A Mediterranean centric Axis strategy?

[jmc247]

What if quickly after the fall of France that Germany decides to create a Middle East Korps led by Guderian and puts several divisions in Vichy held Syria along with creating the Afrika Korps earlier and putting several divisions in Libya led by Rommel? As part of this Hitler works closer with Mussolini and convinces him not to attack Greece and to work with him to focus on North Africa and the Middle East. The Battle of Britain occurs as it did OTL, but more fighters are diverted for the Mediterranean war.

I could see Iraq rising up against the UK earlier and Egypt rising up against the UK as well. The potental butterflies from this event I see as a question of if the fall of Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt and the Suez are enough to have a successful no confidence vote in Churchill followed by Lord Halifax taking over and making peace.

I think it might be if they fall pre-December 7th 1941 before America had entered the war. If that happens I could see the U.S. simply entering the war against Japan. Germany would have no reason to declare war on the U.S. at that point and no Lend Lease to the USSR. Germany still would have to give up its holdings in the Middle East and Africa to make peace.

If the UK is not knocked out of the war it would still change the dynamics of the war with German and Italian divisions being able to attack the USSR north from Iran or Iraq in mid to late 1941.

The question then becomes how successful is Barbarossa and that would come down to when its launched and if the German and Italian divisions in North Africa are done fighting.

If Germany and the UK make peace say in March or April or 1941 then Stalin is going to have his troops on high alert and its a question of how much of a difference would that make if he is fighting Axis forces from the West and the South.

If Germany and the UK don't make peace in time for Hitler's invasion of Russia and Axis forces are still fighting it out in North Africa and the Middle East then that means a less prepared Stalin for Barbarossa, but potentally somewhat fewer Axis troops for the invasion of the USSR or not. In this timeline the Axis doesn't have to station troops in Greece and Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia may join the Axis and send troops against the USSR.

Its interesting to think of the possibilities of a early Mediterranean centric strategy. A earlier and much stronger focus by Germany on taking Malta of course would be neccessary for a Mediterranean strategy.

 

[Julian]

Logistics dictate that forces in Syria and Libya larger than OTL simply can't be transported or supplied due to the power of the Royal Navy and a lack of major ports.

 

[jmc247]

Logistics dictate that forces in Syria and Libya larger than OTL simply can't be transported or supplied due to the power of the Royal Navy and a lack of major ports.

As I said Malta would have to be focused on earlier and this would have to be a potental plan against the UK much earlier. Meaning the German High Command has many of their naval ships in the Miditerranean that they had in the Atlantic OTL earlier in the war or potentally before the outbreak of war. They would still have massive logistical problems, but the uprisings in Iraq and potentally Egypt along with the UK having to divide its forces in Africa and the Middle East could make up for them.

Churchill saw the danger in the Axis putting troops in Syria and dealt with it in 1941. Thousands of French troops were killed or captured and Syria as a potental staging area for Axis forces was ended. Hitler sent one or two bombers to help the Iraqi Army in 1941 against the UK, but without ground troops they were doomed and the Iraqi Army was defeated and many of the the coup plotters were put against the wall. That effectively ended hopes of further major uprisings in Arab countries against the UK.

There was no coherent Axis strategy in Africa and the Middle East. Hell, the Afrika Korps wasn't event sent there to try to take Egypt or take back Libya. It was there purely to hold the ground Italy already had. Fighting a defensive war in the desert if a recipe for defeat (probably by the end of 1941 for the Axis) so as we know Rommel tossed his orders in the trash and went on the offensive. If that didn't happen I think we would have seen a less prepared and battle hardened UK and US military underestimating the German Army and Normandy gets moved up to the summer of 1943.

 

[The Red]

After Crete, Malta isn't going to fall.

 

[jmc247]

After Crete, Malta isn't going to fall.

In this timeline Crete doesn't fall as Greece never enters the war as Hitler keeps Il Duce from attacking Greece.

Cyprus and Malta are the potental logistical staging areas for a Mediterranean war and the question becomes could Malta have been taken with an earlier and more robust focus on it. I think it could have been only if Germany had a Mediterranean strategy planned out early on. Then again it still might fail.

