No Battle of Britain, Hitler´s Mediterranean gamble.

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Deciding not to risk heavy losses* in an attempted invasion of Britain as to not tarnish the victory against France** and suspecting an invasion of Britain is what the "jewish lapdog" Roosevelt needs to bring his country at war with Germany, Hitler decides to go south to foil this "obvious plot of the judeo-capitalist warmongrels".
How would the British respond to just having the Blitz instead? Which would target only military objectives, like airports, warships and factories.
IOTL, the BoB was considered an allied victory, what would be British moral without it? How would the forces that IOTL fought over Britain far over Egypt?
German objective would be the isolation and eventually the capture of Malta, move into Egypt and then, into the middle-east.
The belief is that with the loss of Malta, Suez (and if needed, all the way to Kuwait), the middle-east oilfields seized or destroyed, Churchill´s hold on power would be broken and Britain would as a result settle for negociations. Italian invasion of Greece would most probably be butterflied away.




* Not just of German soldiers but British civilians trying to resist the invasion, since Hitler classified Britons as aryans.

** Goebbels have his hand in that decision, after all, he wasn´t in the Minister of Propaganda for nothing.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

The belief is that with the loss of Malta, Suez and Kuwait, the middle-east oilfields seized or destroyed, Churchill´s hold on power would be broken and Britain would as a result settle for negociations. Italian invasion of Greece would most probably be butterflied away.

Wow, that's two pretty major leaps. Not only do I consider it very unlikley that any colonial losses could compell Britain to surrender given that, quietly and without fully admitting it even to ourselves, we already had given away the Empire and our status as a great power, agreeing to play second-fiddle to America by mortgaging our war effort (which, to clarify, is a policy I absolutely endorse in the interests of Nazi-beating), and very unlikely for a peacemaker government to rise in the climate of fatalism that had descended; I also consider it a pretty damn big handwave to plat Nazis in Kuwait, given the massive logistical difficulties they face and the resources freed up for us if there is no threat of invasion.

[The Red]

This scenario would involve either delaying Barbarossa or abandoning it all together.

[I Blame Communism]

Indeed, I'm pretty sure it would; and that does nothing whatever for the Germans. By 1942, they have a credible military power geared up along their eastern border. Even if their southward adventure has put Britain more on the ropes than OTL, their diplomatic situation is now precarious.

Everything depends on what Stalin does next. I think he'd probably prepare his forces and then cease his supply shipments to the Germans, putting him in rather the position of Alexander I in 1810-12. the question si whether Hitler, being Hitler, attempts Napoleon's solution, or whether the WAllies are left to bargain with Stalin.

[Cornelius]

I don't know if Hitler would ever renounce to Barbarossa. The invasion of Russia was one of his oldest goals. Even if Hitler had opted for a mediterraen strategy, I think that he would still consider Russia as a more pressing danger.

Said this, if Germany leans heavily on the italians and forces them to accept help, the axis would result as more successful in the area than OTL. Blunders as Greece would be probably avoided and more motorised troops and an heavier air support, while stretching the supply line to his maximum, would be enough to beat back operation compass. Personally I would say that the conquest of Egypt could be achieved.
Middle East is another kettle of fish. Reaching Iraq would mean using the resources udsed for Barbarossa and give to the words "logistic nightmare" a new meaning.

Would the fall of Egypt be enough to bring the british to the peace table? Unlikely, once that they got the USA support, the british knew that they could beat the germans. The african campaign in this ATL would turn out, of course, much more difficult for the allies, though.

an invasion of Britain is what the "jewish lapdog" Roosevelt needs to bring his country at war with Germany, Hitler decides to go south to foil this "obvious plot of the judeo-capitalist warmongrels".

Wyragen-TXRG4P, does this mean that the Germans are not going to declare war on USA after Pearl Harbour? Because it would open up some interesting possibilities...

Not only do I consider it very unlikley that any colonial losses could compell Britain to surrender given that, quietly and without fully admitting it even to ourselves, we already had given away the Empire and our status as a great power, agreeing to play second-fiddle to America by mortgaging our war effort

I Blame Communism, please correct me if I am wrong, but the british empire wasn't already slowly crumbling away? India seemed really near to reach indipendence and, once the main jewel had got away, the other possessions would have followed soon (with soon meaning ten/twenty years). Do you think that without a world war the empire would have lasted longer?

