Hitler's Alternate WWII Strategy

If I was Adolf Hitler, I would...

First, put Albert Speer in charge of war production much earlier, and go on total war footing from day one.

Then, I would

- Take Dunkirk so no one can escape
- Only bomb British airfields (I can't invade, but I can scare them)
- Get Franco to take Gilbrator with German help
- Only build U-Boats to stave Great Britain
- Help Italy take Malta
- Send much more troops to invade Egypt and Palestine

- Maybe force France to let them use Syria and help Iraq revolt? And get Turkey in Axis?

The whole goal is to force Great Britain to a ceasefire or the peace table

I'm not sure about Greece and Yulglisvia, if needed I would invade them, but I would rather tell Italy too wait after the Invasion of the Soviet Union.

After getting peace in the West, I can add a lit more troops from France and Norway. And I can invade earlier and I would have a secure goal of taking Moscow. I would also invade from the South from Turkey. Give the troops winter clothing.

And, get Japan to invade the Soviet Far East in exchange for Middle Eastern Oil and the European colonies after the war.

Research would mostly be Jets and Anti-Aircraft missiles.

So, does Germaby now have a good chance of wining the war?
 
I'm a novice at military affairs, but here goes nothing.

Firstly, in response to the OP:

Surely German forces between June of 1940 and spring of 1941 would have easily finished off the British in North Africa
That's assuming that the British could be 'easily finished off' in North Africa.

Dunkirk aside, the British proved to be a formidable foe both to the Italians and their German allies, but especially to the latter.

Heck, without German intervention, the British very well could've advanced further into Libya than they already had - the arrival of motorized and armored Germany army units bolstered an Italian force lacking in motorized as well as armored formations.

It was only, IMHO, the intervention of the Africa Corps that prevented a total Italian defeat, and even then the Allies proved resilient in the face of renewed Axis offensives - able to face Rommel with equally good commanders (such as Montgomery)

So no, I don't think that the British could be 'easily finished off' in North Africa simply by assuming that German forces entered the Mediterranean theater earlier than IOTL.

...seized malta
In all possibility, this would have been a feasible goal for Italian and German planners - but I'm not an expert on WWII naval affairs so I can't say for certain that it would succeed.

...taken Gibraltar (although that would have been somewhat problematical)
Exactly. Even with Franco joining the Germans, its not simply a matter of marching into Gibraltar with one's army as in a real time strategy game.

Furthermore, why take Gibraltar when seizing Malta would require less resources, less diplomatic wrangling, and would be closer to the Brits' military operations. Malta falling, especially considering its literal central location in the Mediterranean Sea, would deprive any British force sailing through the strait of Gibraltar of a key naval base situated between the Gibraltar strait and Gulf of Suez.

So, IMHO, the question of whether or not the Nazis should launch and assault on Gibraltar, faraway from the main theater of operations and hence a logistical nightmare is a moot point.

...By turning the Mediterranean Sea into an Axis lake...
Possible, esp. after seizing Malta, but not a near certainty owing to the Axis powers' inferiority in naval power when placed in comparison to the British Royal Navy.

...the canal cut
Assuming that the Germans make it that far - the British would probably fight like hell esp. if the Germans got past El Alamein or some similar notable mark. Cairo and Alexandria wouldn't go down without a fight, and even then the British could simply retreat across the Suez and possibly even launch a counterattack against a greatly overextended Axis force hard pressed to hold down at the very least coastal Egypt - not to mention the recently conquered cities of Cairo and Alexandria.

Expect some form of guerrilla warfare as well on top of said logistical problems (or hellholes, depending on who one asks) - I might be wrong on this but something along the lines of the famed Desert Rats.

...German forces in Palestine
IMHO, I don't think that the Germans would ever make it that far, at least not without investing much needed time, men, resources and such that they would have to divert forces from northern France (necessary to prevent any future Allied attempt at opening a new front in Hitler's backyard) and the east (primarily Poland).

Without a southern front, that might have freed much of the German occupation force in Greece, Yugoslavia (etc) for use in the invasion of the Soviet Union
That's assuming, given the butterfly effect, that the Germans even do end up invading the USSR. They would have significantly less troops positioned on their border with the Soviet Union, while the laser-like focus on the Mediterranean would have brought into question the feasibility of picking a fight with Stalin when a good portion of the German air force, navy, and ground force would inevitably be committed to a hellish campaign fought across vast deserts spelling disaster for the attackers' supply lines.

