in the face of even a second front they can hold and supply easier then the Albanian one.
No I get it. It means you wrote straightforwardly. The Greeks have an easier supply situation on the Bulgarian front, like you literally said. But the downside is… that consumes supples… that probably are not available in country.Sorry the Greeks can supply the Metaxas line better then the Albanian front is what I meant.
In that while it's an improvement it's still a heavy pressure considering that by 1940 on one front IOTL they were pretty much finished supply wise.
But wasn't the attack on Crete itself mostly a reaction to the British surprising the Germans by committing forces to the Balkans?It's just hard to imagine a situation where the British as the only available source of what they need can get enough in country being as they couldn't IRL. The Greek Army was a spent force in 1941 they may very well crack here. And it's always hard to see neutrals jump into a lost cause. That said if there's no British force on the mainland maybe troops and kit lost in the fall of Athens could change things up on Crete since that was such a marginal win for the Axis.
I mean the fact that the remnants of the Greek campaign were there was a contributing factor but it's hard to see a scenario where the Italians can steal a March and take it before the British or the idea that anyone would have let it just sit there after Athens falls.But wasn't the attack on Crete itself mostly a reaction to the British surprising the Germans by committing forces to the Balkans?
...isn't going to happen. It's rather far fetched. The Vichy Zone of the mainland & Corsica certainly isn't taking this chance. At best a few more colonial commanders (like in West Africa/Dakar, and if supremely lucky, in Tunis or Algiers) may defect from Vichy to Algiers. Now the effective result of that is the Germans would probably extinguish the Vichy Zone's military autonomy in retaliation/response.OR ... an early UK victory in Libya might draw Vichy France back into the war, forcing the Germans to delay Barbarossa until later.
@ChrisNuttall
The first couple thoughts are worthy of rumination, but the last
...isn't going to happen. It's rather far fetched. The Vichy Zone of the mainland & Corsica certainly isn't taking this chance. At best a few more colonial commanders (like in West Africa/Dakar, and if supremely lucky, in Tunis or Algiers) may defect from Vichy to Algiers. Now the effective result of that is the Germans would probably extinguish the Vichy Zone's military autonomy in retaliation/response.
If we assume the UK takes Libya, perhaps driving the Italians (and any Germans who do make it to Africa in this timeline) into Algeria, the French will come under immense pressure from the Germans to actually join the war against the UK or else ('or else', in this case, being the effective termination of Vichy France, at least on the mainland.) I don't think Hitler would accept any pretense at Vichy maintaining its neutrality if the British were in a positon to bring pressure of their own to bear. The best case, in this timeline, would be Algeria defecting, as you suggest, unless Hitler genuinely does honour French nutrality.
This is Hitler, so probably not unless he had a VERY pressing reason to let it go.
Yeah but I thought you were talking something big like Vichy across the board, in Europe, in the colonies, being inspired by a UK win in Libya to turn against Germany once more, greatly complicating Germany's position and forcing postponement of Barbarossa beyond 1941. THAT's not gonna happen. The Germans will move as fast as the French think and talk about it.
And mere flips of colonies, even Algeria, from Vichy to Gaullist loyalties, won't suffice to knock off the Barbarossa timetable.
