammo, planes and even soldiers) still sit on the bottom of the Mediterranean that were sunk by allies that were trying to get to Rommel that could have been used on the Russian front , never mind the 400,000 Axis soldiers that surrendered, this disaster I believe overall is on The Duce
edit; Imagine if Rommel and his formations never went to North Africa but were sent to attack Russia? I know I hate what ifs too but this is about Italy, One has to ask why the invasion of Greece or the Balkans?
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DT509er
Santa Rosa
CA USA
|
Posts: 1441
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
You have valid thoughts here Vin. The negative impact Italy/Mussolini had on Africa, the Adriatic and the Med indeed distracted Germany away from its Lebensraum goal. There were significant strategic aspects to eliminating the British Empire out of the Suez. Control of the Med would seem to be more probable for the Axis; the Italian fleet was strong in ships and weapons, the Navy's leadership and Mussolini became the Italian Navy's greatest fault. Axis control of the Med eliminates the Suez shortcut, places more stress on Brit naval capabilities and logistics; a question just popped into me brain, how dependent was Great Britains' Navy and economy on oil from the Mideast?
I think your strongest comment is about those 400,000 troops of Germany that surrendered. Add in the dead and POW's prior to and if their deployment could have gone straight into Russia versus Africa. Even then, Hitler, if he had these troops, tanks, trucks, planes, artillery, etc., for use in Russia would no doubt have muddled that up as well; his poor track record as a military leader of strategy and tactics clearly demonstrated that weakness.
Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6378
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Would it be an oversimplification to say that any British presence in the Middle East, and, more especially, the Near East, was a threat to the prospects of Barbarossa, and, as such, needed to be suppressed ?
The Mediterranean front could be a jumping off point for an upward thrust into southern Europe : this is indeed what was to transpire. More alarming still would be British success in the Aegean , with Greece being an avenue of exploitation. Look at the sacrifices Hitler was prepared to make in order to expel the British from Crete. And that was just one month before the actual launching of his invasion of Russia.
In order for Lebensraum to work, the Mediterranean and Balkans had to be secured. If Italy could offer viable support here, then Barbarossa’s prospects were improved.
It’s significant that Hitler diverted significant resources away from Operation Citadel in July 1943 when he realised that the Allies had invaded Sicily.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13346
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
The Mediterranean Sea is a gateway to southern Europe and with the Suez Canal to parts of Asia. Germany knew that and so did Winston, I believe. That is why so many resources were committed there. And the Italians were a threat in the Mediterranean from a British perspective.
Mussolini's interest in North Africa was to establish his own brand of lebenstraum. He already controlled Libya and Ethiopia and had designs on British controlled territory in Egypt which would give him control of the Suez Canal. He hoped to build his empire without having to fight too much. Another reason to support Hitler perhaps??? With a German victory, Mussolini's objectives in Africa would be met more easily.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13346
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Somehow I posted the following in the General History section. It should have been in this section but it will appear out of sequence.
France had been given the mandate to administer Lebanon and Syria. Britain had control of Egypt and the Suez Canal and administered to Palestine under League of Nations mandate. The Italians had a colony in Libya and Mussolini had dreams of expanding the Italian Empire in the Middle East and North Africa. So the prospective belligerents were all lined up in the Middle East.
With the fall of France, Lebanon and Syria were administered by the Vichy government. That alone was of great concern as a pro-axis government now existed in Middle East territory.
As well, the Nazis and the Italians had agents all over the middle east. Iraq was pro-axis though ostensibly not a belligerent, because the Italian propaganda machine was active there and it promoted anti-Britain attitudes. There were axis operatives in Iran as well.
So why was Germany interested in the these countries? They did have a military goal to occupy the Caucasus region for the oil and as a gateway to the southern part of the Soviet Union. As well, control of the Suez would make Britain's access and supply to India much more difficult.
Germany and Italy saw an opportunity to undermine British influence in the Middle East and actively promoted Arab sovereignty. Ironic that, given that Nazis did not believe that the Arabs were equal to the Aryan race. Being anti-Jewish, Germany could overlook this perceived inferiority of the Arabic people as there was considerable anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East as well.
So I don't necessarily think that Italy was a millstone around the neck of Germany in the initial stages of the war. Italy had objectives in Italy and North Africa that made them a legitimate enemy of Britain. With military losses by the Italians and the decision to attack Italy by the allies, Italy became more of a burden to Germany.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markus Becker
Westphalia
Germany
|
Posts: 53
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
From the British perspective the Italian entry into the war looks like a disaster. Britain had just lost an ally and now it gained another enemy. And one with a decent navy and perfectly placed to cut the shipping line from the UK to the Mid and Far East. Now everything had to go around Africa. A much longer trip, more shipping wasn’t available, so less could be shipped. That alone was a major blow to the UK economy.
Militarily a fraction of the British Imperial forces deployed in the Med could have made The Difference in the Far East against Japan. Edit: And the RN would have greatly appreciated more ships in the Atlantic too.
From the Italian perspective the DoW was retarded. Yes, the unexpected collapse of France offered opportunities but Italy wasn't prepared to exploit them because nobody expected this. As evidenced by the kind of forces in Libya. 2nd rate even by Italian standards and send there to prevent another Arab insurgency, not to fight a peer enemy. The untis capable of that were at home for use against France or Yougoslavia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6378
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Markus,
Forgive my ignorance : DoW ?
What’s that ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4716
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
|
Phil, my guess is it stands for Department of War.
Cheers B
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
|
Quote:
I think your strongest comment is about those 400,000 troops of Germany that surrendered. Add in the dead and POW's prior to and if their deployment could have gone straight into Russia versus Africa. Even then, Hitler, if he had these troops, tanks, trucks, planes, artillery, etc., for use in Russia would no doubt have muddled that up as well; his poor track record as a military leader of strategy and tactics clearly demonstrated that weakness.
Dan
I think you maybe correct Hitler's lack of focus during the Russian campaign seems to me to be the reason why Germany lost on that front as he diverted resources and attacked Stalingrad with intent for the control of the Caucasus region with Moscow in sight, it seems though maybe Hitler possibly needed another army group to accomplish more objectives in Russia's vast land mass and that army group was in North Africa that had to be supplied by sea, a mission that the German and Italian navies was not up for and the defeat was not just on the battlefield in North Africa it was a supply battle as well that was lost and Germany just did not have the resources to commit to so many fronts. Hitler's best days were obviously in the beginning of the war and before the bulling of Austria and Czechoslovakia into submission without firing a shot then Poland, and easily capturing the Low countries, Hitler's strategic mistakes started to show in France as he hesitated at Dunkirk, then his refusal to allow strategic retreats in Russia were reasons why the war was lost and thank god Hitler would lose his nerve at times because he was very close.
thanks Dan and all great views, appreciated
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markus Becker
Westphalia
Germany
|
Posts: 53
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
|
Quote: Markus,
Forgive my ignorance : DoW ?
What’s that ?
Regards, Phil
Declaration of War.
Here's an interesting website with data about RN warship looses in the Med.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2021/12/uk-warship-losses-in-the-mediterranean-during-ww2/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8063
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
Mussolini, a help or hinderance?
|
Quote:Quote: Markus,
Forgive my ignorance : DoW ?
What’s that ?
Regards, Phil Declaration of War. Here's an interesting website with data about RN warship looses in the Med. [Read More]
Hi Markus,
I made the site a easy "read more" for easy access!?
BTW interesting web site!
Thanks,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
