Middle East Front 1942

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Through capturing Malta. This would greatly improve logistics.

lol, how on this planet are they going to capture Malta? Might as well have them do a landing at Tel Aviv and Haifa while you're at it.

So many things need to go different for that to happen, which it didn't unless you want to make an enormous list of PoD's. Only then you can say more axis forces will be send to Egypt to help. But they couldn't, they wouldn't and so they didn't. If they did it would be better for the Allies.
 

hipper

Banned
lol, how on this planet are they going to capture Malta? Might as well have them do a landing at Tel Aviv and Haifa while you're at it.

So many things need to go different for that to happen, which it didn't unless you want to make an enormous list of PoD's. Only then you can say more axis forces will be send to Egypt to help. But they couldn't, they wouldn't and so they didn't. If they did it would be better for the Allies.


While an axis invasion of Mata would be problematic the Surrender of the island due to the failure of the pedestal convoy is a possibility though a suspension of offensive operations due to the sinking of the Ohio tanker.

Regards Hipper
 
While an axis invasion of Mata would be problematic the Surrender of the island due to the failure of the pedestal convoy is a possibility though a suspension of offensive operations due to the sinking of the Ohio tanker.

Regards Hipper


I think the point at this stage is that as pointed out by yourself and TFSmith among others it really does not improve the logistics situation East of Benghazi.
 
Handwavery ahead. Say the Axis is able to take Egypt in 1942 and is able to reach the Suez, would they be able to launch a Middle East campaign? Would the Arab population rise up in Palestine and/or Iraq? Would Axis paratroopers already in North Africa be able to use bases in Egypt to drop on the other side of the Suez in Palestine and achieve something or would they get slaughtered? At this point there is no Jewish brigade, that didn't happen until 1944, but the Palmach, the military arm of Haganah was officially raised by the British in mid-1941, roughly 1 year before Egypt was threatened in 1942, so they would be a factor, depending on whether the Arabs rise up against the British, then they might be forced just to defend their communities.

What would the US do? Would they still pull Torch or would they have to reinforce the Middle East directly and preclude landings in North Africa?

This was the question by the OP, I highlighted some help supplied for the interpretation in the beginning.

We are not asked about the whole campaign in North Africa. We are asked to guess about events following the events described above.

Its naturally OK to inquirer how these events comes about as they impact what is left to act and who has the momentum, but motivation should be to qualify constructive answers to the question posed.
Everyone is free to make their own "this is why the Axis could never conquer Egypt" or their own AHC "make the axis conquer Egypt in 1942"

In this question we are led to assume that the axis can increase their supply and sealift capacity (even on the shores) and break through to Alexandria and above, on the run. This is important as it also implies that the defending forces have been left behind in the desert and the opposition would be scrambling to establish a new defense with limited forces. The premises also implies an improved condition in the air.
Under these circumstances it might be possible to push ahead and cross the Suez. Thereby dramatically changing the supply situation for the forces in the Middle-east.
I think the east coast of the Mediterranean will fall to the Axis, but getting to the gulf were new forces will be amassed and the Allies again have the advantage of supply lines may be as difficult as getting to Suez in OTL.
And of course, then Torch goes ahead.

Now, this is not a particularly qualified statement as I have limited knowledge on the details of the forces in this theater, but please notice that I attempt to construct a reply based on the premises stated in the question and giving them enough leeway that we can move forward rather than discuss "how can the Axis take Egypt or not".

Just my 10 cents;).
 
This was the question by the OP, I highlighted some help supplied for the interpretation in the beginning.

We are not asked about the whole campaign in North Africa. We are asked to guess about events following the events described above.

Handwavery ahead. Say the Axis is able to take Egypt in 1942 and is able to reach the Suez, would they be able to launch a Middle East campaign?

See we look at your statement and we look at the OP and we answer the OP question but as often happens here you actually have to look at the base premise in some detail first before moving to giving an accurate answer in detail.

The short answer to the OP is no btw but we wanted to help Wiking understand why it is no rather than simply tell him.

Its naturally OK to inquirer how these events comes about as they impact what is left to act and who has the momentum, but motivation should be to qualify constructive answers to the question posed.
Everyone is free to make their own "this is why the Axis could never conquer Egypt" or their own AHC "make the axis conquer Egypt in 1942"

No you are deliberately missing the point. We explain how difficult the conquest of Egypt would be so that when we come to the question of what happens with the Axis on the frontiers of Palestine the explanation is understood. Because the explanation of why the Axis would still most likely (to a huge degree of probability in fact) lose is not just Allyaboo fiat but rooted in the circumstance applying at the time.

