Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

[ljadw]

If B+F had treated Italy better ,Italy would have remained neutral .But for stupid ideological reasons, they refused an alliance with Italy. The result was that Italy had the choice in June 1940 between remaining neutral (which would not give any benefit ) and joining with the winner .
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .

How Britain & France treated her several years earlier is immaterial to your argument that Italy unwillingly joined Germany in war.

Italy willingly made the choice to join Germany for the reasons you have stated.

Italy remained neutral in September 1939 because
a the attitude of F +B prevented any rapprochement with these countries .
b because Italy disliked Germany and especially Nazi Germany
c because in September 1939 it was unclear who would won,although most experts were convinced that B+ F would win
Italy was choosing the German side in June 1940,because
a B + F were still hostile to Italy
b B+F were losing .And this was not the fault of Italy .
After 1914 B+F started negotiations with Italy to have Italy on their side . After September 1939 their contempt for Italy was that great that they refused to start such negotiations : they did not ask : what do you ask for a DOW on Germany ?
If you are refusing to ask what Italy wanted for a DOW on Germany,and if you are losing, you can't blame Italy for declaring war on you .You can only blame yourself .
In WW1 more than 1 million Italians were killed and wounded and Italy felt betrayed by its allies .
In June 1940 Italy felt again betrayed by these allies:the Stresa front was a lie :what did Italy obtain for its stopping the Germans to take over Austria ? NOTHING.Now,these allies were losing and for a few thousand of deaths and wounded, Italy could obtain much more than it received at Versailles .

Italy willingly joined the war out of her own greed, as you have rightly pointed out several times. She thought she would have an easy time and reap far more spoils than she actually earned.

Italy was not negotiated with because her warmaking potential was infantesimal compared to Germany's. If Germany had not started the war and won large victories, Italy was certainly not going to start a war of her own volition, as Italy lacked the military to carry out such a venture. So there is no good reason to treat with Italy.

Earn is a totally wrong word .So is greed .Only fools join a war for free .
You can't compare Italy's war making potential to that of Germany .
The truth is that without Italy,Germany would be in a very bad situation ,as it was when Italy surrendered in September 1943 :this costed the Germans 50 divisions .

[ljadw]

If B+F had treated Italy better ,Italy would have remained neutral .But for stupid ideological reasons, they refused an alliance with Italy. The result was that Italy had the choice in June 1940 between remaining neutral (which would not give any benefit ) and joining with the winner .
Of course, Italy went to war unwillingly : it disliked Germany but B+F refused even to talk wit Italy .The only thing they heard from London and Paris were insults .

TheMarcksPlan's ideas seem more rooted in fact.

B+ F refused to start negotiations with Italy to prevent Italy from joining Germany and than they were indignant because Italy joined Germany .

[Leprechaun]

The Holocaust and North Africa
Aomar Boum
Sarah Abrevaya Stein, Co-Editor
The Holocaust is usually understood as a European story. Yet, this pivotal episode unfolded across North Africa and reverberated through politics, literature, memoir, and memory—Muslim as well as Jewish—in the post-war years. The Holocaust and North Africa offers the first English-language study of the unfolding events in North Africa, pushing at the boundaries of Holocaust Studies and North African Studies, and suggesting, powerfully, that neither is complete without the other.
The essays in this volume reconstruct the implementation of race laws and forced labor across the Maghreb during World War II and consider the Holocaust as a North African local affair, which took diverse form from town to town and city to city. They explore how the Holocaust ruptured Muslim–Jewish relations, setting the stage for an entirely new post-war reality. Commentaries by leading scholars of Holocaust history complete the picture, reflecting on why the history of the Holocaust and North Africa has been so widely ignored—and what we have to gain by understanding it in all its nuances.
Published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I have not read the book personally so can't comment on the the content

[ljadw]

1 NO : Germany needed AH only as a pretext for declaring war on Russia .

So that they could divide their forces between the West and the East?
Are you serious or trolling?

2 The simple truth ,which most historians refuse to admit is that AH, Russia and Germany needed each other: none of each had any reason to fight against each other, but a lot of reasons not to fight against each other .

