Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ITALY AT WAR, READY TO ATTACK; STAB IN BACK, SAYS ROOSEVELT (6/11/40)
Microfiche-New York Times archives, McHenry Library, U.C. Santa Cruz | 6/11/40 | Herbert L. Matthews, Felix Belair Jr., Hanson W. Baldwin, Harold Denny, J.W. Kernick

Posted on 06/11/2010 4:44:05 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson

1

Photobucket

2

Photobucket

3

Photobucket

4

Photobucket

5

Photobucket

6

Photobucket

7

Photobucket

8

Photobucket

9

Photobucket

10

Photobucket

11

Photobucket

12

Photobucket

13

Photobucket

14

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: milhist; realtime; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: Homer_J_Simpson
Today's War Cabinet minutes mimic the official announcement in the British War Reports. Today, the cabinet has acknowledged the loss of the Carrier H.M.S. Glorious. There is no word on the two escorting destroyers.
21 posted on 06/11/2010 10:21:53 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

It is an interesting question. Suffice it to say it would have likely taken North Africa out of the question altogether. Perhaps even to the extent that operation TORCH against the Vichy would not have materialized. The attack on Russia would have probably come in early May instead of late June and with the extra month and a half of good weather the Soviets may have fallen. There are a hundred different ways it could have played out but one thing is for certain. Italy was one of the best helps to the Allies in the war. They were a drain on the Nazi war machine and were unable to make any significant gains of their own. The first example of this we will see in British Somaliland.


22 posted on 06/11/2010 10:26:37 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I think the public was paying less attention then, then they are today.

With your head stuck in the sand, you will convince yourself that everything is OK. When its not.

I have a feeling that sixty years from now our grandkids will be reading the posts from today, and wondering why we did nothing.


23 posted on 06/11/2010 10:43:19 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7

Yet, ‘Bogged Down’ is a misnomer.

Yes, The Germans had to bail the Italians out in Greece, but it was the Pro-Allied Coup in Yugoslavia on Mar 27, 1941, that set Barbarossa back.

Hitler had made an agreement with the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, that took them out of the game, until the coup.


24 posted on 06/11/2010 10:49:12 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Obama White House=Tammany Hall on the National Mall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
From all of your research, how do you think Poland would respond to an attack on their homeland today? Are they more able than their forefathers? Just curious.
25 posted on 06/11/2010 11:03:06 AM PDT by HOYA97 (twitter @hoya97)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

Makes life a lot easier for the Germans. No diversion of Flierkorps X and other assets to the Med. No need to send the DAK to Africa and try to keep the supply line open them at great cost. The Germans may not have had to invade Yuogslavia, and most likely wouldn’t have had to invade Greece or Crete. Might have gotten Barbarossa on the way a LITTLE sooner, but the troops and equipment would have been fresh.

Italy had as much business in WW II as I would trying to date Catherine Deneuve.


26 posted on 06/11/2010 11:18:15 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
The Soviets were just a brutal to the Poles

I always remember the scene in the movie "Europa, Europa" where a group of Jewish and Gentile Poles are crossing the river to escape the advancing Nazis, when they see some boats heading towards them alerting them that the Soviets have invaded and are headed towards them. The gentiles immediately turn around and head back towards the Germans, while the Jews continue Eastward. So at least it shows the Poles were more fearful of the Russians than the Germans, or as General Anders put it, "With the Nazis we lose our lives, with the Soviets, we lose our souls."

27 posted on 06/11/2010 11:24:04 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7

Cougar

Col. David Glantz, American authority on the Russo-German war, believes that the “delay” to Barbarossa caused by Germany’s involvement in the Balkans is a myth. He states that the winter of 1940-41 had a late thaw, and in most of Western Russia April and May were unusually wet months. In addition, the forces used in the Balkans were relatively minor, and not serious deletions from the German Order of Battle. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, they had a number of infantry divisions held back in Germany as reserves. Those divisions were fed into the front line over time as the front lengthened the farther east the Germans advanced. The fact that those reserves existed at all shows that there was not a serious loss of combat capability to the German Army caused by the Balkan Campaign.

Glantz believes Barbarossa was at most delayed two weeks. And I don’t buy that those two weeks would have gotten the Germans to Moscow before winter. Moscow was beyond the Wehrmacht’s logistic limit regardless of the weather.

The myth of the Barbarossa delay finds its origins in the post-war statements of defeated German generals, who were looking for convenient excuses for the failure of Barbarossa. They conjured up just about every reason except the real one, and that is that Germany simply did not have the time or logistic capacity to destroy the USSR in one summer campaign season. Barbarossa had to be planned as a two-year campaign, with a “winter rest period,” to have had any real chance of complete victory.

Wow...I’m really getting ahead of myself here...


28 posted on 06/11/2010 12:02:08 PM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: henkster

I would say that Col. Glantz makes a lot of good points there. I haven’t really taken a close look at the weather in spring of 41 so if thaw was late then it definitely would not have much of an impact overall. I think more importantly in the overall war effort was the fact that Italy turned out to be a fifth wheel for the Nazis. The diversion of air assets from the Eastern Front to places like North Africa did not help the Axis war effort and all the Italians provided was cannon fodder for the British. But for now, the Italians are off to dominate the French on the Southern Front.....theoretically.


29 posted on 06/11/2010 3:00:14 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7

I thought that on today’s date, when informed of Mussolini’s declaration, Churchill commented something to the effect of “It’s only fair the Nazis have to fight with Italy in this war; we had them in the last one.” However, I can’t seem to locate the quote. Perhaps apocryphal.