In short, once a Mediterranean strategy IMHO was chosen, Hitler whether he liked it or not would not be able to launch Operation Barbarossa - at least not to such a great extent as IOTL.

Concerning ObsessedNuker's point in relation to Tunisia:

...Because those supplies [from Tunisia] have to get from Tripoli to the front.
As he goes on to say, said influx of supplies aren't worth a damn one the Germans push onwards to Alexandria and Cairo.

Given the poor quality of the roads leading from Tunisia to Tripoli, assuming that they could be repaired or at the very least made somewhat passable, said supplies once headed from Tunisia to Tripoli would reach the front line way too late - esp. if said line stretches deeper and deeper into Egypt.

Heck, the Germans might as well not bother with Tunisia (which would only suck in more men, resources, aircraft, etc.) and resort to resupplying Tripoli instead from the sea or by air - nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that logistically the Germans won't be and shouldn't be able to cut off the Canal, advance into Palestine, and the whole bit.

The whole affair is reminiscent in terms of grandiose wishful thinking on Hitler's part as the ill fated Ardennes Offensive - too much territory to cover, too much of a determined Allied force to contend with (navy, air force, and land army all taken into account), and too much of a strain on logistics that such a massive plan to decisively end the war in the Axis' favor would (and did, in the case of the Ardennes Offensive) peter out.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If Hitler really wanted to hobble the British war effort, he would've gotten Franco to join the Axis shortly after France fell. Jointly seizing Gibraltar and Portugal with the Spanish would require around twelve divisions (Operation Felix called for two divisions while Operation Gisella called for ten) - Germany had around 30 divisions stationed in occupied France, surely a few of those could be spared. Combine that with the 2,550 German and Italian aircraft used in the Battle of Britain OTL and you have more than enough resources to take Portugal and Gibraltar. Seizing Portugal and Gibraltar would've done alot more damage to the British war effort than the Battle of Britain ever did. Closing the straits of Gibraltar would force the British to route their convoys from India and the Middle East around the Cape of Good Hope. Even then, U-boats stationed in the ports of Cadiz, Lisbon, Porto and A Coruña could make things dicey.

Not a chance in the world that France joins the Axis. He was barely holding onto the country as was, sending troops out to fight for the Reich's glory would have been beyond foolish and he knew it.

He did a very nice job of stringing Hitler along for three years, but there was no chance he jumps into the war before the British have been force to evacuate the Royal Family to Canada because they have suffered outright invasion and are about to capitulate (and as we have beaten to death here, that wasn't going to happen).

Franco was far smarter than Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo, something best illustrated by the fact that he died in 1975 at the age of 82 surrounded by his family having outlived his fellow fascists leaders by three decades.
 
Considering how much of it was nearly useless, this isn't a problem; its better to have fewer and better units than lots of undersupplied ones.
What bits of the cargo were useless, the food, the fuel, the vehicles, the radios, the ammunition, what?

If I was Adolf Hitler, I would...
Pretty much all of this is hindsight, and thus would not be realised at the time.
 
Last edited:
Franco was far smarter than Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo, something best illustrated by the fact that he died in 1975 at the age of 82 surrounded by his family having outlived his fellow fascists leaders by three decades.

In a nutshell :p
 
Not a chance in the world that France joins the Axis. He was barely holding onto the country as was, sending troops out to fight for the Reich's glory would have been beyond foolish and he knew it.

He did a very nice job of stringing Hitler along for three years, but there was no chance he jumps into the war before the British have been force to evacuate the Royal Family to Canada because they have suffered outright invasion and are about to capitulate (and as we have beaten to death here, that wasn't going to happen).

Franco was far smarter than Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo, something best illustrated by the fact that he died in 1975 at the age of 82 surrounded by his family having outlived his fellow fascists leaders by three decades.

Why would Hitler even want Franco as an ally? That would just mean he would be forced to put German troops down in Spain because I am pretty sure Spain's military would get stomped by the British. All for what? Gibraltar. I don't think so.
 
Heck, without German intervention, the British very well could've advanced further into Libya than they already had -

Without Rommel, I think its generally assumed the British would have taken Tripoli.

Furthermore, why take Gibraltar when seizing Malta would require less resources

How many British convoys could the Italian navy, operating from Malta, destroy in the mid-Atlantic?

Assuming that the Germans make it that far - the British would probably fight like hell esp. if the Germans got past El Alamein or some similar notable mark. Cairo and Alexandria wouldn't go down without a fight, and even then the British could simply retreat across the Suez

Retreat across the Suez? You meant retreat down the Suez towards their supply line, right?