In this question we are led to assume that the axis can increase their supply and sealift capacity (even on the shores) and break through to Alexandria and above, on the run. This is important as it also implies that the defending forces have been left behind in the desert and the opposition would be scrambling to establish a new defense with limited forces. The premises also implies an improved condition in the air.
Under these circumstances it might be possible to push ahead and cross the Suez. Thereby dramatically changing the supply situation for the forces in the Middle-east.

No here is the difference between Wiking and you, he asked for just the one handwave. I have to admit I had my suspicions he would then say "Please Sir can I have some more handwave?" but while not happy with the answers he has not done that. He made it very clear he is just asking what would happen if Rommel rolled lucky 7s on a six sided dice enough times to get him across the Suez.

Then you come along and it is all "moar coal!" :rolleyes: You really are in danger of becoming a self-caricature, not only do you want extra freebie resources for the Axis but then you ask to nerf the Allies.

No the Allies won't be scrambling about with limited forces, they will most likely have lost Egypt through a pattern of premature withdrawals as Rommel did not have the forces to oppose the ones they had. Thus they will retain the bulk of their arms in the Middle East theatre especially given their superior ability to resupply.


I think the east coast of the Mediterranean will fall to the Axis, but getting to the gulf were new forces will be amassed and the Allies again have the advantage of supply lines may be as difficult as getting to Suez in OTL.
And of course, then Torch goes ahead.

Now, this is not a particularly qualified statement as I have limited knowledge on the details of the forces in this theater, but please notice that I attempt to construct a reply based on the premises stated in the question and giving them enough leeway that we can move forward rather than discuss "how can the Axis take Egypt or not".

Just my 10 cents;).

I will note that you have requested all Axis problems be resolved with handwaves.
 
The Egyptian army had quite a bit of dissatisfaction after the February coup and frankly I don't know enough of their internal politics to know who the major leaders within might be. It doesn't have to be coordinated either, once Alexandria falls and the civilians start collaborating its not like there wouldn't be and in fact was some sort of planning for Axis occupation. Osprey's campaign book on Alamein references plans to meet with and hammer out a deal with the Axis when they arrived in Alexandria among the Egyptians, but they didn't list names.

I won't get into how El Alamein was won, I don't think I'm qualified to answer. In regard to Arab opinion I think I can lend a hand.

The Egyptians surely would have cooperated with the Axis over the British. I don't think people appreciate how much British rule was hated in Egypt. Lord Cormer's, over baring:p, policies permanently turned the population against British rule. The Denshawai Incident is still remembered by every Egyptian school child to this day. Now add in the February, 1942 incident and the Egyptians are even more pissed off, It was a total humiliation! I remember Autumn of Fury: The Assassination of Sadat had some good information on Egyptian-Axis cooperation in WWII. I think It lists names of officers involved, I'll check back next time I'm at a library if interested.

Now Arab public support as a whole is tricky. Plenty of Pro German pockets in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia but can they be of any use?

The Arabs of Palestine are still exhausted from the 30's revolt. The Iraqis are even more exhausted from the 20's revolt and the 1941 coup. Both these areas will provide support but not that much.

The Syrians had favorable views of both Germany and Britain. The Syrians were very pro Hitler but also joined the British led Arab legion in record numbers. They joined because they thought the British would push out the French and restore Hashemite rule to Damascus. The Syrians are motivated by a want for independence and a dislike for the French.

Jordan is interesting, Emir Abdullah was very Pro British and helped the Allies alot in the war. However in 1939 he told Glubb Pasha that if things got bad enough he would be forced to switch sides. Abdullah said that he would respectfully relieve the British officers in the Arab Legion because he wouldn't want them to fight their own nation.

Finally we come to Saudi Arabia. John Philby, Ibn Saud's adviser, is pro German/hates Britain and will influence Ibn Saud in this direction. Saud himself is opportunistic and will help the Germans if he sees future profits.

So in conclusion the Germans can potentially find alot of support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, some support from Palestine and Iraq and a little support in Syria and Jordan, unless they can flip the Hashemites.

