No battle of Britain, Mediterranean instead?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the LW had a jolt of sense and convinced Hitler that bombing Britain was beyond their capability and it was more profitable to head south and support the Italians? The best of the LW would be shifted to hit Malta and used in N. Africa. Would Malta be taken by Italian Marines and German paras? What about the effect on the Italian offensive? Would Mussolini even allow German units to aid his forces? Also this increased cooperation might possibly clue the Germans into the Italian plans for Greece and forstall that fiasco.
Also, how does Britain respond? Does it maintain forces in Britain thinking this was a fent?
 
Malta can be taken especially because before Crete Hitler had no qualms about airborne operations however it’s going to be a hellish fight between the defenders and the attackers. Causalities will be amazing on both sides. However once Malta is gone a lot of British security in the Med is gone with it.

What about Franco? If Italy and Germany start really controlling the Mediterranean he will not be able to resist their pressure and his desire for Gibraltar. Perhaps Hitler agrees to Franco’s deal?
 

General Zod

Banned
Malta can be taken especially because before Crete Hitler had no qualms about airborne operations however it’s going to be a hellish fight between the defenders and the attackers. Causalities will be amazing on both sides. However once Malta is gone a lot of British security in the Med is gone with it.

Don't forget that Italians have rather good airborne troops of their own that will join the assualt, too, so casualties for the Axis get spread out.

If Hitler drops Sealion and goes for a Mediterranean strategy as soon as it is obvious that UK won't accept peace, a strong commtimment of German forces to the theater would most likely defuse invasion of Greece, Mussolini would stand ready to grab Egypt instead.

A combined German-Italian airborne-amphibious attack on Malta in 1940 shall take it, most assuredly. There goes 40-50% of British strength in the Mediterranean. Now the Axis can land and maintain as many troops in North Africa as the logistics of Libya can support (more than enough to pry open El Alamein and sweep Egypt, in any case).

What about Franco? If Italy and Germany start really controlling the Mediterranean he will not be able to resist their pressure and his desire for Gibraltar. Perhaps Hitler agrees to Franco’s deal?

Let's say a combination of Hitler agreeing to some demands, and Franco reducing them, since the fall of Malta makes the Axis look rather stronger. The fall of Gibraltar as well dooms the British in the Mediterranean. Suez shall be taken. Vichy shall open the Syrian airfields to the Axis. Iraq (and Egypt as well, as Rommel takes Alexandria) shall rise in revolt and join the Axis when Suez falls.

The Mediterranean strategy in 1940 means that Britain shall be forced to beg a compromise peace by late 1940 early 1941. Churchill shall be kicked out when Egypt and the Middle East fall.
 
While Germany had the resources both for a Med campaign and Uboat/Blitz against Britain between the fall of France and Barbarossa the politics behind it are a nightmare for the Axis.
 

General Zod

Banned
WWII ends in December 1945 after the US nukes Rome and Berlin.:D

Quite possibly in the general sense that USA would use the Bomb to force the European Axis to surrender IF and ONLY IF the USA and the European Axis end up in a war by 1945, which is not a given ITTL. The Mediterranean strategy forces the UK to its knees by late '40-early '41, which might quite possibly butterfly away the DoW by Hitler post-Pearl Harbor.

But I very very much doubt that any US President, even a senile anti-fascist fanatic like Roosevelt, would ever order the nuclear destruction of Rome, the seat of the Catholic Church and the cultural hub of the Western civlization, unless a large-scale exchange of nuclear attacks was currently underway between America and Italy. The only way that Rome can realistically take a nuke is if the Soviets bomb it.
 
It should be remembered that when Italy joined the war against the UK they fared rather poorly without English Reinforcement. Furthermore, Italian holdings in Africa besides Libya (Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritea) are essentially forfeit.

I doubt that Germany would be willing to move forces to Africa before Fall Gelb, and it should be remembered that Mussolini only joined the war when France was clearly out of the running.