[RMcD94]

I Blame Communism, please correct me if I am wrong, but the british empire wasn't already slowly crumbling away? India seemed really near to reach indipendence and, once the main jewel had got away, the other possessions would have followed soon (with soon meaning ten/twenty years). Do you think that without a world war the empire would have lasted longer?

That is exactly what he said, it's answered in what you quoted...

quietly and without fully admitting it even to ourselves, we already had given away the Empire

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

I Blame Communism, please correct me if I am wrong, but the british empire wasn't already slowly crumbling away? India seemed really near to reach indipendence and, once the main jewel had got away, the other possessions would have followed soon (with soon meaning ten/twenty years). Do you think that without a world war the empire would have lasted longer?

I absolutely think it was already crumbling away, that Indian independence was already inevitable, and that that would bring down the house of cards. I do think that british rule in various places could have lasted somewhat longer without the war, which could have could or bad consequences depending on a variety of factors.

My point was that in much of the British state it was quietly acknowleged that India would become independent pretty directly after the war. This is why I'm always very dubious of scenarios in which this or that colonial defeat causes Britain to accept Nazi domination of Europe in order to retain something that we'd already pretty much given away. This seems to me based on Hitler's dreams, not Britain's realities.

Originally Posted by RMcD94

That is exactly what he said, it's answered in what you quoted...

Indeed, thanks.

[Cornelius]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

I absolutely think it was already crumbling away, that Indian independence was already inevitable, and that that would bring down the house of cards. I do think that british rule in various places could have lasted somewhat longer without the war, which could have could or bad consequences depending on a variety of factors.

My point was that in much of the British state it was quietly acknowleged that India would become independent pretty directly after the war. This is why I'm always very dubious of scenarios in which this or that colonial defeat causes Britain to accept Nazi domination of Europe in order to retain something that we'd already pretty much given away. This seems to me based on Hitler's dreams, not Britain's realities.

But how much of this was common knowledge? Churchill was surely aware and so had no problems accepting Roosvelt's terms, but the common people were actually aware of the dissolution of the empire and what did they thought about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMcD94
That is exactly what he said, it's answered in what you quoted...

Indeed, thanks.

It wasn't clear if he meant before or after the deal with Roosvelt...

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Wow, that's two pretty major leaps.

Nope, Italian invasion is the consequence of change 1.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Not only do I consider it very unlikley that any colonial losses could compell Britain to surrender

What exactly is your definition of surrender? As in the RAF and RN being limited by treaty or England itself occupied by German troops etc? Nope.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

quietly and without fully admitting it even to ourselves, we already had given away the Empire and our status as a great power, agreeing to play second-fiddle to America by mortgaging our war effort (which, to clarify, is a policy I absolutely endorse in the interests of Nazi-beating), and very unlikely for a peacemaker government to rise in the climate of fatalism that had descended;

It is one thing to accept theoretical possibilities, that extends to years in the futur, facing actual losses would be quiet different.

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

I also consider it a pretty damn big handwave to plat Nazis in Kuwait, given the massive logistical difficulties they face and the resources freed up for us if there is no threat of invasion.

There are plans for reaching Kuwait, whever that is possible or not is a different matter. Thought, there might be no threats of invasion but would that automatically be known for a fact? Will reinforcement of air defence for Britain itself be abandonned for Egypt´s sake? Considering the surprise already given to France, it would take at least until the Luftwaffe start major deployement there before that happens.
Logistic question? IOTL, there where a far larger logistical problem during and after operation Barbarossa.
How would British logistics far after northern Egypt and Suez are lost? After Palestine follows? With the necessity of occupying Iran (and possibly, Iraqi rebellion) coming much earlier?

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

How would the British respond to just having the Blitz instead? Which would target only military objectives, like airports, warships and factories.

That was the Battle of Britain... It was the attacks on London they called "the Blitz".

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

German objective would be the isolation and eventually the capture of Malta, move into Egypt and then, into the middle-east.
The belief is that with the loss of Malta, Suez (and if needed, all the way to Kuwait), the middle-east oilfields seized or destroyed, Churchill´s hold on power would be broken and Britain would as a result settle for negociations. Italian invasion of Greece would most probably be butterflied away.