Hope this was of some use.:)
 
Last edited:
So just random Egyptians decide to risk their lives against the imperial power that has dominated Egypt for six decades, including managing to sucessfully defend the country against an Islamic power with an army in the field within a few days march of Cairo and for four years...
[/COLOR]

Islamic in this case is almost meaningless. The Egyptians had been trying to get ride of the Turks for hundreds of years, they will not be inviting them back. This does not mean they love the British more like they put off grievances until after the war. This can be shown when in November 1918 they decided to launch a major revolt against the British. Egyptians were more then willing to lay down their lives, the British killed 800 Egyptians and wounded 1,800 in 1918-19.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Right - Egyptians were nationalists; what were the Italians

Islamic in this case is almost meaningless. The Egyptians had been trying to get ride of the Turks for hundreds of years, they will not be inviting them back. This does not mean they love the British more like they put off grievances until after the war. This can be shown when in November 1918 they decided to launch a major revolt against the British. Egyptians were more then willing to lay down their lives, the British killed 800 Egyptians and wounded 1,800 in 1918-19.

Right; Egyptians were nationalists, as witness their history - so what were the Italians going to give them, again?

The same deal that Ethiopia (Christians, of course) got, presumably...

Have a hard time seeing that prospect as being all that attractive...

The British had maneuvered through events in Egypt for six decades by 1942, and got - essentially - what they wanted; in return, the Egyptian elites got more autonomy than their neighbors by a long shot.

Having the Italians take control doesn't look like a gain.

Best,
 
Right; Egyptians were nationalists, as witness their history - so what were the Italians going to give them, again?

The same deal that Ethiopia (Christians, of course) got, presumably...

Have a hard time seeing that prospect as being all that attractive...

The British had maneuvered through events in Egypt for six decades by 1942, and got - essentially - what they wanted; in return, the Egyptian elites got more autonomy than their neighbors by a long shot.

Having the Italians take control doesn't look like a gain.

Best,

You all should know by now that I do not agree with TF easily :D

Here though I have to confess surprise that he forbore using the words: it's the economy stupid.

Now here is the thing and it applies to both the Egyptians and the Saudis...the Axis would love their goods but they lack the means to pay for their goods and worse they lack any kind of surplus of the goods that the Egyptians and Saudis would want back (remember these folks are not big champagne drinkers).

The quick punch that Rommel needs to win in Egypt really precludes the Egyptians having much of an impact. Once he gets to the Sinai...which is the premise of this thread...matters will bog down again (likely best case for the Axis here). This gives people time to think about how well off they are and as pointed out above folks are worse off under the Axis simply because they lose their access to the good markets.

In addition the Axis are going to be struggling to supply arms and other munitions to their own troops without taking on board soldiers who not terribly well trained or led.
 
Last edited:
Finally we come to Saudi Arabia. John Philby, Ibn Saud's adviser, is pro German/hates Britain and will influence Ibn Saud in this direction. Saud himself is opportunistic and will help the Germans if he sees future profits.

So in conclusion the Germans can potentially find alot of support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, some support from Palestine and Iraq and a little support in Syria and Jordan, unless they can flip the Hashemites.

Hope this was of some use.:)

How long would that support last when Nazi forces start their standard approach to what they regard as subhuman?

Talking of John Philby, it seems he got the funds to send his son to Cambridge as a result of the post war dealings.....if the UK had taken up the offer that was given to them in if I remember correctly the 30's, where does that leave Kim?
 
Right; Egyptians were nationalists, as witness their history - so what were the Italians going to give them, again?

The same deal that Ethiopia (Christians, of course) got, presumably...

Have a hard time seeing that prospect as being all that attractive...

The British had maneuvered through events in Egypt for six decades by 1942, and got - essentially - what they wanted; in return, the Egyptian elites got more autonomy than their neighbors by a long shot.

Having the Italians take control doesn't look like a gain.

Best,

You all should know by now that I do not agree with TF easily :D

Here though I have to confess surprise that he forbore using the words: it's the economy stupid.

Now here is the thing and it applies to both the Egyptians and the Saudis...the Axis would love their goods but they lack the means to pay for their goods and worse they lack any kind of surplus of the goods that the Egyptians and Saudis would want back (remember these folks are not big champagne drinkers).

The quick punch that Rommel needs to win in Egypt really precludes the Egyptians having much of an impact. Once he gets to the Sinai...which is the premise of this thread...matters will bog down again (likely best case for the Axis here). This gives people time to think about how well off they are and as pointed out above folks are worse off under the Axis simply because they lose their access to the good markets.

In addition the Axis are going to be struggling to supply arms and other munitions to their own troops without taking on board soldiers who not terribly well trained or led.
You both make good points.

British rule may have been hands off but I don't think that equates to the average Egypt. They see it as a foreign occupation period. Look at Iraq rebellion in 1920's Britain made deals with the elites but it didn't stop the masses from attacking them, same situation here. In the long run Egyptians will fight whoever is the occupying power whether its Italian-German-British-Turksih. In the short term they would support a change of scenery, same way Arabs originally welcomed the Ottomans to depose the Mamluks.

