Battle of Greece/Crete
Thinker
think of this?
1. Germany's military successes makes Mussollini jealous and decides to
attack Greece without consulting Germany.
2. Italy attacks Greece and instead of sipping coffee in Athens two weeks
later is in big trouble 6 months later.
3. Germany is forced to save Italy to save face, thus throwing the
timetable for Barbarossa months behind and losing many elite troops and
transports (Crete).
4. Germany's failure to begin operations against Russia in early spring
causes their divisions to come to a halt at the gates of Moscow without
enough "fuel" to complete the victory due to very harsh winter conditions
and stiff Russian resistance, thus losing the war.
Any comments or thoughts?
--
Michael Emrys
thi...@loveydovey.love wrote on 5/19/03 4:15 PM:
> Germany is forced to save Italy to save face, thus throwing the timetable for
> Barbarossa months behind...
>
> Germany's failure to begin operations against Russia in early spring causes
> their divisions to come to a halt at the gates of Moscow without enough "fuel"
> to complete the victory due to very harsh winter conditions and stiff Russian
> resistance, thus losing the war.
This old chestnut was demolished when van Creveld published _Hitler's
Strategy 1940-41: The Balkan Clue_. Barbarossa was not significantly delayed
because of Balkan operations, which were very swift in any case. The war
with the USSR could not have started earlier chiefly for two reasons: late
rains in Eastern Europe and delays in completing the scheduled motorization
of German divisions. In the event, that motorization never was brought fully
up to the original goals.
Michael
--
stanleverlock
> , after seeing the Matrix I was thinking of causality.
>
> attack Greece without consulting Germany.
You must remember that Mussolini always considered himself and
Italy the senior partner to Hilter. After all he had been Dictator of
Italy for 10 years before Hitler. Dictator's have nothing, if not
Ego.
When Germany overruns Poland in 1939 in a mere 7 weeks, Mussolini
is outraged. Especially since the Ethopian War had ended in italian
humilation in 1936.
> 2. Italy attacks Greece and instead of sipping coffee in Athens two weeks
> later is in big trouble 6 months later.
THe Same problems that plagued the Italian Army in Ethopia plagued
them in Greece.
> 3. Germany is forced to save Italy to save face, thus throwing the
> timetable for Barbarossa months behind and losing many elite troops and
> transports (Crete).
Hilter went into Greece as much to shore up the Italians, as to
show them just how the German Army could handle the same opponent.
Crete was another side show along with Greece! It alos displayed the
first gleam of Hilter's lack of Stragetic military planning.
4. Germany's failure to begin operations against Russia in early
spring
> causes their divisions to come to a halt at the gates of Moscow without
> enough "fuel" to complete the victory due to very harsh winter conditions
> and stiff Russian resistance, thus losing the war.
>
> Any comments or thoughts?
THe German Army was oriented by Hilter's expectations of a short
War! Greece was a mere sideshow, but it did delay the launch of the
Russiann Campaign.
Thus there was no extra preparations made to support an Army past
seven or eight months fight, let alone more than a three years
through the Russian Winter.
The Russian Campaign wasnot Casuality so much as a display of
Hitler's contemp, ignorance, and arrogance for the Russians and the
Russian Military!
--
David Thornley
Thinker <thi...@loveydovey.love> wrote:
>Yesterday, after seeing the Matrix I was thinking of causality. What do you
>think of this?
>
>1. Germany's military successes makes Mussollini jealous and decides to
>attack Greece without consulting Germany.
>
>2. Italy attacks Greece and instead of sipping coffee in Athens two weeks
>later is in big trouble 6 months later.
>
>3. Germany is forced to save Italy to save face, thus throwing the
>timetable for Barbarossa months behind and losing many elite troops and
>transports (Crete).
