Germany follows the Goering stratgy in 1940 and 1941

1941 was the best time to attack the USSR. Earlier would be better but you can't predict the fall of France so quickly.

Any strategy that keeps the pact with USSR will be better for the Nazis
 
It actually increases the area that the Axis has to defend, not shorten it. The Axis gets a sea to play in, yes. However, all that does is increase the area that the Axis must defend. The Allies can attack from the Red Sea, the Atlantic, sub-Saharan Africa. To what gain, I ask again? There are no new resources/industries to capture and use. So, what is the point?
their theory was they would arrive on the doorstep of Turkey, which would (by then) be under their domination, and a "political agreement" with the USSR could be possible.

they realized quite early the relative weakness of Italy, tried just enough to prop them up, to return to the situation after a great victory over the USSR?

of course then they had an independent player in Rommel, who got them strung out across N. African shore, reliant (largely) on Italian logistics?

my theory is they could have aided Italy by staying with the original plan of defensive force in Libya, struck a deal to resupply (themselves) thru Tunisia and opened a parallel campaign from Greece.

ideally they need the mooted air base in Aleppo if the Vichy regime could hold on there.
 
evolutionary version of Type II uboat, able to be transported overland to the Med
A terrible idea. Italy already had enough of short-ranged, poor-performing small subs that were not useful at all.

invasion of Greece with just Germany and Bulgaria, Italy to cede the Dodecanese to Greek state
Yeah, you only have to convince Mussolini. He's to be in the war to lose territory. No go.
 
The point being missed here is that even if the Axis locks up the med, and even gets as far as the Canal, so what?
British shipping was going via South Africa already. You don't capture the British forces in Africa, the navy exits via the canal, the army either retreats up the nile or over to Iraq (destroying the minimal rail links as it does). Your sitting well over a thousand miles away from any oil or anything else useful. You wont catch the British - the Empire was HUGE, they always have somewhere to retreat to. And the transport infrastructure is a joke after its been torn up. All the British really lose is a couple of naval bases - annoying, but not critical.
Given the need to garrison the captured territory, plus forces in Spain to avoid an invasion, the likely cost is higher for the Axis.
You now cant attack Russia in summer until 1942. Remember, this is 1941, not 1991. All these operations take TIME, a lot of it.
 
You may want to look at what forces the Axis, almost exclusively Italy, had available to 'clean out the Med' in the Summer of 1940 before considering whether the Axis could have pursued a Med strategy in 1940.
Don't disagree with your point with what was actually there. My point is that if the Germans had 'planned' for the quick defeat of France and then quickly turning towards the Med they would have had a chance (at that point in time) to expel the British. If in fact in July/August the Wehrmacht had allocated 3 panzer div, 3 motorized divisions, two Mountain divisions, 10 infantry divisions and all of the para troops they should have been able to achieve the goal.

I realize the logistical effort required to reequip and move all these divisions so close to the end of fighting in France would be 'challenging', but late 1940 and the winter months of 1941 was the time to do it. It would have also required detailed planning with the Italians long before the campaign with France even started. So many things would have had to change, but they would have been do-able.
 
It would have also required detailed planning with the Italians long before the campaign with France even started. So many things would have had to change, but they would have been do-able.
[bolding mine]

Doable in theory and doable when cooperating with Mussolini are not the same thing.

That said, while Mussolini certainly did not expect the German attack in the West to be that successful that quickly (and thus would never dream of planning what you propose, in addition to his desire for an independent, "parallel" war, in addition to his opportunism, in addition to the fact that he could barely force the three Italian armed forces to cooperate and any such plan would require close cooperation), not even the Germans expected that - and thus would be nearly as unprepared as Italy to sit down and think about what to do once they had defeated France in a month and a half.
 
Malta and Gibralter falling makes Egypt more difficult for the Allies logistically. Germany would still need to commit significant forces to take and hold Egypt but if the USSR is not being invaded there are *a lot* more troops available in the short term. Then again unless the whole of the Med is in Axis hands this gets ugly very quickly.
 
Any Med campaign 1940 is going to be in effect a meeting engagement with Axis and British attempting to out reinforce the other in theater. Mussolini joined the war because he thought it was over and jumped in expecting next thing to be peace talks. UK not asking for a conference after fall of France shocked the Germans and Italians. There is no advanced planning for it as no one expected France to just collapse

In 1940 the Germans really have the following options.
Battle of Britain with perhaps SeaLion.
A Med Campaign
Focus on battle of Atlantic

There really are no other options at this point in military terms for 1940.
 

nbcman

Donor
Malta and Gibralter falling makes Egypt more difficult for the Allies logistically. Germany would still need to commit significant forces to take and hold Egypt but if the USSR is not being invaded there are *a lot* more troops available in the short term. Then again unless the whole of the Med is in Axis hands this gets ugly very quickly.
Troops are not the factor. It is transport across the Med and logistics for the Axis on the south side of the Med that is the limiting factor. Plus convincing Benny the Moose that he should be leaving his 4 Blackshirt Divisions in Italy to transport German Panzers across.

