Mediterranean Option

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Your suggestion is irrelevant

The Axis do not need Syria to achieve a coherent military purpose in the Med. They achieve all that can be hoped for militarily if they close the Suez and take Gibraltar. Politically, the offensive is either aimed at isolating the USSR (which will assure an Allied victory in WW2 as if Germany had invaded Russia) or allying with the USSR on the back of the partition of Turkey.

Again, you need to read the last few pages of the thread since clearly you have been ignoring them: Syria offers the Germans a route from which they might actually be able to close the Suez. So, yes, the Germans do need Syria to achieve a coherent military purpose in the Med. I also don't know how the Germans would think a successful Med option would isolate the Soviets, seeing as they would continue to maintain contact with the rest of the world via their Artic and Pacific ports.

And Germany aren't going to get a partitioned Turkey out of the Soviets.

Bolded is mine. "The required military...measures" means the invasion of Turkey by Germany and the USSR.

Not necessarily. They could also involve threat of force. I also observe that the Germans are being offered nothing, contrary to your claim.
 
Again, you need to read the last few pages of the thread since clearly you have been ignoring them: Syria offers the Germans a route from which they might actually be able to close the Suez.

Syria is irrelevant to the question of Suez. To capture Suez the Axis needed the deep water ports of Tunisia, a chunk of the motorized element used to invade the Soviet Union, and a greater slice of Germany's industry dedicated to the production of naval warfare equipment for use in the Med. So, the first 'sort' is the invasion of the USSR - if this happens, the chances Britain holds Suez are very good, if it doesn't happen Suez is in trouble.

I also don't know how the Germans would think a successful Med option would isolate the Soviets,
Raeder's proposal talked of such, did it not? Any military strategy has to have a specific political purpose. As the objective of a British peace could not be obtained and the United States deterred, by process of elimination any political point to the Med is to either move closer to, or better isolate, the USSR.

And Germany aren't going to get a partitioned Turkey out of the Soviets.
Stalin's own proposal suggests otherwise.

I also observe that the Germans are being offered nothing, contrary to your claim.
Stalin was offering an even better trade deal - sort of like a Lend Lease for Evil.
 
Syria is irrelevant to the question of Suez.

No, it's very relevant. It offers a vastly superior means of striking at the Suez then Libya, seeing as the Turkish-Syria-Palestine route actually possesses a transportation infrastructure.

To capture Suez the Axis needed the deep water ports of Tunisia, a chunk of the motorized element used to invade the Soviet Union, and a greater slice of Germany's industry dedicated to the production of naval warfare equipment for use in the Med.

Absolutely none of which solves the killer issue that makes an invasion of Egypt from Libya impossible: the total absence of overland transport infrastructure between Benghazi and Alexandria. Without that, this....

So, the first 'sort' is the invasion of the USSR - if this happens, the chances Britain holds Suez are very good, if it doesn't happen Suez is in trouble.

... Remains fantasy. The barren wastes of eastern Libya/western Egypt simply can't sustain the required forces over the demanded distances.

Raeders proposal talked of such, did it not? Any military strategy has to have a specific political purpose. As the objective of a British peace could not be obtained and the United States deterred, by process of elimination any political point to the Med is to either move closer to, or better isolate, the USSR.

Which the Med option would manifestly fail to do, seeing as the USSR could still remain in contact with the rest of the world through the Pacific, Arctic, and overland via Central Asia. So all it really demonstrates

Stalin's own proposal suggests otherwise.

Hilariously wrong. Stalin's demand for surzeinty over the Bosphorous would make Turkey an exclusively Soviet protectorate... which obviously precludes any German influence and hence partition. Nowhere in the proposal is there any sort of grant for German control in Turkey. In sum, Stalin's proposal rather indicates the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Stalin was offering an even better trade deal - sort of like a Lend Lease for Evil.

Which again, does not equate to a partition of Turkey or that he would tolerate significant German influence there.
 
Top