I don't know what "historians" are you talking about again, but everyone knows the Союз трёх императоров or Dreikaiserabkommen of 1873. For me it is an obvious thing that Germany, the people of Central-Eastern Europe and Russia/SU need each other. Not as overlords and subjects, but as partners and balances. This is somewhat a common knowledge and a historical reality.

The fall of the Czar would result in a left wing Russian republic that would be very hostile to the Kaiser and FJ .
The fall of the Kaiser would result in the collapse of AH and the creation of anti Russian republics .

Not really, the fall of the Czar resulted a pro-German or at least neutral Soviet-Russia. Without it, Hitler would never get to the eastern end of Poland, and he could never dream of being at the gates of Moscow.

The fall of the Kaiser would not necessarily result the collapse or disintegration of the AH Empire; it would mean only minor territorial losses. The way the AH collapsed was thanks to a prolonged war and a civil war, where social unrest was equally important as national frictions.

3 The only reason why Germany declared war on Russia was that the German socialists would not accept a war with France,without a war against Russia .

Okay... no comment.

And as there were no problems between Russia and Germany, only AH could give Germany the excuse for a DOW on Russia.

An excuse? Wtf?

4 The Kaiser said to the 7 armies who went to France in August : you will be back (at home ) before the leafs are falling from the trees (thus before October ): this means that there would be no war in the East .

For me it means there would be no war in the West...

Germany did not need the AH army as protection : the 8th army was sufficient .

What was the Imperial Russian Army's disposition when the hostilities started? Could you please recall?

After the fall of France Russia would immediately give up .

Give up what?

The Russian armies who were concentrated against AH in August 1914,could not be concentrated against Germany if AH remained neutral .

What do you mean by that? They had a religious belief that they had to die in Lemberg and Limanova, or what?

1 Bethmann said that he was not interested in Sarajevo
2 The Communists were hostile to Imperial Germany and some of them were dreaming of going to Berlin .An Imperial Russia also would remain neutral in 1939 .
3 If imperial Germany collapsed, imperial AH would follow
4 Sarajevo was used as an excuse by Germany : AH would declare war on Serbia, Russia on AH, Germany on Russia and, France on Germany ,and this would prevent any opposition of the SPD against the war . We now that this did not happen ,but we know that this was the plan .
5 7 armies advancing to the west means war in the west .
6 After the fall of France, the war in the east would stop .
Last point : because of logistical reasons it was impossible to concentrate 5 armies against Germany in August 1914 .The Russian Schwerpunkt would be against AH, so was the German plan .
No war with AH would not result in stronger Russian forces on the border with Germany at the start of the war .
The problem in the pre war German strategy was that a German-Russian war was needed for a French DOW on Germany, but that this German-Russian war was depending on a prior war between AH and Russia. As this did not happen,the whole plan collapsed and Germany had to improvise .

[ljadw]

The Holocaust and North Africa
Aomar Boum
Sarah Abrevaya Stein, Co-Editor
The Holocaust is usually understood as a European story. Yet, this pivotal episode unfolded across North Africa and reverberated through politics, literature, memoir, and memory—Muslim as well as Jewish—in the post-war years. The Holocaust and North Africa offers the first English-language study of the unfolding events in North Africa, pushing at the boundaries of Holocaust Studies and North African Studies, and suggesting, powerfully, that neither is complete without the other.
The essays in this volume reconstruct the implementation of race laws and forced labor across the Maghreb during World War II and consider the Holocaust as a North African local affair, which took diverse form from town to town and city to city. They explore how the Holocaust ruptured Muslim–Jewish relations, setting the stage for an entirely new post-war reality. Commentaries by leading scholars of Holocaust history complete the picture, reflecting on why the history of the Holocaust and North Africa has been so widely ignored—and what we have to gain by understanding it in all its nuances.
Published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I have not read the book personally so can't comment on the the content

I know all this, but what happened in Libya and Tunisia between 1941 and 1943 was not a Holocaust .Race laws and forced labour is not a Holocaust : these things and much worse happened also after the war in NA,and nobody called this a Holocaust .
An other point :the relations between Muslims and Jews were not ruptured in 1941-1943 in NA: the hostility of the Muslims to the Jews existed already before WW1 : during the Dreyfus affair there were anti Jewish pogroms in Algeria .
There was also a pogrom in Constantine in 1934 .