And the UK was able to keep Egypt supplied outside of the Med IOTL. Losing Gib would complicate convoys but it wouldn't be insurmountable.
 
Troops are not the factor. It is transport across the Med and logistics for the Axis on the south side of the Med that is the limiting factor. Plus convincing Benny the Moose that he should be leaving his 4 Blackshirt Divisions in Italy to transport German Panzers across.

And the UK was able to keep Egypt supplied outside of the Med IOTL. Losing Gib would complicate convoys but it wouldn't be insurmountable.
Malta as an airfield for attacks on Axis logistics into Africa was a major problem. And as I said, losing Malta and Gibraltar makes supplying Egypt more difficult for the Allies - not impossible.
 
And the UK was able to keep Egypt supplied outside of the Med IOTL.
Exactly.

Losing Gib would complicate convoys but it wouldn't be insurmountable.
Actually, it would be better (for the Cape run, of course not to keep Malta in play), considered that if they lose Gibraltar then in any case the British gain a better waypoint and ASW base(*) - the Canary Islands. They already had troops set aside for that operation and could quickly muster the warships and transports. The Spanish garrison was depleted after the SCW, and would be likely to surrender after a short blockade, if Franco has sided with the Axis. If the Germans have invaded Spain in order to advance on Gibraltar without Franco siding with them, then the garrison is on the British side.

(*) For the purpose of hindering Axis subs moving in and out of the Med, Gibraltar is more valuable, of course; but for the purpose of protecting the Atlantic convoys, the Canaries are exceptionally better, and the latter is the real game.
 
Yeah, a logistics chain stretching through France and Spain? Good luck with keeping that running...
uhm, why do you think they would need any luck? OTL the germans supplied entire armies locked im combat so intense it dwarfed anything in the west at the time, over similar distances on the eastern front, in significantly worse terrain both considering the avaiable infrastructure and partisan activity. Attacking Spain and tacking Gibraltar may or may not be a good idea, but the reflexive "lol logistics" is certainly not a reason.
 
Malta was doable. Gibralta was possible. Crete was doable. Cyprus was doable. They depend on when they were attempted. If you do them in 1940-41 they were achievable. Later than that? Not likely. All had been reinforced and were better prepared. Egypt was also a possibility if the Germans were serious about it and sent three or four full Panzer divisions there, rather than one and a half. Rommel could have carried it off. The problem was the Germans weren't that interested in Egypt and the Suez Canal. Rommel was only sent to save the Italians' bacon after COMPASS had defeated them. He never had the forces or the supplies to carry his attack to Cairo and beyond.

What would the Germans gain? Domination of the Mediterranean with the removal of all the major British bases there. Would that gain access to more resources/industry? Not really. North Africa was a wasteland, more or less. Egypt has more potential although, only along the Nile Valley though. The Canal was a potential objective but even seizing that only allowed the Germans to basically cut the British Empire in two - something they had already, achieved by staging combat in the Mediterranean.
Malta is doable if the Spanish help out with access, the defences were fairly robust against sea attack and land attack would have been messy. Doable maybe but a lot of German infantry is going to end up dead.
 
Malta could only be taken 1940
Heres why:
-there were only 9 RAF planes on Malta in mid-1940, 5 Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers and 4 Gloster Gladiators
-there were only 68 AAAs on Malta defending the airfields
-there was no UK armored forces or very crappy ones
-and there was total chaos in France and UK as people wondered if Fallschirmjagers would suddenly drop down and capture their town

A strong, specially trained Italian combined arms task force supported by German paras and gliders (maybe Spain if u can convince them to send SCW veteran troops) could take Malta no problemo.

GIB is a matter of isolation and siege. Place doesn't manufacture anything or produce any food. Resupply by air or sea are the only options. Which leads to a high attrition rate for the RN, assisting German efforts in the Atlantic. Also, the more troops on GIB the faster the food and water disappear.

Egypt could be taken with a combo of internal revolts (Nasser time), and the Italians digging in and waiting for German reinforcements (Rommel gang) to show up after Malta is taken.
Capture of the Suez means supplies to India will have to go round the Cape, like the old days. Traveling thru the Atlantic is going to be risky, especially if the Kriegsmarine decided to make more Panzerschiffes, Hilfskreuzers, and U-boots (commerce raiders)

I dunno about Dakar though, that would probably take negotiations with Vichy France

Iraq is pretty much ASB, unless there was a completely different pre-war situation

But before u start critizing what i just posted, please understand these victories rely on insane luck of the Fall Gelb variety, different German pre-war plans, and extensive Axis cooperation
 
Malta is doable if the Spanish help out with access, the defences were fairly robust against sea attack and land attack would have been messy. Doable maybe but a lot of German infantry is going to end up dead.
I think you either mean Gibraltar or the Italians for Malta. The Spanish were not going to be involved in the attack on Malta as far as I am aware.
 
Top