In addition, if the first Italian move is again Malta, I would expect the UK to grab Tobruk, as it would take months to transfer appropriate assets to the island, break its defenses from the air and then finally send in the troops.

To knock the UK out of the war, the Axis Powers are going to have to drive all the way to Iran--to grab the UK's Oilfields. While the Arabs are likely to be at least passively supportive of the Axis offensive in the Middle East, count on the Jews to be militantly hostile.

Cyprus might also take the role that Malta had OTL as the obstinate island fortress that thwarts Axis supply routes, and if nothing else, the distances involved and the terrain suggest to me that this is not going to be anywhere near as easy as supposed.

With Churchill in charge of the UK, there will be no negotiated peace until the UK is absolutely crippled. In addition, if Greece is going to get left alone, Turkey will attempt to stay out the conflict-so there is no land route to the Middle East short of going through Baku (and I don't see Stalin allowing this kind of Transit rights for Germany).

So I'm very far from convinced that this offensive would work. More Likely, the Axis offensive is stuck in the vast scale of distances involved and Iranian Oil Fields remain firmly in British hands. The UK can supply from India, the Axis would have to supply from Libya, and that's going to really hurt.

It would be well worth the cost if the Axis powers could knock the UK to the peace table--but that's not at all likely, given supply constraints.

As for nuking Rome--FDR never did give the order to nuke anyone. If the UK is in the conflict the USA would have entered it one way or another. If we remove the battle of Britain from history the allies would probably use atomic bombs as tactical weapons--just as Germany used its bomber wings for that purpose. Fascist Italy's troops would be fair game for this kind of attack.

If we somehow suppose that Germany never attacked the Soviet Union, we could indeed see a US Nuclear attack on Rome--perhaps to force Italy to surrender, or perhaps in a tactical role to break Italian defenses around the city.

Italy's economy was entirely unequal to the challenge of the role which is presented here--and a 1940 PoD is going to see the Italian Economy simply unable to assume control of Mare Nostrum against the RN.
 

General Zod

Banned
Furthermore, Italian holdings in Africa besides Libya (Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritea) are essentially forfeit.

True, but unavoidable anyway, if Italy joins the war at all. OTOH, they can be easily reconquered when Egypt falls.


In addition, if the first Italian move is again Malta, I would expect the UK to grab Tobruk, as it would take months to transfer appropriate assets to the island, break its defenses from the air and then finally send in the troops.

True as well, but if Malta goes Axis, it is rather doubtful that British Tobruk could stage any sort of prolonged hold out as it did OTL. An Afrika Korps with more troops and no supply problems can easily break them.

To knock the UK out of the war, the Axis Powers are going to have to drive all the way to Iran--to grab the UK's Oilfields.

Theoretically, yes, although losing either the Mediterranean and Suez or Iraq/Kuwait is a mightly blow to the British war effort by itself. However, one must take into account that the more the Axis forces grab of the Middle East, the more Churchill's hold onto power becomes politically unsustainable. I have rather serious doubts he can survive the inevitable vote of no confidence that is coming when Suez falls, and I'm pretty much sure that he can't do so when the Axis conquers Iraq and Kuwait. The UK are not Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, there are definite limits to the degree Churchill can keep the British public and Parliament spellbound to his total war policy with reversal after reversal.

While the Arabs are likely to be at least passively supportive of the Axis offensive in the Middle East, count on the Jews to be militantly hostile.

Very true, but not so much of a problem if one looks to the bigger picture. The fall of Egypt makes the UK look very weak, so France shall open the Syrian ports and airfields to the Axis. From there, triggering the anti-British coup of Iraq some months in advance and send Axis forces to consolidate the revolt is far from difficult. Once Iraq has fallen, the British are toast. Who cares about a bunch of Jewish insurgents by then ? It's a mop-up affair.