I don't view the Egyptians as a potent offensive military weapon. In the early stage preforming street demonstrations and riots against the British. Later they would serve as labor, logistical help and security. I agree its not likely to have a grand Egyptian army marching against the British.

The economic situation is a good point, the Saudis want a profit from this. If it doesn't look like a good deal they won't take it.
 
Last edited:
How long would that support last when Nazi forces start their standard approach to what they regard as subhuman?

Talking of John Philby, it seems he got the funds to send his son to Cambridge as a result of the post war dealings.....if the UK had taken up the offer that was given to them in if I remember correctly the 30's, where does that leave Kim?

Rommel's men weren't that hardcore Nazi so I think the "subhuman" crap will be put off. The Egyptians will attempt to drive out the Axis later no doubt. Good point about Kim his future would be up in the air.
 
Last edited:
You both make good points.


I don't view the Egyptians as a potent offensive military weapon. In the early stage preforming street demonstrations and riots against the British. Later they would serve as labor, logistical help and security. I agree its not likely to have a grand Egyptian army marching against the British.

The economic situation is a good point, the Saudis want a profit from this. If it doesn't look like a good deal they won't take it.

Okay that makes a lot more sense the Egyptians at least in the first flush honeymoon period offering that level of support. The Saudis are more likely to play wait and see until they get a better bribe from the Americans which is only IIRC likely to be a few months earlier than the one they received OTL.
 
The problem with this OP is that Rommel taking Egypt is within the realm of possibility, but him deciding say in late 42/early 43 taking Egypt building up and lunging for Basra and Iraq which were the next on his map of targets would require a fairly smashed British Army and America not in the war for whatever reason as Rommel isn't going to forsake his Egypt prize if there is the real chance America could land 100-200K troops to his East.

BTW, America already had troops in Iraq in 1942 helping free up British troops for the North Africa front.

The Middle East only really opens up as a front if Turkey or Soviet's join the Axis or Il Duce actually prepares for WW2 in the 30s and America stays out of the war... or at least has a really delayed entry.

But, any these changes would make the whole complexion of the war quite different.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but the average Egyptian is not a) armed, b)

You both make good points.

British rule may have been hands off but I don't think that equates to the average Egypt. They see it as a foreign occupation period. Look at Iraq rebellion in 1920's Britain made deals with the elites but it didn't stop the masses from attacking them, same situation here. In the long run Egyptians will fight whoever is the occupying power whether its Italian-German-British-Turksih. In the short term they would support a change of scenery, same way Arabs originally welcomed the Ottomans to depose the Mamluks.

I don't view the Egyptians as a potent offensive military weapon. In the early stage preforming street demonstrations and riots against the British. Later they would serve as labor, logistical help and security. I agree its not likely to have a grand Egyptian army marching against the British.

The economic situation is a good point, the Saudis want a profit from this. If it doesn't look like a good deal they won't take it.

Okay, but the average Egyptian is not a) armed, b) organized for a revolution/rebellion/insurgency, especially in support of Italian Northeast Africa; and c) if their livlihood depends on the Canal, presumably not eager to see it shut down.

One thing that has always struck me as a lost opportunity for the British (since the Americans could not dictate anything) was NOT bringing the Arab/Muslim states farther into their war effort.

There's certainly a precedent with the Arab Revolt, the Senussi, and the (granted, not Muslim, but still) British support for the Ethiopians against the Italians in 1940-41.

Even some small volunteer forces - an infantry brigade built up from the Arab Legion, and another from the best elements of the Egyptian Army and (presumably) the Sudan Defense Force and the Senussi, and (perhaps) a third from Christian and other "local" peoples in the region, beginning with the Assyrians in Iraq, perhaps - could have made a difference in terms of British relations with the local elites in Northeastern Africa and Southwestern Asia, and made the mobilization of the Jewish population in Palestine less of an issue.

The Jewish Brigade was - generally - used fairly carefully in Italy in 1944-45, for obvious reasons, but its very presence made a statement; balancing that statement with an "Muslim Brigade" (or two) could not have hurt, and presumably could only have helped Britain's postwar relations in the region.

Best,
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Right; Egyptians were nationalists, as witness their history - so what were the Italians going to give them, again?

The same deal that Ethiopia (Christians, of course) got, presumably...

Have a hard time seeing that prospect as being all that attractive...