A very interesting approach. Except OTL Hitler only bothered with the Mid-East after Mussolini bungled it. Nor do I see how his decision affects Mussolini's decision to attack Greece (which IIRC came as as surprise to Hitler).

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

Nope, Italian invasion is the consequence of change 1.

Sorry, you've lost me. Italian invasion of where?

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

What exactly is your definition of surrender? As in the RAF and RN being limited by treaty or England itself occupied by German troops etc? Nope.

"Treat with the Nazis from conditions other than victory."

Yes, I feel Churchillian.

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

It is one thing to accept theoretical possibilities, that extends to years in the futur, facing actual losses would be quiet different.

Labour were strongly anti-Nazi and not terribly concerned with Empire, and more likely to ride hopes on the USSR; many Conservatives would also rather hold out. If Churchill, who will never make peace, is ousted it will have been as a result of military blundering, and the obvious replacement would be the man who already runs the war economy, Clem.

I've never seen anyone actually make a convincing political scenario for a British crumpling from what looks like a position of familiarity with the politics and mood of the day.

As for ordinary folks, a mood of grim determination and fatalism had set in.

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

There are plans for reaching Kuwait, whever that is possible or not is a different matter. Thought, there might be no threats of invasion but would that automatically be known for a fact?

There was no plausible threat of invasion OTL, and it was nevertheless expected with bated breath. But if the RAF's control of the daylit skies is unchallenged, invasion is impossible. Anything not blown out of the water would be shot apart on the beaches.

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

Will reinforcement of air defence for Britain itself be abandonned for Egypt´s sake? Considering the surprise already given to France, it would take at least until the Luftwaffe start major deployement there before that happens.

What? Not really following. Note that I was also referring to some of the land forces kept on GB in expectation of invasion.

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

Logistic question? IOTL, there where a far larger logistical problem during and after operation Barbarossa.

Differences of magnitude are not differences of kind. Invading Russia did not necessitate crossing any hostile bodies of water, or require all supplies to be offloaded through fairly basic port infrastructure, or then require them to be transported across a next-to-trackless waste to reach the front. There were piles of supplies sitting on the docks of Tripoli OTL; no trucks existed to bring them to the embattled Afrika Korps.

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

How would British logistics far after northern Egypt and Suez are lost? After Palestine follows? With the necessity of occupying Iran (and possibly, Iraqi rebellion) coming much earlier?

That is all to assume that the Germans capture Egypt, which is a big, big stretch, requiring them to win where they lost OTL despite being at the end of very lengthy and poor-quality supply lines. And then their exhausted and overstretched forces are to capture the delta and push on to Suez, all against British opposition. And this is all to be done before Stalin starts steepling his fingers and cackling madly, which I would put at autumn 1942 or so.

Making that big assumption, then yes, we'd be left in a very poor situation in the Middle East and possibly be obliged to cut our losses. By this time, however, America should be in the war, so we can carry on as Airstrip One.

[Astrodragon]

While Rommel in Cairo might look very cool (ignoring for the moment the little problem of getting there..), what happens next?

You havent caputured the British army, its either retreated upo the Nile or back towards India.
So now what do you do?? Britain has a LOT of space to retreat into, its often forgotten nowadays just how big the British Empire was in 1940) there is basically NO infrastructure east of Suez - Britain moved everything by sea, which isnt an option for germany. So in order to move east, you have to build everything - road, railways. Granted Alexandria as a port helps get the stuff as far as Egypt, then what?

Heading south down AFrica is pretty pointess, there is not much better infrastructure and the British are retreating back along their lines of supply (look at the dirrence in logistice between the British army attacking the Italins in East Africa, and what the Italians have. this isnt going to change....)

Losing Suez is annoying for Britain, but hardly terrible, the convoys were already going via the Cape. Going East might (eventualy) solve the german oil issue, but getting as far as India is probably impossible (and when you get there, you have a supplied and big army to face, on its logistiacl base, while yo are at the end of a very long piece of string....)

Now its not impossible to solve the supply isues, but it will take a huge investment. During which, Stalin is geting stronger and stronger (and awfully close to some of thse critical supply lines...).

A Mediterranean strategy just doesnt make sense for Germany. At the best, you get Suez, but after that there rally isnt any point in continuing, indeed it just asking for Stalin to attack you when your supply lines are overstretched. As for Britain surrendering..why?? So youve got some desert (well, ok, LOTS of desert), and Egypt. A tiny part of the empire.