>
One reason for the intervention was that Greece was starting to let
British forces into Greece. Another was that there had been a coup
in Yugoslavia against the government Hitler liked, and Hitler feared
it might be a prelude to bringing in the British. I've seen the
Yugoslav coup blamed for more disruption than the Italian attempt
on Greece.
However, the timetable for Barbarossa was not thrown months behind.
The Spring mud lasted longer than usual in 1941, and it could not
have been launched more than a week or two earlier than it actually
was.
Moreover, the losses at Crete, which heavy in proportion, were not
large in absolute numbers, and did not really matter in Barbarossa.
Germany used much smaller forces in Greece than in the Soviet Union,
and could have lost all the troops at Crete without significant
effects for Barbarossa.
There were other problems. The German tanks took some additional
wear and tear shortly before Barbarossa, which probably hurt them
later in the campaign, and IIRC one Panzer division suffered
heavy losses when being shipped back to the theater of operations
(something about a British submarine, IIRC), and had to be rebuilt.
The Luftwaffe was engaged, which meant, essentially, that it never
got a real break from the start of the Battle for France until
Barbarossa. It was probably in worse shape starting Barbarossa
than in starting the Battle of Britain.
The fuel use is irrelevant. Germany did not suffer in Barbarossa
for lack of a small amount of fuel.
>4. Germany's failure to begin operations against Russia in early spring
>causes their divisions to come to a halt at the gates of Moscow without
>enough "fuel" to complete the victory due to very harsh winter conditions
>and stiff Russian resistance, thus losing the war.
>
>Any comments or thoughts?
>
The diversion to Greece did not cost much time at all, although I
suppose it's arguable that even a week could have made a large
difference. Some of those late fall defenses were set up just
before the Germans hit.
The Luftwaffe suffered much, much more than the German Army
from the continued fighting between the fall of France in June
1940 and the attack on the Soviet Union about a year later.
If you're looking for effects, concentrate on that.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--
Michael Emrys
thor...@visi.com wrote on 5/21/03 9:07 AM:
> ...one Panzer division suffered heavy losses when being shipped back to the
> theater of operations (something about a British submarine, IIRC)...
Could you be more specific, David? I was under the impression that all the
German forces (the mechanized forces at least) returned via the
Greek/Yugoslav rail net. I'd like to know more about this British submarine.
Michael
--
ThomasDefender
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
from the last paragraph:
"if it had not been for the delay we met in Greece, we would of won the
war". Rommel.
------------------------------------------------------------
It was the Greece that broke the Nazi timetable for conquest. The delay was
weeks , but these weeks would of made the difference in the conquest of Russia.
On paper, Italy should of been able to run over Greece in weeks.
"Only the Greeks have shown themselves to be equal in courage
to the Germans." ...Adolph Hitler
The battle of El Alamein was won because .Montgomery for the first time had
Greek infantry under his command.
rob
"ThomasDefender" wrote
> Read the autobiography of
> Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
>
> from the last paragraph:
>
> "if it had not been for the delay we met in Greece, we would of won the
> war". Rommel.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> It was the Greece that broke the Nazi timetable for conquest. The delay
was
> weeks , but these weeks would of made the difference in the conquest of
Russia.
> On paper, Italy should of been able to run over Greece in weeks.
I have two questions regarding this.
Could the Germans have taken Moscow even with an extra few weeks of good
weather, or would it have been a 'Stalingrad' for them? From what I know,
there were substantial numbers of Soviet troops there preparing for the
winter offensive and the city had been heavily fortified
If the Germans had taken Moscow, would it have made any difference in the
long term? I realise the city was a major production center and
communications hub, but the Soviet Union is a big place, I cant see how one
city would have made such a difference long term
Rob
--
Michael Emrys
thomasd...@aol.com wrote on 5/23/03 4:50 PM:
> "if it had not been for the delay we met in Greece, we would of won the
> war". Rommel.
Rommel never wrote an autobiography per se. The closest thing to one would
have _Infantry Attacks_, a memoir of his experiences during WW I.