Axis forces in Africa got pretty far without Malta by taking Allied oil depots and supplies. If they can't take Malta like in OTL then they would have to focus on taking Allied supplies in Africa and the Middle East and supporting the Arab uprisings.

 

[The Red]

In this timeline Crete doesn't fall as Greece never enters the war as Hitler keeps Il Duce from attacking Greece.

How exactly?

Cyprus and Malta are the potental logistical staging areas for a Mediterranean war and the question becomes could Malta have been taken with an earlier and more robust focus on it. I think it could have been only if Germany had a Mediterranean strategy planned out early on. Then again it still might fail.

It will, there simply isn't the capacity for a successful naval invasion.

 

[jmc247]

How exactly?

Il Duce wants an Empire simply promise him one in Africa and the Middle East and tell him after he can try to take Greece.

It will, there simply isn't the capacity for a successful naval invasion.

By 1941 when they decided to really try I agree with you, but in 1939 or 40 it might have been a different story when Axis naval forces were stronger and Allied forces were less prepared.

If it fails, then Axis forces have to try to focus on taking British supplies for the troops and tanks as they did OTL in Africa, they also have to try to make the war for Arabs and North Africans into an anti-British Imperialism struggle. Rommel did try to do that by trying to get North African blacks and Arabs to fight with Axis forces against the British.

But, the strategic calculus was Axis forces needed far bigger wins and more successful uprisings in 1940 and 1941 as by 1942 the British bolstered by American tanks and soon to be arriving American troops meant certain defeat.

 

[The Red]

Il Duce wants an Empire simply promise him one in Africa and the Middle East and tell him after he can try to take Greece.

Mussolini believes he can pull off both which is why when it looked like he was going to be throw out of Libya he invaded Greece. It's questionable whether Hitler even knew he was going to invade Greece.

By 1941 when they decided to really try I agree with you, but in 1939 or 40 it might have been a different story when Axis naval forces were stronger.

Definitely not in 1939 or early 1940, the French would cancel out any potential naval advantages.

 

[jayel]

As I said Malta would have to be focused on earlier and this would have to be a potental plan against the UK much earlier. Meaning the German High Command has many of their naval ships in the Miditerranean that they had in the Atlantic .

How did the German navy get past Gibraltar?

 

[jmc247]

Mussolini believes he can pull off both which is why when it looked like he was going to be throw out of Libya he invaded Greece. It's questionable whether Hitler even knew he was going to invade Greece.

A Mediterranean strategy means Hitler has to coordinate with Mussolini much more closely earlier. He might or might not be able to stop Mussolini from attacking Greece when he did, but he sure as hell could have forced him to accept the peace that the Greeks were asking for once Italian forces were stalemated.

Definitely not in 1939 or early 1940, the French would cancel out any potential naval advantages.

Yes, the focus would have to come after France was knocked out of the war.

How did the German navy get past Gibraltar?

By being there before the war started, in this timeline the Mediterranean strategy is the backup plan in case the UK doesn't leave the war after the fall of France instead of fighting the British Navy in the Atlantic.

 

[The Red]

A Mediterranean strategy means Hitler has to coordinate with Mussolini much more closely earlier. He might or might not be able to stop Mussolini from attacking Greece when he did, but he sure as hell could have forced him to accept the peace that the Greeks were asking for once Italian forces were stalemated.

He couldn't simply tell his Allies what to do, as much as he might have wanted.

Yes, the focus would have to come after France was knocked out of the war.

So no Battle of Britain? It probably means the British can free up a lot of the forces they kept in Britain needlessly during that period.

 

[jmc247]

He couldn't simply tell his Allies what to do, as much as he might have wanted.

After Italian forces started getting their asses kicked in Greece he certainly could have done a hell of alot more to push Il Duce to accept Greek peace terms.

So no Battle of Britain? It probably means the British can free up a lot of the forces they kept in Britain needlessly during that period.

If there is no air war and no battles in the Atlantic sure they would have alot more UK forces in the Middle East. A pure Axis focus on the Mediterranean after the fall of France would mean a pure British focus on the Mediterranean.

In order to keep those British forces from moving to the Middle East Hitler would have to have a duel strategy of focusing enough attention on the Atlantic to keep the UK worried about an invasion and thus alot of their forces in Britian.

Hitler was too stupid to go for such a strategy so that is probably ASB.