It seems all of Germany’s allies were “5th wheels” with the possible exception of the Finns. The Germans were notoriously poor at drafting teammates.


30 posted on 06/11/2010 5:16:40 PM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr
Might have gotten Barbarossa on the way a LITTLE sooner, but the troops and equipment would have been fresh.

Now I've read accounts that maintain Hitler's diversion into the Balkans really didn't impact the time table of Barbarossa all that much due to the wet weather that spring which would have forced a postponement irregardless. Your thoughts?

31 posted on 06/11/2010 6:27:09 PM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: henkster

I can easily see Churchill making that statement, though the only sites I can find that have that quote are not necessarily reliable sources (ie. theneweditor.com archive). I did find one of my favorite quotes from him while I was looking.

Lady Astor: Sir, if I was married to you, I would serve you poison in your wine.

Winston Churchill: Madam if I was married to you, I would drink it.

I think you are right in that all of Germany’s allies were not reliable. Honestly, I would have to throw Finland in that lot too. Not because they were not effective fighters. They have more than shown their metal earlier this year. But they lacked the commitment to go beyond the areas they had lost to Russia in the Winter War. They never made a concentrated stab at taking Leningrad for example, which they could easily have done and likely with success. They were uneasy allies to the Germans, really just throwing in with the “superpower” in their region that appeared to be getting the upper hand.

They would continue this type of political attitude after the war is over. Finland will align itself with the Soviets not out of ideology, but to prevent raising the ire of the bear next door. They even coined a term for countries that shifted political spectrum like this, it’s called Finlandization.


32 posted on 06/11/2010 7:01:32 PM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr
PzLdr: "Italy had as much business in WW II as I would trying to date Catherine Deneuve."

:-)


33 posted on 06/12/2010 4:54:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CougarGA7
quoting "the oath taken by the Polish force in France":

In the end, Germans paid a relatively small price for the tens of millions of deaths they caused.

34 posted on 06/12/2010 5:04:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HOYA97
From all of your research, how do you think Poland would respond to an attack on their homeland today? Are they more able than their forefathers?

Reasearch? Me? I just deliver the paper to your cyber-driveway every morning.

But Poles are human beings, like us. People everywhere seem to rise to the occasion when something like a brutal military invasion happens. It's the gradual, boil-the-frog-slowly type of takeover that is more likely to see less resistance. Again, like us. As to their ability, I am not familiar with their leadership so I don't know how capably they would organize a response to military attack. One thing I have learned from reading my history over the last year or two is that good leadership is crucial to national defense and the results of leadership - good or bad - have an impact for some time after the leadership has changed.

35 posted on 06/12/2010 6:21:34 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson; HOYA97
HOYA97: "From all of your research, how do you think Poland would respond to an attack on their homeland today? Are they more able than their forefathers?"

Strategically, Poland's situation today is much different from 1939.

Yes, Germany is still double Poland's population, but they are now NATO and E.U. allies. Prussia, the source of Germany's traditional military leadership is no more, and East Germans are still suffering from the effects of two generations of Soviet Communist style rule. Germany today is no threat to Poland.

And to the East the Soviet Union is gone, replaced on Poland's borders by Ukraine and Bylorussia, who also represent no conceivable threat to Poland. To the South, Slovakia and Czech Republic... small countries.

As insurance against some future contingency, Poland sought and received strong support from the United States under leaders like the Bushes elder and younger. This seems to have mostly evaporated with our current administration, but so far that's only a matter for serious worry rather than acute alarm.

A future US administration could restore a sense of friendship and confidence, and thus help insure stability in central and eastern Europe.

Iirc, Poland suffered more than any other country in WWII. Impossible to imagine the Poles will ever forget that.


36 posted on 06/12/2010 7:07:53 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

True. The Japanese got off pretty easy too.


37 posted on 06/12/2010 10:20:41 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Homer_J_Simpson; HOYA97

But like a nice Polish woman, who spent her childhood in a German concentration camp, told me:

“Of course they wanted Poland (Germany and the Soviets). Everyone wants Poland, it is the most beautiful place in the world”


38 posted on 06/12/2010 10:27:16 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (In order to dream of the future, we need to remember the past. - Bartov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

Looks like il Duce is betting the farm. Britain’s control of Egypt, Sudan and the Suez Canal cuts Italy’s off from its forces in East Africa, and a combined Anglo-French fleet will give the Allies naval superiority in the Med. In addition, The Allies could threaten all of Italy with aerial bombardment by basing bombers on Corsica. If France can hold off the Axis onslaught, Italy may have to quickly sue for peace.

On the other hand, if France falls, the Axis powers could pose a threat to the British in North Africa and the Middle East should Hitler choose to move his armies into Libya.


39 posted on 06/12/2010 6:14:58 PM PDT by Rufii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan
As far as the time schedule, Operations PUNISHMENT and MARITA had a minimal effect, maybe two weeks. The same Russian mud one sees on the film clips about the operations leading up to the attack and counterattack on Moscow occurs in the Spring. resulting in seasonal pauses between cold weather and warm weather operations. The Spring rains and mud were pretty bad in ‘41, and the Germans had to wait for the roads to firm up and dry up before they jumped. So the attack wasn't off schedule by much, or because of the Balkans.

What was effected was the equipment and troops from AG South, both of which were worn down and in need of rest and repair; neither of which they got.

40 posted on 06/13/2010 11:47:22 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson