No Battle of Britain, Hitler´s Mediterranean gamble.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

That's an incredibly big if you know, especially with Barbarossa delayed.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by The Red

That's an incredibly big if you know, especially with Barbarossa delayed.

Even if Barbarossa is delayed a year, don't forget that Axis conquest of the Middle East would provide many synergistic effects that greatly improve the Axis chances against the USSR.

* German and Italian war effort is much improved with access to ME oil.
* Hitler is not obsessed with conquering Baku to get more oil.
* Italian army gets most of its flaws ironed out (either by the PoD or by experience) and the bulk of it can be used in Russia.
* Spain, Vichy France, and Turkey very likely join the Axis.
* Germany and Italy can easily persuade Japan with ME oil to leave SEA and America alone, and attack Russia instead.
* Because of the point above, America is much, much less likely to join the war, so Land-Lease would stick to peacetime levels and there would not be any second front, ever.
* Russia would not have the Iran route for L-L, and quite likely loses Vladivostok and the Pacific route as well.

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Forgot, since there is less focus on the Atlantic, submarine warfare remains on the testing stage for the immediate, at least in the immediate.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

This is another excellent answer: here and here.

The POD in both case is after the BoB. Thought one idea in them is interesting, Vichy France somewhat assisting with supplies and Spain entering the war after the loss of Malta and Suez canal.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

the USSR collapses,

Not with a POD in 1940, hovewer the Soviet-Union would not be keen to fight an endless war either. Stalin would prefer territorial losses over a pyrrhic victory, much unlike Churchill or Roosevelt.
Which begs the question, with many not accepting mr Churchill´s continuation of the war, he may well decide a stronger hold on power is necessary.
So even if the axis still looses, Post-War Britain might be somewhat unlike IOTL, if Clement Attlee and other suspect dissidents are wearing pyjamas somwhere in the Sahara. Slide toward a fascisme of its own.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Wyragen-TXRG4P

The POD in both case is after the BoB. Thought one idea in them is interesting, Vichy France somewhat assisting with supplies and Spain entering the war after the loss of Malta and Suez canal.

I know. I was just quoting the TL as evidence contrary to the tiresome claims that the Axis could not win in the Mediterranean.

[Max Sinister]

One (not very humble) suggestion: Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy.

[stevep]

Eurofed

As "The Red" says, the Axis conquering Egypt, let alone the rest of the ME is a hell of a big if. You might as well say Germany can conquer Britain if it can get its army and supply across the Channel. There might be advantages to such an achievement but its pointless as until the achievement is obtained.

Steve

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Even if Barbarossa is delayed a year, don't forget that Axis conquest of the Middle East would provide many synergistic effects that greatly improve the Axis chances against the USSR.

* German and Italian war effort is much improved with access to ME oil.
* Hitler is not obsessed with conquering Baku to get more oil.
* Italian army gets most of its flaws ironed out (either by the PoD or by experience) and the bulk of it can be used in Russia.
* Spain, Vichy France, and Turkey very likely join the Axis.
* Germany and Italy can easily persuade Japan with ME oil to leave SEA and America alone, and attack Russia instead.
* Because of the point above, America is much, much less likely to join the war, so Land-Lease would stick to peacetime levels and there would not be any second front, ever.
* Russia would not have the Iran route for L-L, and quite likely loses Vladivostok and the Pacific route as well.

Originally Posted by The Red

That's an incredibly big if you know, especially with Barbarossa delayed.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by stevep

Eurofed

As "The Red" says, the Axis conquering Egypt, let alone the rest of the ME is a hell of a big if. You might as well say Germany can conquer Britain if it can get its army and supply across the Channel. There might be advantages to such an achievement but its pointless as until the achievement is obtained.

Steve

I point out to all three TLs that have been quoted as very good examples of how it could be accomplished. It was much, much more feasible than good old Sealion.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Even if Barbarossa is delayed a year, don't forget that Axis conquest of the Middle East would provide many synergistic effects that greatly improve the Axis chances against the USSR.

* German and Italian war effort is much improved with access to ME oil.
* Hitler is not obsessed with conquering Baku to get more oil.
* Italian army gets most of its flaws ironed out (either by the PoD or by experience) and the bulk of it can be used in Russia.
* Spain, Vichy France, and Turkey very likely join the Axis.
* Germany and Italy can easily persuade Japan with ME oil to leave SEA and America alone, and attack Russia instead.
* Because of the point above, America is much, much less likely to join the war, so Land-Lease would stick to peacetime levels and there would not be any second front, ever.
* Russia would not have the Iran route for L-L, and quite likely loses Vladivostok and the Pacific route as well.