If on the other hand you refer to _The Rommel Papers_, an version of his
diaries, letters, and notes made during WW II and edited by B. H. Liddel
Hart, I can't recall this quote and doubt very much that the publishers
would have released anything so ungrammatical even had Rommel written one.
In any event, the statement is wrong as has already been pointed out in this
thread by others and myself. In fact, it's laughably wrong and Rommel
whatever his faults would not have written anything so foolish.
Michael
--
Chris Manteuffel
> Read the autobiography of
> Field Marshall Erwin Rommel from the last paragraph:
> "if it had not been for the delay we met in Greece, we would of won the
> war". Rommel.
Rommel committed suicide on October 14th, 1944. He never wrote an
autobiography that covered WW2 (though he saved documents and kept a
diary to be able to after the war). He did write "Infantry Attacks"
about his experiences in WW1. The only other book I am aware that he
ever wrote is "Problems for Platoon and Company", a tactical drill
book for junior officers.
Also, the quote doesn't feel right because Rommel never served on the
Eastern Front and didn't care that much about it, far too concerned
with his own battles in North Africa to worry about the war in the
East. I just looked up every time Greece appears in _The Rommel
Papers_ (edited by B.H. Liddel Hart) and it is not mentioned once in
relation to attacking the USSR. Instead, an appraisal of the situation
he wrote claims that the Luftwaffe units deployed against Greece and
Crete were better used to reduce Malta and then assault it (_The
Rommel Papers_, edited by B.H. Liddell-Hart, Da Capo Press paperback
edition, page 120). He never once relates Greece or Yugoslavia to the
USSR invasion at all on any page that references Greece in the index.
And I read through the book several years ago and don't recall any
such reference either.
> "Only the Greeks have shown themselves to be equal in courage
> to the Germans." ...Adolph Hitler
I have never seen this quote ever. Googling (and on variations)
doesn't produce any hits. Can you provide dates and context for this?
Hitler was a big fan of Ancient Greece, references to ancient Greece
and how the Germans should be like them pop up all the time in his
writings, but I don't see any quote like this one in _Mein Kampf_ or
the speeches I can find online.
> The battle of El Alamein was won because .Montgomery for the first time had
> Greek infantry under his command.
Now you are just being silly.
Chris Mantueffel
--
Haydn
"ThomasDefender" <thomasd...@aol.com> wrote:
> On paper, Italy should of been able to run over Greece in weeks.
On paper, in 1939 USSR should have been able to run over Finland in days.
> The battle of El Alamein was won because .Montgomery for the first time
had
> Greek infantry under his command.
I admit, this is the nicest specimen of military history revisionism I've
been reading in years. :)
Haydn
--
Michele Armellini
"ThomasDefender" <thomasd...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3ed0b38...@news.pacific.net.au...
> Read the autobiography of
> Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
>
> from the last paragraph:
>
> "if it had not been for the delay we met in Greece, we would of won the
> war". Rommel.
Nobody ever looks bad in their memoirs, do they? I guess the Germans also
had the sun in their eyes.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> It was the Greece that broke the Nazi timetable for conquest. The delay
was
> weeks , but these weeks would of made the difference in the conquest of
Russia.
It's vaguely possible that attacking a month before the Germans would have
conquered Moscow; it's possible that this would have made a significant
difference in the outcome.
What isn't altogether clear is that the actual two weeks' delay was caused
by the operation in Greece, and not by plain and simple weather conditions,
or by other deployment problems.
> On paper, Italy should of been able to run over Greece in weeks.
>
On what paper, exactly?
> "Only the Greeks have shown themselves to be equal in courage
> to the Germans." ...Adolph Hitler
>
Another man whose words should always be taken with a grain of salt, don't
you think?
> The battle of El Alamein was won because .Montgomery for the first time
had
> Greek infantry under his command.