Britain will just keep going, nibbling at the edges, until the inevitable german-Soviet confrontation happens. (It IS inevitable, its a questio which side attacks, but ther two countries are so diametrically opposed its only a metter of when and how)

[The Red]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Labour were strongly anti-Nazi and not terribly concerned with Empire, and more likely to ride hopes on the USSR; many Conservatives would also rather hold out. If Churchill, who will never make peace, is ousted it will have been as a result of military blundering, and the obvious replacement would be the man who already runs the war economy, Clem.

Actually the fact that Attlee was already occupied with home affairs, Eden might be a better choice.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by The Red

Actually the fact that Attlee was already occupied with home affairs, Eden might be a better choice.

True; and of course poor Anthony would finally get his chance to shine.

[Onkel Willie]

This answers all your questions : http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=137749

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Onkel Willie

This answers all your questions : http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=137749

I like how most of your TLs end up with Nazi Germany surviving into the late 20th Century as a superpower. With nukes.

I find them very amusing.

[Onkel Willie]

Originally Posted by Adam

I like how most of your TLs end up with Nazi Germany surviving into the late 20th Century as a superpower. With nukes.

I find them very amusing.

I actually did only two or three Nazi Victory TLs IIRC.

Anyway, this one involves a Med strategy although this is a very different cup of tea...

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=146908

[Eurofed]

This is another excellent answer: here and here.

[Mostlyharmless]

Firstly, Germany can combine a Med strategy with Barbarossa. The ground forces sent in 1940 need not be stronger than those sent OTL in 1941. They just arrive sooner. The Luftwaffe forces are just those used in the BoB.

Secondly, there are significant potential advantages for Germany if they can capture Iraq, especially if they can take the oil installations intact and that might be possible with local help. The combined Iraqi and Iranian oil output was roughly equal to the total Axis oil production. The advantages increase if they can persuade either Turkey or Iran to allow them to combine Barbarossa with a threat to the USSR's oil (I made this suggestion earlier http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...67#post3239867).

However, the big problem is diplomatic. Italy did not want German forces in the Med. There is a thread at Axishistory on that http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=11&t=160489.

I don't believe that Britain will surrender on losing Egypt or even the Iraq/Iran region. It should also be possible for Italy to hold Italian East Africa if Egypt falls quickly. Thus Britain will have to escort convoys in the Indian Ocean. The question is whether apparently endless defeat could persuade the British to give up in 1942-3 if the USSR falls and the USA remains neutral.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Mostlyharmless

Firstly, Germany can combine a Med strategy with Barbarossa. The ground forces sent in 1940 need not be stronger than those sent OTL in 1941. They just arrive sooner. The Luftwaffe forces are just those used in the BoB.

Secondly, there are significant potential advantages for Germany if they can capture Iraq, especially if they can take the oil installations intact and that might be possible with local help. The combined Iraqi and Iranian oil output was roughly equal to the total Axis oil production. The advantages increase if they can persuade either Turkey or Iran to allow them to combine Barbarossa with a threat to the USSR's oil (I made this suggestion earlier.

Not to mention that if Germany and Italy control the Iran-Iraq oilfields, they can easily persuade Japan to attack Russia and leave America alone. Middle Eastern oil would break the oil embargo on Japan, thus ending their most urgent reason to invade SEA and pick a fight with the USA and give them an excellent reason to attack the USSR. America would in all likelihood remain neutral.

However, the big problem is diplomatic. Italy did not want German forces in the Med.

Mussolini was, above all, a greedy opportunist. If he may be made to believe that German support means greater chances of building his Mediterranean empire with less risk and effort, he'll bite the hook. At most, Hitler would have to sweeten the deal by agreeing to a combined invasion and partition of Yugoslavia, while leaving Greece alone.

I don't believe that Britain will surrender on losing Egypt or even the Iraq/Iran region. It should also be possible for Italy to hold Italian East Africa if Egypt falls quickly. Thus Britain will have to escort convoys in the Indian Ocean. The question is whether apparently endless defeat could persuade the British to give up in 1942-3 if the USSR falls and the USA remains neutral.

The British war coalition was betting everything on timely American help. If they lose North Africa and the Middle East, the USSR collapses, and America is not in the fight, Britain is not going to fight an hopeless war. They would have no plausible hope of winning at that point.