Oh indeed, its all so wonderful and marvelous for the Reich. One has to wonder why they thought it was so bloody stupid in OTL.....

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Oh indeed, its all so wonderful and marvelous for the Reich. One has to wonder why they thought it was so bloody stupid in OTL.....

One has to wonder why they thought it was such a good idea to declare war on America, by the same meter.

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Originally Posted by Onkel Willie

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

Not bad but the attack still occures on June 22, probleme here it is not that operation Barbarossa isn´t significantly delayed, but that it happen on the exact same date as IOTL. Even a slight change, like June 19 or 26, would have been much better.
Unless Pétain is shot by a communist prior to the war, Vichy France is going to stay out, he was the one who put the brakes on declaring war to Britain IOTL over Mer-El-Kebir.
Pearl Harbour attack would have been delayed at the very least, as Japan would have been able to import oil, at least until the US moves its fleet into the Phillipines.
As war with Britain is over, such move would take long into 1942 to occure, although not long enough for Roosevelt to be destabilised and replaced by a more isolationist president. Between 9 and 12 months, presuming no unforseen events. Britain might or might not side with the US and A, latter possibility would be more interesting.
Hitler wouldn´t annexe Holland, Danemark, Belgium and Norway. Had he any such intention IOTL, he would certainly not have waited for the end of the war to implement it, just as for his eastern politic. He would installe pro-German regimes in power at worst and abandonne these when they become a weight at best. These regions are densely populated by non-Germans, if they where classified as untermenschs that wouldn´t be a problem but with a POD only in 1940 such change to national-Socialist doctrine is extremely unlikely. The Soviet-Union is likely to occupy the whole of Iran and would most probably not retreate after the end of the war.
Axis victory in May 1943 is too miraculous, better to have a reversed Kursk in September-October 1943. A claim on a share of Antarctica would also go fairly easy with Britain, due to the nature of the region.
Also, the matter of Africa, you mention that rape was used as an instrument of repression in Africa. Any German soldier caught having sex with an black african, consensual or not, would be executed on the spot.
Good you make Stalin (effectively) rule from Sverdlovsk and not Omsk, many makes that mistake. German plans to settle problems of guerilla warfare was the eventual deportation of all populations in the eastern territories.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

Err..you ARE aware of the timesclaes, aren't you? Because the above statement seems to show the opposite.

Japans descision to go south was pretty much decided in mid-41 (after all, you dont just, in the real world, plan and prepare for this sort of operation in a few weeks, and once started they take on a whole momentum of their own...)

So, between autumn of 40 and mid-41 (9 months or so), in time to show Japan they dont need to go south, Germany can provide oil (and just how, even assuming they completely trust Germany, is the oil from the middle east going to GET To Japan?????)

Germany deploys enough troops and aircraft into the Med to neutralise the RN, and invade and take Egypt (remind me again, just WHERE are the airfiends and support for the aircraft...)

They thn clear up the destroyed Egyptian ports to get some semblance of supply going into Egypt, and then happily advance over what is at this point in time basically tracless desert into Iraq and Iran, take them, take the oilfields intact, and built rail and roads links to bring the oil back.

In 9 months.

Sorry, but I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny some years ago....

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

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.

Did the Germans possess the capability to transport that much oil by sea at that time? And if so, don't they need it for themselves?

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?

the W-allies had managed to crack enigma, so it is entirely possible that they will know that there is no preparation whatsoever being undertaken to invade the British isles, Churchill himself told stalin the exact date of Barbarossa ahead of time.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

So, between autumn of 40 and mid-41 (9 months or so), in time to show Japan they dont need to go south, Germany can provide oil (and just how, even assuming they completely trust Germany, is the oil from the middle east going to GET To Japan?????)

Originally Posted by Dan Reilly The Great

Did the Germans possess the capability to transport that much oil by sea at that time? And if so, don't they need it for themselves?

Japan would use its own tankers to import ME oil, of course. What's the problem with this ?

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

the USSR collapses,

Thing is, that's a really big ask. The greatest military disaster of all time didn't do it for Stalin OTL. If the Germans throw themselves at a Red Army that is a year+ better organised, equipped, and prepared, I predict a riot.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Japan would use its own tankers to import ME oil, of course. What's the problem with this ?