The British had maneuvered through events in Egypt for six decades by 1942, and got - essentially - what they wanted; in return, the Egyptian elites got more autonomy than their neighbors by a long shot.

Having the Italians take control doesn't look like a gain.

Best,
I'm reading a bit more on the war in Egypt now and it seemed that the Axis specifically ran the line of Egypt for the Egyptians, NOT Italian colonial control. They were specifically stating that they were liberating the country and not seeking to colonize it, rather keep it as an ally under its own control, rather than occupied and governed by the Axis. Whether or not they would have lived up to that who knows or even whether the Egyptians believed them, though given the efforts to actually cooperate with the Axis clandestinely it seems they did. Maybe it was just their hatred of the British though.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Italian concepts of the "fourth shore" and "vital space"

I'm reading a bit more on the war in Egypt now and it seemed that the Axis specifically ran the line of Egypt for the Egyptians, NOT Italian colonial control. They were specifically stating that they were liberating the country and not seeking to colonize it, rather keep it as an ally under its own control, rather than occupied and governed by the Axis. Whether or not they would have lived up to that who knows or even whether the Egyptians believed them, though given the efforts to actually cooperate with the Axis clandestinely it seems they did. Maybe it was just their hatred of the British though.

The Italian concepts of the "fourth shore" and "vital space" however, we well known; there's a reason the Senussi had been driven out of Libya and into Egypt.

Likewise, the Italian conquest of Ethiopia was all of six years earlier; any Egyptian who thought the Italians were simply coming for a visit would be deluding themselves. Italian war aims included linking Libya with Italian East Africa; what lies between the two?

Best,
 

Deleted member 1487

The Italian concepts of the "fourth shore" and "vital space" however, we well known; there's a reason the Senussi had been driven out of Libya and into Egypt.

Likewise, the Italian conquest of Ethiopia was all of six years earlier; any Egyptian who thought the Italians were simply coming for a visit would be deluding themselves. Italian war aims included linking Libya with Italian East Africa; what lies between the two?

Best,

Then why did the Egyptian leadership try and work with the Axis in 1941-42?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What Egyptian leadership?

Then why did the Egyptian leadership try and work with the Axis in 1941-42?

The monarchy and Wafd - under Mustafa Nahhas, of all people - were content enough with the limits of power under the 1936 treaty. The only officers who supported some sort of political change in 1942 were very junior, and - as in Nasser's case - safely tucked away on the Sudan frontier. Sadat and his fellow conspirators appear to have belonged to every revolutionary group across the Egyptian spectrum, including a couple that appear to have been British fronts...

See:
http://countrystudies.us/egypt/29.htm

To try and get a pro-Axis Egyptian insurrection in 1942 is asking for something that all the historical evidence pretty clearly suggests was not possible until a decade later, which is when the 23 July Revolution occurred - and even then, given the history of (for example) the Egyptian relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, makes it pretty clear that the Egyptian officer corps were Egyptians first, and (fill in the blank)-ists later...

Best,
 
The monarchy and Wafd - under Mustafa Nahhas, of all people - were content enough with the limits of power under the 1936 treaty. The only officers who supported some sort of political change in 1942 were very junior, and - as in Nasser's case - safely tucked away on the Sudan frontier. Sadat and his fellow conspirators appear to have belonged to every revolutionary group across the Egyptian spectrum, including a couple that appear to have been British fronts...

See:
http://countrystudies.us/egypt/29.htm

To try and get a pro-Axis Egyptian insurrection in 1942 is asking for something that all the historical evidence pretty clearly suggests was not possible until a decade later, which is when the 23 July Revolution occurred - and even then, given the history of (for example) the Egyptian relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, makes it pretty clear that the Egyptian officer corps were Egyptians first, and (fill in the blank)-ists later...

Best,

There were a couple high level officers around. An interesting POD could be this guy making it to German lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Ali_al-Misri

Based on what you say a conventional insurgence seems unlikely. I still however think a good amount of the Egyptian population would take to the streets in some fashion whether its looting, rioting or whatever. Students, previous members of Young Egyptian Party and Muslim Brotherhood could cause some havoc, even if its limited to blocking traffic.:p
Banna was interned from 1941 to February 1942 due to his "critic" of the British presence. The secret apparatus of the Muslim Brothers bombed British clubs during the Second World War and assassinated Egyptian officials. In 1945, the Palestinian question became even more explosive, and the Muslim Brothers were organizing violent demonstrations against the Jews. Military training centers were set up to send volunteers in Palestine to fight "Zionism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Egypt_Party_(1933)
 
Top