As he goes on to say, said influx of supplies aren't worth a damn one the Germans push onwards to Alexandria and Cairo.

The rule of thumb is that your supply head should be maybe about 300 miles - max - from your stop line. So, every 300 miles you accumulate another supply head.

Given the poor quality of the roads leading from Tunisia to Tripoli, assuming that they could be repaired

The German army became incapable of repairing roads?

said supplies once headed from Tunisia to Tripoli would reach the front line way too late - esp. if said line stretches deeper and deeper into Egypt.

From Tunis to a supply head 300 miles from Alexandria is 1648 miles (distance to Alexandria from Tunis by road) minus 300 miles = 1348 miles. At 25mph, that's 2.24 days. You're saying that 2 days is too long?

Heck, the Germans might as well not bother with Tunisia

If a supply truck carries 7,000lbs (3.5 tons), the round trip to the Egyptian supply head is 1348*2= 2696 miles. At 8 miles per gallon and 7lbs per gallon, that's 337lbs, or 2,359 lbs. Gas is the primary weight of supply, but let's budget another 1,000lbs per trip for the transport chain, meaning that 3,359lbs are consumed and 3,641 are delivered to the supply head capable of taking the Suez Canal.

So why would the Germans not bother with Tunisia, when every two tons of supply loaded onto lorry there translate into about 1 ton sitting in Egypt two or three days later?

The whole affair is reminiscent in terms of grandiose wishful thinking on Hitler's part as the ill fated Ardennes Offensive .

I wasn't aware Monty had 12,000 aircraft and 60 divisions?
 
My understanding is that supplies were accumulating in warehouses in Tripoli because the transport to take them to Egypt was insufficient.

If that's correct, then opening up another port several hundred miles to the rear isn't useful in the slightest. The trucks are better used at Tripoli and you certainly don't want to wear them out even faster by driving them from Egypt to Tunis and back every week.
 

Deleted member 1487

My understanding is that supplies were accumulating in warehouses in Tripoli because the transport to take them to Egypt was insufficient.

If that's correct, then opening up another port several hundred miles to the rear isn't useful in the slightest. The trucks are better used at Tripoli and you certainly don't want to wear them out even faster by driving them from Egypt to Tunis and back every week.

Which brings us back to shipping in supplies to build up the rail links between Tripoli and Benghazi without affecting the level of supplies at the front and this could be later extended to a Benghazi-Tobruk line. The British were able to build up an Alexandria-Torbuk and later Benghazi line.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=99035
 
Ah, that thread looks familiar, I think I've read it before. I got the impression that the shortage of engineering resources made that a tricky task. And, frankly, that if more railway capacity could be built, it would be better used in Russia, where the war would be won or lost.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ah, that thread looks familiar, I think I've read it before. I got the impression that the shortage of engineering resources made that a tricky task. And, frankly, that if more railway capacity could be built, it would be better used in Russia, where the war would be won or lost.

What about Italy's resources? I understand your argument vis-a-vis Germany, but Italy's main theater was in North Africa and should have focused on continuing the build up of the rail infrastructure that they started leading up to the war. They were already doing it, they just needed to continue.
 
No idea.:) Maybe it was disrupted by the British blockade, or maybe it's another sad comment on the chaotic Italian administration and strategy of the time.
 
Franco was far smarter than Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo, something best illustrated by the fact that he died in 1975 at the age of 82 surrounded by his family having outlived his fellow fascists leaders by three decades.
Oddly enough, this ties into another reason Franco wasn't gung ho about joining the Axis OTL. Franco thought Hitler - while a brilliant politician and leader - was not much of a military commander. Franco seemed to be aware of the fact that the German victories of 1939-40 were achieved because of the actions of his General Staff, not because of Hitler. Franco, on the other hand, fancied himself a brilliant military commander, viewing his military rank (Teniente General/Lieutenant General) as proof of this - especially when compared to Hitler's lowly rank of Gefreiter (Corporal).

Perhaps the solution, then, is to either have a Republican Victory in the SCW or to have a different Nationalist leader take power. A Republican Victory would mean that Hitler wouldn't feel obliged to negotiate with the Spanish government and would have no qualms with invading them outright. See Dr. Strangelove's No Spanish Civil War TL, where a scenario like this takes place. Having a different Nationalist leader than Franco take power could also do the trick, especially if it is someone like Juan Yagüe or Ramón Serrano Suñer - two members of Franco's inner circle who tried to push Franco towards joining the Axis.
 
Last edited:
Top