Along a sea route 3 times as long as the one they were used to using - I dont think they have enough tankers (CalBear?)
And through a mined war zone, using ports that the British will have most thoroughly destroyed....as well as the oil fields.
Ah yes, the oil fields. Such a shame the 2 countris that basically supplied the worlds oil industry were...the USA and Britain. Oops.

And even bar all the above, its a terrible hostage to fortune the Japanese are giving.
They have to completely trust the Germans will provide the oil.
They have to hope that the British (or anyone else for that matter) decides not to break the long sea route, all but the last bit of which is controlled by other powers.
they have to hope the British havent mind the ports and gulf to a fare-the-well.

But apart from these little issues, I'm sure the IJN will sleep soundly at night....

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Japan would use its own tankers to import ME oil, of course. What's the problem with this ?

Nothing, aside from the fact that even if the Germans somehow make it to the middle east and manage to get the oil fields running (both of which are outrageous assumptions), this route is so easily broken that from a japanese perspective it makes more sense to strike south and control their own oil than let the british cut off their new supplier.

[I Blame Communism]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Even if Barbarossa is delayed a year, don't forget that Axis conquest of the Middle East would provide many synergistic effects that greatly improve the Axis chances against the USSR.

* German and Italian war effort is much improved with access to ME oil.

Personally, I consider Egypt a desert too far for the Germans. Iraq, however, is seperated from Syria by another big stonking desert. Even once Rommel has managed to beat superior British forces at the end of hi supply lines...and occupy Egypt and overstretch himself to Suez without consequence...and spread himself out all over the Levant...and cross the boonies of Syria... and take Iraq... we'll just take it back. We have command of the Gulf, and all the Indians you want. Rommel is at the end of a million miles, with finite resources.

The Germans will have local support, it's true. And when was Britain ever averse to wantonly killing Iraqi civilians?

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Hitler is not obsessed with conquering Baku to get more oil.

I like how we ssume he gets within a million miles of the place.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Italian army gets most of its flaws ironed out (either by the PoD or by experience) and the bulk of it can be used in Russia.

The Italian army "having the bulk of its flaws ironed out" would still not transform it from shambolic mess into lean mean green fighting machine; as to deploying it all to Russia, this seems to me to be your good old fallacy of assuming that all Axis powers are run from Berlin like this is a game of HoI2 where you aren't being too hard on yourself. Italy is entangled in the Med, and relations are strained with the Germans having stuck their noses in; why should the Italians now send the resources that they'll eventually need to deal with all those Americans to die on the steppes?

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Spain, Vichy France, and Turkey very likely join the Axis.

Run that past me again?

In any case, if Spain joins the Axis, this is good news. Franco's regime was so wobbly and exhausted that the Americans can pretty much knock it out with *Torch, or else the Germans can create a second front just when the Russians start to roll up their sleeves.

What does Vichy do for anyone?

And as for Turkey, where does that spring from? It might be semi-plausible if Stalin does something foolish, which is hardly impossible (but without Bulgaria, and the Germans will never permit him influence in Bulgaria, what can he do), but "very likely"?

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Germany and Italy can easily persuade Japan with ME oil to leave SEA and America alone, and attack Russia instead.

As I said, "Middle East oil" is a phantom.

A Japanese attack on Russia, circa 1941-2, in all probability results in a resounding "Ura!" and red flags in Harbin. It's an unwelcome diversion for the Russians and loses them the most important LL route, but it's an even bigger problem for the Japanese, and they know it. The choice to go south was pretty much taken, as Sorge reported.

In the unlikely event of Japanese attack, the Russians have lost about half of LL. That slows things down, but it won't kill them. It won't even as sting as bad as it would have OTL, with all the resources (not least productive fields) remain in Soviet hands.

I like how we make Britain's position as bad as we possibility can, and then assume that the lunatic Japanese leadership won't attacl an even weaker European presence in East Asia.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Because of the point above, America is much, much less likely to join the war, so Land-Lease would stick to peacetime levels and there would not be any second front, ever.

And that's not happening. So, permitting Rommel to very briefly sojoun in Baghdad thanks to his magical powers, what's next for the Allies?

The situation is tricky. If Franco has decided to commit suicide as you suggest, that means things easier. Wham, bang, second front, and there goes western North Africa.

