Axis abandon North Africa campaign

LestWeForget

If the Germans had made the Italians pull out of North Africa instead of sending Rommel to reinforce them, wold the losses in men and material have made a significant difference in the Italian campaign or Eastern Front?

I was always under the impression North Africa was basically a sideshow, but looking at the numbers it appears the Axis suffered some major losses in men and equipment.
 

MattII

Not sure what this does for Italy, but it absolutely screws Japanese plans. With no conflict in North Africa, (or one ending in mid 1941), Britain is free to reinforce Malaya an Borneo.
 

GuildedAgeNostalgia

Hitler can't "force" Mussolini to withdraw from North Africa. Mussolini won't give up the fourth shore (Libya without a fight). Not only that but taking Libya from the east means Vichy France and it North African colonies fall earlier.

Torch becomes Husky and Italy overthrows Mussolini around Christmas 1942. I don't think that's good for the Axis.
 

Lawnchair Captain

The only way something like this can happen is if the RN manages to launch an even more successful attack on Tarento crippling the Regia Marina even more than they did in otl and then the British reinforced Malta to the point that the continuous interdiction of the Italian convoys to Libya convinced Hitler and the OKW that maybe it was not worth the effort to send forces to North Africa.

But even in this case it's still possible that they would try to send something there for reasons already mentioned. They would not be very happy imagining the British (and Free French) just at the other side of the Mareth Line.
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

I don't think it's implausible that Hitler decides there is nothing in Africa "worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

The knock-ons:

Germany has more stuff to throw at the Balkans. So barring buttterflies, that campaign is even more decisive. OTOH Britain can reinforce its Greek expedition instead of BREVITY and BATTLEAXE. Maybe the Allies hold Crete?

Without Rommel's shocking early-1941 offensive, the Middle East may remain quiet: no Iraqi rebellion, no Syria campaign.

Britain probably finishes the North African campaign by June or July.

Britain will have additional assets to deploy in Malaya; with no active combat in Europe/North Africa, the units in Malaya will not be stripped of veteran NCOs for cadre. Very probably the Australian veterans of North Africa go there. Bad news for Japan.
 
Last edited:

Finbarr the Fair

One consequence would be that German logistics in Barbarossa would be somewhat better. An awful lot of trucks was sent to North Africa to support Rommel's offensives.

Perhaps what's needed is just minimal support for Italy. Enough to hold Tripolitania but not an almost certainly doomed attempt to capture Alexandria.

Which is what Hitler probably intended but Rommel had different ideas.
 
Captain Homicide

Captain Homicide

This has been discussed extensively elsewhere by the likes of @wiking but I believe the resources and men freed up by no German force in Africa would allow the Reich to defeat the USSR either in 1941 or 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

Captain Marvel said:
This has been discussed extensively elsewhere by the likes of @wiking but I believe the resources and men freed up by no German force in Africa would allow the Reich to defeat the USSR either in 1941 or 1942.
Click to expand...
Depends on how they were used. But you're leaving out some relevant problems that would be created by Italy being left the fend for itself and the serious problem of the Brits having a land border with Vichy France in North Africa, plus of course the need to still invade Greece and drive the British out of Crete.
 
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
Captain Marvel said:
This has been discussed extensively elsewhere by the likes of @wiking but I believe the resources and men freed up by no German force in Africa would allow the Reich to defeat the USSR either in 1941 or 1942.
Click to expand...
wiking said:
Depends on how they were used. But you're leaving out some relevant problems that would be created by Italy being left the fend for itself and the serious problem of the Brits having a land border with Vichy France in North Africa, plus of course the need to still invade Greece and drive the British out of Crete.
Click to expand...

They should've wrote it off in the Fall of 1942. High probability the Stalingrad disaster could've been avoided in such a case.
 

Derwit

If Hitler decided (rightly) that Italian north Africa is untenable and refused to send reinforcements, Italy would be honour bound to fight on but defeat is inevitable sometime in 1941.