Cyprus might also take the role that Malta had OTL as the obstinate island fortress that thwarts Axis supply routes,

Cyprus is in a geographical position to do so only when the front has moved to Palestine. This means that Alexandria and Suez have fallen, Gibraltar and Malta did so previosuly, the RN has been forced to give up the Mediterranean, therefore British forces on Cyprus are utterly without supplies. Their ability to sustain themselves against the Axis, not to matter project any kind of force in the Eastern Mediterranean, shall diminish to zero very quickly. Where are they going to get fuel for airplanes and ships ?

With Churchill in charge of the UK, there will be no negotiated peace until the UK is absolutely crippled.

The Parliament shall kick him out well before that. With the Axis securing Egypt and advancing into the Middle East, his whole policy looks more and more like an utter failure, he can offer nothing but increasing destruction of the British Empire. The UK stands alone, the Axis is unassailable in Europe and are sinking teeth in the lifelines of the Empire. It is obvious that contesting German hegemony on the continent is a lost cause, the Nazi regime is loathsome but the British people has tried and failed to crush it by armed force, saving what can be salvaged of the British Empire is way paramount over fulfilling Churchill's stubborn crusade to the last man and gallon of fuel. Hitler has kept offering an honorable peace which saves the political independence of Britain, the Dominions, and India, too bad for Europe under fascism but Britain tried and failed, there is no shame in not being willing to fight to complete annihilation. Such arguments shall be raised in Parliament and Churchill has no good counter.

In addition, if Greece is going to get left alone, Turkey will attempt to stay out the conflict-so there is no land route to the Middle East short of going through Baku (and I don't see Stalin allowing this kind of Transit rights for Germany).

Greece and Turkey will give transit rights to the Axis when Egypt falls and the RN leaves the Mediterranean, if not quite possibly follow the example of Spain and Vichy France and actually join the Axis.

So I'm very far from convinced that this offensive would work. More Likely, the Axis offensive is stuck in the vast scale of distances involved and Iranian Oil Fields remain firmly in British hands. The UK can supply from India, the Axis would have to supply from Libya, and that's going to really hurt.

No way Churchill can hold onto power when Egypt and either Syria or Iraq fall and Britain stand alone, the British Parliament is not the Nazi Reichstag or the Soviet Politburo. Anyway, once Rommel sweeps Egypt, the Axis can supply from Alexandria. No supply problems whatsoever for Afrika Korps. Besides, once Egypt falls, the British political house of cards begins to fall as well, Greece, Turkey, Vichy France, and Iraq start to move into the Axis camp and more and more land routes, ports, and airfields supply opportunities open up for the Axis forces.

As for nuking Rome--FDR never did give the order to nuke anyone.

Yep. Death stopped him. As a matter of fact, it is quite possible that the sheer stress of seeing his anti-fascist agenda collapse with the surrender of Britain would give him an early stroke, which £$%& the USA completely, as it places far left New Age loonie and Commie sympathizer Wallace with utterly unpopular radical policies into power.

If the UK is in the conflict the USA would have entered it one way or another.

Rather unlikely ITTL. The American public is only going to accept a war with Nazi Germany if a) Hitler declares war on them on his own initiative b) Germany again messes with the Monroe Doctrine with some shenanigan like the Zimmerman Telegram. There might be a slight possibility if Germany performs a successful Sealion (leaving its feasibility aside for argument's sake). NOT because the UK is taking a pounding in Europe or the Middle East (the USA were nowhere as needful of Arab oil in early 40s and they were during the late Cold War, so the Wehrmacht in Iraq is not a casus belli for them at that time) or Germany is strongarming the UK to acknowledge her hegemony on the Continent.

If the UK is forced to a compromise peace by the fall of Suez or Iraq, Roosevelt has absolutely no way to pick a fight with Hitler in Europe, and without an undeclared naval war with the USA, Hitler is likely not going to concern one way or another when and if Japan goes Pearl Harbor.

If we remove the battle of Britain from history the allies would probably use atomic bombs as tactical weapons--just as Germany used its bomber wings for that purpose. Fascist Italy's troops would be fair game for this kind of attack.