If not, you'll need a bigger, bloodier commitment to Torch, an effort to crush the Italians in east Africa, and Japan at the same time... the Russians are getting to the Rhine, probably.

Originally Posted by Eurofed

* Russia would not have the Iran route for L-L, and quite likely loses Vladivostok and the Pacific route as well.

Germans in Iran? That's quite hilarious. Logistics logistics logistics.

You're listing a lot of fairly minor or highly scores for the Axis powers, apparently not realising about how that whole "greatest military disaster in the everything" hampered Russian efforts considerably.

If the fighting bogs down somewhere in the middle of the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine, the Russians have:

-More manpower. Vastly reduced losses in the early months without the massive cauldrons, obviously; and then the capacity to recuit from a much larger area. The Red Army relied heavily on recruits from the liberated areas by the end. Now it has them at its disposal from the start.

-More food production. Also more mouths to feed, but it counts for something, especially since LL will still be taking some of the strain.

-More industry. Enormously important centres haven't been lost, of course (I most certainly don't see the Germans taking Donbas); and there's no need to evacuate many others, freeing up vast resources.

-Probably no Siege of Leningrad, which frees up vast resources both in terms of a million Red Army men and all that industry not being hampered by shortages, shelling, hundreds of thousands of people starving to death, etctera; and probably results in Finland being squashes fairly comprehensively and/or making a seperate peace.

Everything adds up and the effects are exponential. Perhaps the Germans do have a few extra Italian divisions for some reason; eventually, the Red Army will just eat them, like it ate all those German divisions even after being mauled to within an inch of its life.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Ah yes, the oil fields. Such a shame the 2 countris that basically supplied the worlds oil industry were...the USA and Britain.

One wonders how the poor technically-challenged Germans were able to run Ploesti for years without all that superior US/UK tech.

They have to completely trust the Germans will provide the oil.

They were happy to buy their oil from foreign sources before the embargo.

They have to hope that the British (or anyone else for that matter) decides not to break the long sea route, all but the last bit of which is controlled by other powers.

Do you it would be an act of war, right ? A casus belli that would give Japan a perfect excuse to strike south without America lifting a finger to save Britain.

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by I Blame Communism

Personally, I consider Egypt a desert too far for the Germans. Iraq, however, is seperated from Syria by another big stonking desert. Even once Rommel has managed to beat superior British forces at the end of hi supply lines...and occupy Egypt and overstretch himself to Suez without consequence...and spread himself out all over the Levant...and cross the boonies of Syria... and take Iraq... we'll just take it back.

As if Egypt, Palestine, Syria had not good ports that the Axis forces can occupy as they advance, and turn (after some refubishing, no doubt, although it is quite unlikely that the british manage to blow up *all* the ports as they retreat). Moreover, as they see the British Empire crumble around themselves, I remain convinced that the Turks shall eventually listen to the siren song of the Axis. If not to join the Axis, to allow transit to Axis supplies and forces.

We have command of the Gulf, and all the Indians you want. Rommel is at the end of a million miles, with finite resources.

Once they have gotten this far, the Germans and Italians shall have command of the Mediterranean, and can deliver troops and supplies fine through it (and most likely, Turkey). Who's going to have the shorter logistics chain ?

I like how we ssume he gets within a million miles of the place.

The Wehrmacht got relatively close, for that matter. But the main point is that Hitler wouldn't care to conquer Baku to get an extra source of oil.

Italy is entangled in the Med, and relations are strained with the Germans having stuck their noses in;

Still the double standard assumption that the Axis powers are doomed to go out of their way to squabble while the Allies can coordinate like clockwork in any TL ?

why should the Italians now send the resources that they'll eventually need to deal with all those Americans to die on the steppes?

Assuming America ever manages to join the war, of course.

What does Vichy do for anyone?

Extra troops and Navy.

If not, you'll need a bigger, bloodier commitment to Torch, an effort to crush the Italians in east Africa, and Japan at the same time... the Russians are getting to the Rhine, probably.

And why not the Channel ? Here I stop taking your argument seriously.

[T3h_shammy]

Originally Posted by Eurofed

Japan would use its own tankers to import ME oil, of course. What's the problem with this ?

Well, I would suggest looking at a map. Smack dab in the middle of that place in Asia called the Middle East and that Island called Japan lies a rather large sub-continent which was commonly called the British Raj. How exactly are the unarmed Japanese tankers getting by that?