Do you believe this was a wise desicion?What are your thoughts about the strategies of both sides and the final outcome?

No I do not think this was a wise decision at all. After their early failures in East Africa, and I suppose even in North Africa, the Italians should have realized they could not run with the big boys. After saying that Italy was not ready for war until 42 or 43, Mussolini still launched the Etheopia campaign in 1935, and then later this Greece invasion. He should have realized that his troops had poor leadership, heart, and equipment, and pulled out of the foreign campaigns and perhaps defended his own country properly. Despite their relatively weak military, the Italians should have realized that the terrain and such of Greece would make it a difficult country to conquer. After the Italians fell on their ass and were not only repulsed, but lost land in Albania to the couterattacking Greeks. The Germans once again came to their rescue and defeated the Greeks and Brits defending Greece. This only sidetracked Barbarrossa and was a nuicance waste of supplies for the Germans. The Italians had an easily defenseable country, they should have properly fortified the "soft underbelly" first, then worried about crazy invasion plans such as the Greek one, in which commanders were only notified days ahead of time.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Mussolini let his ego get in the way of running his country's military campaigns. There was not much left for Mussolini to conquer since Hitler was taking most of Europe. All that was left was North Africa and the Balkans. He knew he was unprepared yet he wanted to upshow his Facist 'subordinate'.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Those were words of wisdom.
Mussolini and his ego is what killed Italy in WWII.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

Just to elaborate a little, when the Germans came to the rescue in Greece, the majority of these units were poised to invade the Soviet Union. By diverting his forces away from the invasion of Russia, Hitler had to postpone Barbarrossa by a few months. This meant that the winter would arrive quiker, causing delays in troop movements, supply lines, etc, and this loss of momentum would give the Soviets time to build defences and regroup.

It postponed Barbarossa , that's a fact, but I believe those troops would have to be diverted anyway and had the Italians not attacked the British may have taken a chance later at an even more crucial point for the Axis. In a way by letting do the Germans do the job, this area was no longer a threat . this region was too close from Austria. The real trouble came later when partisan troops prevented several division from gaining the east front by keeping them busy with sabotage and guerilla. I a way Mussolini's blunder allowed hitler to seize not only Serbia but also Greece and therefore cause trouble to the Brirish in the eastern Mediteranean.

__________________

I don't think the Germans ever had much of a chance against Russia, and the Greece detour actually went better than expected. Hitler aquired some more territory, and as Skipper says, pushed the Brits out of the Balkans. It would have made sense to me for Hitler to call of Barbarrossa after the Greece episode, due to the proximatey to winter. Perhaps Hitler would have then realized that Barbarrosa was insane and called it off altogether.

__________________
Weapons are cool.

I think for the Italians it was simply one more disaster in a disasterously unsuccessful war bid made by Mussolini. From the German point of view it should have been seen as irrelevant.
Yugoslavia was neutral Romania was already allied with Germany and likely Germany could have kept Bulgaria neutral rather than trying to ally with them. This means that even if Britain comes to Greece's aid and defeats the Italians in Albania what does this buy them? It is Gallipoli on a giant scale. The British cannot support a large air force in Greece, let alone a large ground force.
A better alternative is to simply allow the campaign to run its course for the Germans. Maybe give up an infantry division or two to prop up the Italians.
Then, carry out Barbarosa as planned rather than go through a diversion campaign into the Balkians. Without a partisian campaign going on in Yugoslavia and with no substancial garrison required for this region the Germans are far better off in their Russian campaign, not to mention gaining valuable summer and fall fighting time.

In fact Hitler tried to convince Yougoslavia to join the Axis. By allowing his troops to cross the country and helping him invade Greece , he even promised Yougaslavia an access to the Mediteranean by granting the Greek city of Saloniki to the Yougoslavians. However, as we all know, the Yougaslavian refused. Had this plan succeeded then , not only Hitler would have had another allie but save both invasion and occupation troops+ probably get some more men from Yougoslavia to invade Russia. Could be a nice "what if " topic.

__________________

Hem, why would the Yugos want an access to the Med through Salonika when they had the entire Adriatic coast?

__________________
No Rest for the Wicked!

This is probably what the Yougoslavian government answered too, but Hitler had nothing better to offer. However, it was a grat strategic oppurtunity: an direct acces to the mediteranena would control Peloponesus and get close access to Pirea (Athens) harbour whereas The adriatic was more like a trap (ask the Italians who got blocked there by the British) . This would also give the Yougoslavian navy an alternative access to the sea.

__________________

This has been debated as far as the timeframe. Attacking earlier would have put the Germans facing the end of the raspuitsa (rainy season) in Russia so they would have been bogged down, especially in the North. Wasn't the original date for Barbarossa in Apr?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!