Oh, right, now we know how he did the trick. It's strange, though, that the
Greek generals, having Greek infantry under their command, and not for the
first time, didn't win against the Germans in their own homeland.
Regards,
Michele Armellini
--
David Thornley
tried to find them. Unsuccessfully. There are several possibilities,
including faulty memory on my part. My apologies.
So, maybe that didn't happen.
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>>Could you be more specific, David? I was under the impression that all the
>>German forces (the mechanized forces at least) returned via the
>>Greek/Yugoslav rail net. I'd like to know more about this British submarine.
>>
>I remembered reading this in a couple of sources, and have just
>tried to find them. Unsuccessfully. There are several possibilities,
>including faulty memory on my part.
I seem to recall from two different works of fiction (Hassel and
Plivier) that parts of 5th panzer division which was engaged in Greece
as part of XL corps has been sent to North Africa but the ship
carrying the personell was sunk in the Mediterranean. The tanks were
already getting the desert camouflage paint, but subsequently the
whole corps (2nd panzer, 5th panzer and 60th motorised divisions) has
been transferred to Russia.
Drax
--
David Thornley
Drazen Kramaric <drazen.NEVOLI...@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2003 09:17:22 GMT, thor...@visi.com (David Thornley)
>wrote:
>>tried to find them. Unsuccessfully. There are several possibilities,
>>including faulty memory on my part.
>
travelling back from the Balkans on ship, due to the overloading of
the railroad.
>I seem to recall from two different works of fiction (Hassel and
>Plivier) that parts of 5th panzer division which was engaged in Greece
OK, I found a mention in Jentz, "Panzertruppen vol. 1", page 157.
Tracked vehicles from Panzer-Regiment 3 had been loaded on the
ships "Marburg" and "Kybfels" for the return trip. Both ships
were sunk by enemy action with the loss of all Panzers on board.
Panzer Regiment 3 was part of 2nd Panzer Division, and so I don't
know anything about 5th Panzer Division here.
Checking Rohwer and Hummelchen, "Chronology of the War at Sea,
1939-1945", I now find the following entry:
21 May [1941] Mediterranean
The British fast minelayer Abdiel lays 150 mines E. of Cape
Dukato. Within 24 hours, the Italian destroyer Mirabello,
the gunboat Matteucci, and the German transports Marburg
(7564 tons) and Kybfels (7764 tons) sink on this barrage.
They do not mention the contents of the transports.
Unfortunately, I can't find anything more specific. I don't know
what tanks were loaded on the transports, what sort of shape they
were in, or anything else.
Michael Emrys
thor...@visi.com wrote on 8/6/03 3:02 PM:
> Unfortunately, I can't find anything more specific.
David, do any of your sources give the destinations of the ships?
Michael
--
Rich Rostrom
> David Thornley at thor...@visi.com wrote on 8/6/03 3:02 PM:
>
>> Unfortunately, I can't find anything more specific.
>
>David, do any of your sources give the destinations of the ships?
I have no sources, but I do have a map which locates
Cape Dukato (spelled Doukato, but that's close enough, since
it's transliterated from Greek).
Cape Dukato is the south-southwest tip of the island of Levkas,
which lies off the western coast of Greece a bit north of the
mouth of the Gulf of Corinth. Due south of the Cape is the north
tip of the large island of Keffalonia, about 10 km distant.
Shipping from the Gulf of Corinth passes through this gap
en route to Italy or the Adriatic. Possible destinations
would have been the Albanian ports of Valona and Durrazo,
where there were rail connections to the north, Bari or
Brindisi in Italy, or the ports of Split, Zara, Fiume, and
Trieste on the Yugoslavian coast.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
--
David Thornley
what I had.
It's an interesting little item, and I'd really like to know at least
a few more things about it, like the start and destination of the ships,
a rough count of the vehicles that did go down with the ships, whether
any German army personnel were with them, and what happened.
Unfortunately, I don't.