 

[Julian]

Hitler was too stupid to go for such a strategy so that is probably ASB.

No, Hitler was smart enough to recognize that Germany didn't have the logistic or naval capacity to carry out the operations mentioned above. OTL was frankly the best or nearly the best Germany could get away with.

 

[jmc247]

No, Hitler was smart enough to recognize that Germany didn't have the logistic or naval capacity to carry out the operations you describe. OTL was frankly the best or nearly the best Germany could get away with.

Germany and Italy couldn't put a few divisions in Syria with enough fuel to say get them to Iraq (which wouldn't have taken much) as occured in Africa? Iraq which flipped in 1941 (but was put down) did have oil fields up and running since the 1930s and could have provided a logistical base at least for fuel, food and water for Axis.

Like I said if they fail to take Malta the forces would have to rely on quick wins, taking British supplies, as well as help from Arabs, but that was the way the Afrika Korps got all the way to Egypt in the origional timeline. The fact as late as the end of 1942 and early 43 even after the Axis codes were broken (and because of that the Allies were picking off Axis ships right and left) Hitler was able to pump large amounts of men and tanks to Africa to shore up the forces there after the defeat in Egypt shows that if they wanted to they had alot more ability to move troops around the Mediterranean then many think, especially earlier in the war.

In fact the more I think about the more a military focus on putting troops in Syria and onto Iraq makes more sense then putting them in Africa, but I think it was well within Italy and Germany's power in late 40 and 41 to do both which would have forced the UK to divide their forces.

 

[Julian]

Germany and Italy couldn't put a few divisions in Syria with enough fuel to say get them to Iraq (which wouldn't have taken much) as occured in Africa?

Like I said if they fail to take Malta the forces would have to rely on quick wins and taking British supplies as well as Arab uprisings, but that was the way the Afrika Korps got all the way to Egypt in the origional timeline. The fact as late as the end of 1942 and early 43 even after the Axis codes were broken (and because of that the Allies were picking off Axis ships right and left) Hitler was able to pump large amounts of men and tanks to Africa to shore up the forces there after the defeat in Egypt shows that if they wanted to they had alot more ability to move troops around the Mediterranean then many think, especially earlier in the war.

Moving large amounts of supplies around is a very different story. Which is why in this timeline they would have to rely on quick wins in late 1940 and 1941 in the Middle East and Africa. If they fail they lose the war faster then OTL.

Correct, they lacked the logistics and transport to send men and material to Syria quickly, or support larger forces in Libya than IOTL. Getting the iIaqis to massively revolt would take months of negotiation which the Germans simply don't have the time to carry out.

 

[jmc247]

Correct, they lacked the logistics and transport to send men and material to Syria quickly, or support larger forces in Libya than IOTL. Getting the iIaqis to massively revolt would take months of negotiation which the Germans simply don't have the time to carry out.

The Iraqis did revolt in April 1941 and decleared their support for the Axis after Rommel's forces a long ways away from Iraq started their offensive and the British.

The second Axis tanks appear in Syria and start moving in this timeline in late 1940 they are going to rise up. The Iraqis hated the UK. The 30K+ British graves in Iraq are a testament to that. I believe if Italy and Germany wanted to they could have gotten troops and tanks there.

The best UK strategy would be to focus on the Middle East first and move their forces there. If they did that Rommel wouldn't be able to over run their troops and take their oil in which case the best he can get to the end of Libya or the very edge of western Egypt before begging for more supplies which won't come anytime soon. Of course a token force of troops would have to be left in Eastern Egypt. If the 8th Army is able to defeat Axis forces in the Middle East quickly then the over extended and under supplied Afrika Korps would be beaten alot faster then OTL when the 8th Army returns to North Africa.

If the Axis managed to take Syria and Iraq and keep them and use Iraq as a logistical hub. It would create a two front war for the UK in the region, but if the Axis doesn't defeat the 8th Army by late 1941 then the Soviet's and the British together crush Axis forces in Syria and Iraq.

 

[Julian]

The Iraqis did revolt in April 1941 and decleared their support for the Axis after Rommel's forces a long ways away from Iraq started their offensive and the British.

