Re: Battle of Athens
- From: "Andrew Clark" <aclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:14:21 -0400
"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
My understanding from Churchill's history is that Churchill
ordered a major effort on behalf of the Greeks more for
reasons of national honor than out of hope of success.
Britain had a treaty of alliance with Greece. Egregiously breaking treaties
while simultaneously involved in intense diplomatic negotiations with
nations all over the world isn't very wise. That's what Churchill meant, and
he was right.
Additionally, Britain in the early war had to fight Germany in peripheral
theatres, because it could not as yet fight in the main theatre of NW
Europe. Sending troops to Greece might have made a difference to the German
Balkan campaign (the commanders on the ground thought so at the time), or it
might have been an ignominious defeat. But you cannot fight a war without
risking defeat.
It is possible that, had the Brits not fought in Greece, they
might have held North Africa more securely against the
Afrika Corps.
Neither side in North Africa could win without stronger forces and better
logistic support than existed in 1941. That's why the tactical advances and
retreats prior to Alamein were pretty much operationally insignificant.
.
- References:
- Battle of Athens
- From: Disco_Stu
- Re: Battle of Athens
- From: Alan Meyer
- Battle of Athens
- Prev by Date: Re: Start of war
- Next by Date: Re: The nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Previous by thread: Re: Battle of Athens
- Next by thread: When was the second world war named?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
