Nazi Germany Victorious West Attacked from the East.

BlondieBC

Banned

No, he was estimating a different plan. West Africa, not the Suez. Yes, any plan can be poorly executed, but the Suez is not required to win, neither is Egypt. Take/neutralize Malta with air power or amphibious assault. Take/Neutralize Gibraltar. Do either one and the Med is shut to merchant shipping. In fact, just hold Sicily is probably enough. The fight the main naval war off the coast of West Africa. Like other decision in the war, the Nazi chose the wrong option. With a UK first plan, and a lot more resources, it likely works.
 
No, he was estimating a different plan. West Africa, not the Suez. Yes, any plan can be poorly executed, but the Suez is not required to win, neither is Egypt. Take/neutralize Malta with air power or amphibious assault. Take/Neutralize Gibraltar. Do either one and the Med is shut to merchant shipping. In fact, just hold Sicily is probably enough. The fight the main naval war off the coast of West Africa. Like other decision in the war, the Nazi chose the wrong option. With a UK first plan, and a lot more resources, it likely works.

"Take Girbalter" "Take Malta" "Win in West Africa". Broad statements, but harder to achieve. West Africa is distant from German forces in Libya and Tunisia and technically is Vichy territory. Plus this scenario ignores the fact that the British aren't going to let the Germans invest the majority of their resources into West Africa; they're going to keep pounding Libya until it cracks under the sheer logistic strain of trying to maintain a large army in a region with no road or rail network, a few disparate ports which are extremely vulnerable to British air and and naval forces, and an uncooperative ally in Italy.
 
They were using it in cakes for cows. Assuming the cakes are identified as anthrax quickly, the damage can be limited by not eating meat and drinking milk. Russia had weaponized Anthrax leave a lab, and the world did not end.

Why do you think anthrax kills the entire German population?

Ignorance. A simple answer for many rhetorical questions on this forum. But dairy products and meat make up a massive proportion of the human diet, a pretty hefty one even under ration conditions. Damage would still be catastrophic.
 
The Mediterranean Strategy is infeasible for Nazi Germany to execute. Logistics limit its military buildup, while the British can continue to pour material into the region until the Germans break.

The key period extends from the point it is clear the French are losing the Battle of France to maybe the end of the first quarter of 1941. If the Germans invested 1941 level resources in 1940, the British did not have much of an army to stop them. And if their Navy and Air Force could not do so alone in 1941, it's hard to see how they could have done so in 1940

Yes Italian cooperation is required. But that is not an impossible scenario when you are in a position to carve the Western European cake.

The interesting aspect of this thread was not intended to be in the West. Make up whatever plausible scenario you like. The real question is if the Germans could have prevailed or at least survived against the Soviet Union after a reasonable negotiated victory in the West.
 
The key period extends from the point it is clear the French are losing the Battle of France to maybe the end of the first quarter of 1941. If the Germans invested 1941 level resources in 1940, the British did not have much of an army to stop them. And if their Navy and Air Force could not do so alone in 1941, it's hard to see how they could have done so in 1940

Yes Italian cooperation is required. But that is not an impossible scenario when you are in a position to carve the Western European cake.

The interesting aspect of this thread was not intended to be in the West. Make up whatever plausible scenario you like. The real question is if the Germans could have prevailed or at least survived against the Soviet Union after a reasonable negotiated victory in the West.

You make these grand statements without really backing them up. The Germans invest more resources? That's fair, but how do they supply them? The articles I posted made it clear that Libya lacked the infrastructure to support German forces of OTL size. Rommel outran his supply lines just going for Tobruk.
 
You make these grand statements without really backing them up. The Germans invest more resources? That's fair, but how do they supply them? The articles I posted made it clear that Libya lacked the infrastructure to support German forces of OTL size. Rommel outran his supply lines just going for Tobruk.

The more Western ports were in better shape in 1940 and Tobruk was still in Italian hands at that point. There may have been some means of supplementing stretching port capacity(not my area, but not the most intimidating goal as the focus for a relatively large economy on a war footing) At that point a full Afrika Korps in addition to Italian forces was almost over kill.

The increased allocation of resources would likely be logistic and air power. One benefit of of the latter would be to keep the British fleet away from the coast for better use of coastal transport. Another would be increased air transport for some essentials.

The Germans would logically strive to win one battle with the bulk of their forces as close to the frontier as circumstances allow. The British of that era might accomodate. Even without that, the Germans could adequately supply a significant spearhead (a reinforced panzer division? somewhat more?) to pierce Al Alamein and approach Alexandria. Remember the British did not have the same force as would in late 1941 and 1942.
 
Last edited:
Top