Which one was Germany's better ally in Europe?

Which one was Germany's better ally in Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Italy literally cost Axis the war.

The idea that the invasion of Russia was a catastrophic failure and a mistake is a myth. It is 1250 kms from Warsaw to Moscow and Operation Barbarossa made it to within 25 kms, the Germans managed to encircle Leningrad and Stalingrad for a while, though they were pushed back after Stalingrad it wasn't until late 1944 that the line collapsed. It is completely feasible that if Germany had a little extra push they could have at least stabilized the front in the east and made it impossible for the Soviet Union to recover, if not collapsing the Soviet Union, claiming the oil wells in the caucasus and other objectives.

The most notable opportunity for this "extra push" was avoiding delays to the start of Operation Barbarossa, delays caused by Italy's failed invasion of Greece which forced Hitler to divert resources to the Balkans campaign while simultaneously repositioning troops from the invasion of France and supplying them. Had this not happened, Germany would have had an extra few crucial months before the Eastern European mud season and Russian winter, certainly enough to begin the battle of Moscow which Hitler would have devoted the entire German war machine into and could be supplied more easily than the battle of Stalingrad.

Italy was not a poorly developed country, it was wealthier than say Romania which provided crucial support on the Eastern front. Italy had equipment and training that rivaled Germany, the UK and France. There is no explanation for Italy's dismal performance in the war other besides something inherent in their character which caused them to develop fantastic dreams of restoring the Roman empire then speedily surrender 10000s of troops and overthrow their own government when it went a little wrong.

Vichy France

Contrary to most people I don't think the Eastern Front couldn't be won, but capturing Moscow wasn't the win condition that most people think it was.

Holy fuck that's a pile of memes.

>Italy had equipment and training that rivaled Germany, the UK and France.
Lol, what
This is totally wrong

>delays to the start of Operation Barbarossa
Oh of course. Those incompetent eyetalians causing an uncommonly wet winter and fully flooded rivers until late spring! How could they.
Not to mention the fuel distribution delays and failure to set up forward air bases in time. Stupid eyetalians!

Namely one thing Italy did in WW2.

they kept the Mediterranean
British couldn't even take back things like the dodecanese islands until Italy joined their side and passed control

Italy was not the country which sperged out and brought the overwhelming manpower and resources of the U.S. into the war.

Didn't they both switch sides as soon as shit hit the fan?

Romania. Without Romanian oil, Germany was going nowhere.

.t idiot. Read this history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-21/cmhPub_104-21.pdf

They weren't smoothly sailing in Russia, had taken operational alosses close to 33% of the army, "made it" within sight of Moscow with a detached reconaissance formation, didn't have Stalingrad surrounded, and couldn't bring up more forces due to lack of railroad capacity.

The idea that Italy cost Germany a chance to strike in may is debunked by Martin Van Creveld in Supplying War; it also would be obvious from just looking at when Operation Blue started, June 24th of 1942; you can't attack much earlier in Russia unless you actually want to wade through several feet thick mud.

Italy only switched when the allies invaded their mainland, and even then the country pretty much split and entered a state of civil war between the royalist/partisan part and the fascist one

>Supplying War
I've been looking for a link of this for ages

As far as I know, there's no free online copy. You'd have to buy it.

Explain to me how the Axis would have won the war once the US started nuking them in 1945. What does it matter whether they defeated Russia or not?

>good ally
Japan
>semi-competent ally
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
>retarded puppet
italy

Vichy France was actually nice, popular holiday destination.

So much garbage in one post

it was so nice that germany just annex it

Italy and romania were the reasons the axis even got as far as they did.

>muh moscow was almost invaded
The key in defeating the Soviets in Barbarossa was not TAKING Moscow, but holding it and defeating any Soviets who attempted to retake it, namely the Siberian forces who were shipped to Moscow's aid in late 1941. Soviet forces had already been annihilated outside Moscow. Stavka could field 2 shattered divisions and a hundred or so "workers battalions". The weather was what truly what stopped Army group center from taking Moscow in 1941. Rarely in history are there such simple explanations for something like this, but general winter really did stop the Soviets. If the soviets were to be defeated they had to be destroyed en masse in a large engagement, which, by late 1941, was possible. Soviet forces south the Don marshes were being pushed back steadily and remained frozen due to the leadership issues of its commanders. However, had moscow fallen so late with such little preparation for winter it is very likely the Germans wouldn't have been able to hold it. That is why the concerted narrow salient thrust proposed by the OKW 2 months prior was so serious when it was turned down. Hitler favored a super Cannae style attack which was more centered around dsetroying soviet forces, and the first time this idea was proposed by OKW it made sense to be turned down, due to the large bodies of "defeated" soviets milling about in the German rear and the gap between the highly mobile and less mobile forces. The second time it was turned down was so Guderian would participate in the battle of Kiev (against his wishes). Had Hitler left Kiev to von Manstein and Army group South, Kiev couldve fallen on its own and Moscow taken with enough time to stabilize the front. At this point, due to intel concerns, the Soviets wouldnt have pulled troops from Sibera so easily. The whole "extra push" thing therefore makes no sense, because it was the German timetable that caused defeat, not lack of troops.
>inb4 my source: "Barbarossa", Alan Clark

OP why...