The Italians cost Nazi Germany World War 2.

Henceforth, for the opponent to win, he has to prove that on balance, Italy was responsible for the fall of Nazi Germany. Simply, for me to win, I simply have to disprove his points and prove that, indeed, Italy would have been a strain on Germany if events did not turn out well, and Germany’s alliance with Italy was beneficial during WW2. 1R1NRC: On Rommel’s Application of Technique and the Eastern Front The opponent states that “if Rommel, and his troops were transferred to the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the war” This is a very fallacious statement. Why? Because of two reasons; Russia has more men, and Russian military tactics are renders that of Rommel ineffectual. Let us first take a look at Rommel’s doctrines; Rommel, the “Desert Fox” was an armored forces commander. He was a Clausewitzian-Guiderian in terms of military warfare; he believed in the concentration of one attack, as Clausewitz did, on a single position, which would lead to a breakthrough in that position. This effort was easily applied in North Africa, because the British and Americans had similar doctrines; apart from this, Rommel also believed that his tanks “could achieve anything” This was true due to the landscape of the Saharan Desert, which showed that tanks here had a comfortable ride to the battlefield. [1] However, when these tactics were put into operation in Russia, they will fail. Russian commanders have adopted a new radical doctrine of warfare, fitted for the Russian Army and its soldiers. It was called “Deep Operational Warfare” Deep Operational Warfare arose from debates early on in the Red Army; these questions were on the (1) nature of warfare, (2) on the technology of warfare, and (3) on the Russian situation. When these questions were answered, the Red Army adopted a new radical outline for attacks; to counter the Clausewitzian-Guiderian doctrine, the Russian Red Army doctrine would encourage their men to attack from several places at once. This was done during Operation Uranus, when a Russian pincer encircled the German 6th Army’s deep salient into Soviet land. So if the methods of Rommel were applied to Russia, he would have suffered many defeats; he would have created a salient, in which the overwhelming Russian forces could have immensely destroyed the German’s rear and encircled the enemy. Apart from this, one has to take into account that Russia had an excessive amount of men to spare. Rommel was dealing with forces outnumbering him by only a ratio of 2:1, whilst the German generals in Russia were dealing an enemy, which outnumbered them with a ratio of 6:1. But the territorial changes would have destroyed all inklings of Rommel's tank tactics. The desert is a normal place for armored warfare. Russian forests? No. In 1941, an armored division that went into Russia with 60 tanks ended up with 12 operational ones. The Russian Winter was horrible for the Germans; it completely destroyed the German armored core. Rommel’s method [1] was supposedly based on surprise attacks, where his forces would just surprise the enemy at any moment in an attack. This meant the tanks had to be fast and agile; there was no such thing as that on the Russian plains. [2] 1R2AC: Italy’s Hypothetical Betrayal With this said, let us speak of how Italy would have betrayed the Germans if the Germans did not aid Italy in North Africa. Italy’s alliance with Germany was, to say the least, precarious during the first days; Italy had promised to aid Austria from German annexation. In a speech, Benito Mussolini stated that “to the people of the East [Austria], let us exchange ideas and prosperity! ” With this being said, he opposed Hitler’s policy by deploying Italian troops to the Italian-Austrian borders; however, Mussolini needed Hitler’s support in Ethiopia, and this was the only reason why the Anschluss was possible. Nevertheless, the Italian-German Alliance was rough, to say the least. Albeit they made good friends and economic partners, both of them had conflicting ideals; if Italy adopted the Nordicism of Germany, then they would be de facto discriminating against the Southern Italians, who came from a much more Mediterranean descent; they might have been inhabitants left over from the Muslim occupation. Apart from this, Italy’s government was largely secular until the start of World War Two; the anti-Semitic policies of Adolf Hitler were incompatible with the Italian Fascist movement. The Italian Fascist Movement contained many Jewish supporters; 10,000 Italian Jews belonged to the Italian Fascist Party. With this being said, Hitler’s Nordicism would have destroyed the Italian Nation and the Italian Fascist Party. In a case where Germany does not honor its treaty with the Italian nation, things would have turned out to be much different from what it initially turned out to be; if Germany did not assist Italy’s campaign in the Balkans, the Italy would have clearly betrayed to the Allied Forces. This would be because Italian Nationalist were frustrated after attempts to claim the “unredeemed lands” were frustrated by Italy’s alliance with Germany. Italy’s betrayal to the Allied Forces would mean the opening of another front, down south of Germany, in which Italian troops would easily flush into German territory, without much German resistance. The Finns committed these actions during the controversial Lapland War, when Mannerheim released his ferocious army of Finns upon the German occupiers; the Germans were caught with surprise and quickly retreated. Germany puts too much trust on their allies, and they depend on them for resources. If Italy joined the allies, then Stalin would have also joined the Allied Forces and Germany would have been crushed within a year. Henceforth, it was Germany’s best interest to assist the Italians. 1R3AC: Hitler’s Decisions In fact, if one would want to analyze the German defeat, one must understand that Adolf Hitler was at the center of it. I do not deny that Adolf Hitler was a splendid leader, but he was an awful commander. Germany cannot fight a two-front war, as the German army would easily be squeezed. Hitler also did not follow the doctrines of Machiavelli fully, which led to the quick draining of his support in German-occupied areas. Firstly, Adolf Hitler was foolish to attack the USSR in July of 1941; albeit if the attack were shorter (instead of the three Axis at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad), it would have been a success. However, Adolf Hitler did not follow the advice of his generals; he went on with the plan. July to December was not a long time; Hitler and his generals knew that if the invasion did not end by December, then his war was over. Hitler took a gamble and quickly launched a huge attack on Russia; the Red Army retreated, but it regrouped and launched a series of offensives in December 1941; the war was a short dash of hope. Quoting Robert Burns, “But Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain” With the Winter Offensives of 1941 showing Hitler that this war would be a war of attrition, he foolishly declares war on the United States on December 11th, 1941, soon after the Japanese attack. This led the United States to have an incentive to attack Germany; as many German troops were now stationed on the Eastern Front, Hitler was now at war with two superpowers; Nazi Germany simply did not have the economic, industrial capabilities to sustain the war. This was made worst by Hitler’s ignorance of “preserve or destroy” If Hitler preserved workers, then his economic capabilities might have been increased. If he took good care of his Slavic prisoners, they would have been more productive; the German Wartime Economy was decreasing. Ergo, it was Hitler who was at fault here, not Italy. Citations: [1] [2]