Greece and the Balkans was largely Benny the Mooses doing. Again if Hitler decides to keep his eye on the prise (Barbarossa), I think he could bully Benny to the negotiation table with the Greeks once the steam has run out of the Italian invasion and the Greeks successfully counter attack. Especially if he gives Yugoslavia to the Italians and a secret agreement that Germany would help defend Italy from the British and support Italy in gaining more territory once the British and Soviets are defeated. The peace deal with the Greeks would involve no British forces on Greek soil which would negate the need to invade Create.

The results for Germany is that 2 Panzer divisions and a lot of trucks are available for Barbarossa along with some of the aircraft used in the Med. Also the airborne forces wasted on Crete could prove useful Russia (but not as useful as the OTL lost transport aircraft). A lot of trucks, men and more fuel used and lost in Africa are now available for the East. Does this equate into German victory against Russia?

The British don't loose lots of material in the North African desert. The East African campaign is over quicker and the far east would be reinforced. Without the threat of the Africa Corps, do the campaigns against Iraq and the French in Syria still occur? I suspect not. Also I suspect that with the British on the boarder French North Africa could be encouraged into the Free French faction. The negative effect would be a lot of painful but neccessary lessons about how to make war wouldn't be learnt as would the realisation that British tanks where under par.

On a Brighter note Britain would have more to send to the Russians during the critical period of the second half of 1941 which might go some way to mitigate the increase in German forces due to no North African campaign. I would also see more resources made available to Bomber Command due to the Army not fighting anywhere until the Japanese strike. Once the war expands and the better prepaired British forces are fighting the Japanese I wonder if the British might reinforce the far east over adventures in the quiet Mediterranean theatre? If so the Japanese are potentially in a difficult possition and although Malaya might still fall after a bloodier fight much of Burma would remain British.

This would probebly mean no Husky or Italian campaign. So D Day would be a bigger gamble especially if, as expected the Germans had been more successful in the east. Especially as it would be very green troups without the benefit of learning the lessons from others about how the germans operate.

End result victory as OTL (perhaps a few months later) with perhaps less of eastern europe over run by the Soviets. British possition strengthened in the far east and Malay Emergency less likely to occur.
 

Hammerbolt

On a bad note, the US migh now get their way and push for an invasion of France in late 1942/1943, which would be... unfortunate.

Like it or, both the NA campaign and the invasion of Sicily that taught the US how to fight in a modern war, with armour, mobile artillery, radio, air power, airborne troops... it also became a test bed for large-scale US/UK coordination, amphibuous and air assault, air support (in the case of the US, since the UK had been doing it for some time...). It also showed what equipment worked and what didn't. In OTL, the success in Normandy owed much to these hard-won lessons. But if the US forces an invasion in late 42/early 43...
 

Deleted member 1487

Derek Jackson said:
What would be the impact on US involvement. Would the invasiion of French North Africa still happen
Click to expand...
So much would change before the US entered that it's not really clear what would happen. Italy would probably be invaded instead.

Derwit said:
On a Brighter note Britain would have more to send to the Russians during the critical period of the second half of 1941 which might go some way to mitigate the increase in German forces due to no North African campaign. I would also see more resources made available to Bomber Command due to the Army not fighting anywhere until the Japanese strike. Once the war expands and the better prepaired British forces are fighting the Japanese I wonder if the British might reinforce the far east over adventures in the quiet Mediterranean theatre? If so the Japanese are potentially in a difficult possition and although Malaya might still fall after a bloodier fight much of Burma would remain British.
Click to expand...
In terms of equipment? Given how well their OTL armor did in Africa and the USSR I'm not sure that would help given the level of training of the forces that would be issued them, which was different than Soviet gear. More investment in Bomber Command in 1941 is going to be a waste of resources.
Though if anything knowing Churchill he'll probably waste his forces invading either Italy or Italian islands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top