The second Axis tanks appear in Syria and start moving in this timeline in late 1940 they are going to rise up. The Iraqis hated the UK. The 30K+ British graves in Iraq are a testament to that. I believe if Italy and Germany wanted to they could have gotten troops and tanks there.

The best UK strategy would be to focus on the Middle East first and move their forces there. If they did that Rommel wouldn't be able to over run their troops and take their oil in which case the best he can get to the end of Libya or western Egypt before begging for more supplies which won't come anytime soon. Of course a token force of troops would have to be left in Eastern Egypt. If the 8th Army is able to defeat Axis forces in the Middle East quickly then the over extended and under supplied Afrika Korps would be beaten faster then OTL when the 8th Army returns to North Africa.

Yes, they revolted, and promptly got crushed by the British. As I've said before, the Axis lacks the ability to deploy troops to Syria. Any divisions that are deployed are going to get massacred on the open seas or in the air and then will promptly run out of supplies and be taken prisoner by the British.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Without transport how could Germany or Italy have gotten troops and tanks(!) all the way to Iraq?

And what 30K+ British graves in Iraq are you imagining, jmc247? If the British had lost that many men then the Iraqi revolt would have been a success.

 

[The Red]

After Italian forces started getting their asses kicked in Greece he certainly could have done a hell of alot more to push Il Duce to accept Greek peace terms.

The Greeks never offered peace.

A
If there is no air war and no battles in the Atlantic sure they would have alot more UK forces in the Middle East. A pure Axis focus on the Mediterranean after the fall of France would mean a pure British focus on the Mediterranean.

In order to keep those British forces from moving to the Middle East Hitler would have to have a duel strategy of focusing enough attention on the Atlantic to keep the UK worried about an invasion and thus alot of their forces in Britian.

If he tried to keep the British distracted in the Atlantic then there wouldn't be much left for the Med strategy.

 

[jmc247]

Yes, they revolted, and promptly got crushed by the British. As I've said before, the Axis lacks the ability to deploy troops to Syria. Any divisions that are deployed are going to get massacred on the open seas or in the air and then will promptly run out of supplies and be taken prisoner by the British.

Sure if we are talking about mid to late 1941 they would be, but in late 1940 when in this timeline the divisions set sail the UK wasn't prepared yet to deal with such a move. By the time the Axis considered acting to put troops in Syria in mid 1941 their window had closed and Vichy French forces and pro-Axis Arabs were defeated.

With the fall of France in 1940, there were fears that the Vichy French authorities, nominally neutral but sympathetic to Germany, would allow German forces to use these French territories as a springboard to attack Palestine, Egypt and the Middle East. In May 1941 Admiral Darlan signed an agreement allowing German forces access to French bases in Syria. Against the backdrop of a pro-German coup in Iraq, it was essential for British forces to prevent the Germans gaining a foothold.

Under General Henry Maitland Wilson a plan was drawn up. Four lines of attack were envisaged – on Damascus and Beirut from Palestine, on northern Syria from Iraq, and central Syria, also from Iraq. What followed was a cucial campaign, which has been virtually overlooked in the history of the Second World War.

The campaign began on 9 June 1941 at the battle of the Litani river, the natural border between Palestine and Lebanon. By 15 June British forces were at Kissoue, on the outskirts of Damascus. In the fighting there Private James Hurst, from Southsea and of the Hampshire Regiment, was killed. On 22 June Lieutenant-Colonel Hugh Greatwood, Commanding Officer of the 6th Raputana Rifles, an Indian Army unit, was killed Merdjayoun. On 11 July 1941 Private Frederick Swift, of the 2nd Battalion of the Queens Regiment, was killed during the advance on Beirut. He was 27 and from Stamshaw. On the same day Private William Kingswell, of the 2nd Battalion, Kings Own Royal Regiment, was also killed. He was 29 and from Southsea. All of these men are buried in Damascus War Cemetery, Syria.

A ceasfire was finally called on 12 July 1941, with British and Commonwealth forces in control of Syria and Lebanon. Many figures who would later go on to win fame took part in the campaign, including a certain Major-General William Slim, and a certain Lieutenant Blair ‘Paddy’ Mayne, who fought with 11 Commando at the Litani River. Mayne would later go on to command the SAS and win 4 Distinguished Service Orders.

http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/the-syria-lebanon-campaign-of-1941/