[TheMarcksPlan]

In the July Crisis Austria and Germany discussed giving any territory demanded to Italy in order to ensure she joined them, as they could always attack Italy afterwards and retake any territory ceded to Italy.

DIdn't know that. Where can I read about this?

[ljadw]

The OP is totally wrong : it would cost Germany much more divisions to suppress Italy that it costed her to help Italy .
Thus, with the cheap decision (helping Italy ) Germany lost Barbarossa ,with the costly decision,there would not be a Barbarossa .
A third possibility : no Italian participation to the war: this would make the Mediterranean a British lake and would also tie so many German forces,that Barbarossa would be impossible .
About the possibility of the Axis to win in NA and the WHY they did not win:
the Italian historian Fabio De Ninno wrote in 2014 the following paper : Italian logistics,at the odds under allied bombs,between Sicily and Libyan coasts .
And ,in this paper,he said the following :
the three key elements of the convoy battle were
a the level of attrition imposed on the Regia Marina and the Italian Merchant Navy
b Britain's effectiveness in cutting off the Italian sea lanes in the decisive moments of the North African campaign
c its increasing capacity to adapt to the changing conditions of the war in the Mediterranean .
I disagree with these three points
a The level of attrition is irrelevant for the battle of the convoys : all we know is that the ground and air forces received what they needed .The losses of the RM and the merchant Fleet are not relevant .
b : this is wrong,as there were no decisive moments in the NA campaign
c : the increasing capacity to adapt to the changing conditions of the war in the Mediterranean did not result in more or less supplies for the Axis forces in NA .
No supplies would result in the collapse of the forces in NA.
But: what with more supplies ?There is no proof that more supplies would help .
What with less supplies ?There is no proof that less supplies would hinder the forces in NA :they received less supplies in 1942 than in 1941, but still advanced farther.
The main reason why the axis forces were defeated in NA is that Britain had not only more supplies (manpower,resources ) but also the possibility to transport them to the front (Alexandria and a railway ) .
To focus on the shortcomings of the Axis logistics and to neglect totally British logistics is not only an insult to the British forces who fought in NA ,but it gives the Italy hating and Rommel adoring lobby the opportunity to make Italy the black sheep for the Axis defeat .

[joeylonglegs]

Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy .
PS : there was no Holocaust in NA

>"Italy followed only the example of Britain, US, France, Spain, Russia,China,Turkey, KSA ,non Fascist Italy: all members of UN,which is presented as an organization that promoted,defended,imposed democracy ."

This is whataboutism. None of it changes the fact that Italy committed atrocities in Libya and Ethiopia

>"PS : there was no Holocaust in NA."

You should be banned from this forum for holocaust denial.

That Italy committed atrocities in its colonial wars in Africa is irrelevant : every one did it .Also non fascist Italy .
And, there were no extermination camps in NA, thus you can't claim that there was a Holocaust in NA.

>"That Italy committed atrocities in its colonial wars in Africa is irrelevant : every one did it .Also non fascist Italy ."

My god dude. Debating you is a headache.

You stated "Fascist Italy was not a genocidal state". I refuted your claim. Now, you are turning to whataboutism and trying to change your argument because you can't accept that you were refuted. In fact, this whole thread consists of you doing just that.

>"And, there were no extermination camps in NA, thus you can't claim that there was a Holocaust in NA."

This is absolute nonsense.

Extermination camps were not the only tactics used by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Starvation in ghettos, mass shootings, and other tactics were also used. The Holocaust in NA is somewhat well documented and there is loads of evidence of German, Italian, and Vichy French authorities mass killing Jews in NA. Whether there were extermination camps or not in NA is completely irrelevant, nobody ever claimed there were extermination camps in NA.

[Terry Duncan]

Temporary lock for staff review.

Terry

Edit: Now unlocked. People, please be careful when touching upon elements of the Nazi persecution of the Jews/Holocaust. The place to discuss such things is the Holocaust and War Crimes board, where David Thompson is far better informed on the subject. Overall, when discussing the topic as part of a 'What If' scenario it is not really a suitable subject matter for the board other than in the briefest mention. If you wish to do so, please check the rules on the subject first, and if still in doubt ask a moderator.

Terry Duncan