Why so ? :confused:

If we somehow suppose that Germany never attacked the Soviet Union, we could indeed see a US Nuclear attack on Rome--perhaps to force Italy to surrender, or perhaps in a tactical role to break Italian defenses around the city.

The Americans making a nuclear martyr of the Pope ? ASB. As it is the USA picking a fight with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy if UK goes Amiens with them. It would require the American far left somehow staging a successful takeover of the USA. Which might have been a slight possibility if the New Deal had failed, but is ASB in the 1940s. Wallace might try if he gets President and causes sharp political polarization with his radical left policies, but moderate Democrats would close ranks with Republicans and impeach his sorry ass.

Italy's economy was entirely unequal to the challenge of the role which is presented here--and a 1940 PoD is going to see the Italian Economy simply unable to assume control of Mare Nostrum against the RN.

The Italian economy, backwards as it was, was up to the challenge of taking over a vacuum, and that is what the Mediterranean shall be when the RN vacates it. And it shall to a large degree once Malta and Gibraltar falls and completely once Alexandria and Suez do.
 
Last edited:
General Zod, your latest posts on FDR lead me to conclude that you are an unabashed Nazi sympathizer, not simply pro-fascist, and I don't waste time on such vermin. Welcome to my ignore list.
 
What if the LW had a jolt of sense and convinced Hitler that bombing Britain was beyond their capability and it was more profitable to head south and support the Italians?

Wouldn't Hitler than have to right to can Goering? What the heck has he been spending all the money and manpower on if Luftwaffe can't take or at least continue to bomb Britain?
 

General Zod

Banned
General Zod, your latest posts on FDR lead me to conclude that you are an unabashed Nazi sympathizer, not simply pro-fascist, and I don't waste time on such vermin. Welcome to my ignore list.

Whatever. Too bad that you mistake Germanophilia and Anti-Communism for pro-Nazism, but oh well. :rolleyes: No I simply despise him for his Plan Morgenthau genocidal anti-German racism, for his fanatic anti-fascist agenda which was utterly unconcerned about Europe falling under Communist tyranny as long as he got Hitler's scalp, and for his Unconditional Surrender policy which prolonged the war in Europe by several years, causing huge additional deaths and destruction, allowing the Holocaust to run unchecked to the end, and the fall of Eastern Europe to Stalin. I admire him hugely for his New Deal policy, but he should have died or lost the election before 1940, allowing a moderate interventionist Republican or Democrat to wage the war against Hitler in much more sensible way. That is, being mindful that saving Europe from Hitler and leaving it to Stalin is a tragic senseless waste of blood, that toppling the Nazi regime is far different from grinding Germany into total destruction, that the wlelfare of Europe requires the former but is gutted by the latter, and that a policy offering post-Nazi Germany a fair peace (independence, national unity, and ethnic borders) can likely cause a coup in Germany and end the carnage years in advance and make democracy safe in all of Europe. Take a look at Plan Morgenthau and you'll know why I refuse to worship at the altar of late Roosevelt. My concept of an optimal ending for WWII is not Nazi victory, is a successful Walkurie in 1943 and a compromise peace between the Western Allies and post-Nazi Germany which keeps Germany united and independent in her post-Munich rightful borders and on the swift path back to democracy, freedom restored in Western Europe with much less bloodshed, the Holocaust cut short, and Stalin contained out of Eastern Europe. Roosevelt's Unconditional Surrender extremism was the main reason why this scenario did not fulfill, and for this reason I convict him.

Personally I have no sympathy whatsoever for Nazism and his lunatic racial polcies, and besides them I regard Nazism as a hopelessly flawed political model eventually doomed to fall much like the Soviets did. I have much sympathy for a "Napoleonic" Greater Germany unifying the continent, which is far different. My sympathies are for hegemonic imperialism as a vehicle to peace, unity, and prosperity, not to Nazism or fascism or such. If anything, I root for Germany partitioning the Habsburg Empire in late 1800s and winning WWI with an Anglo-Italian alliance, not WWII, much the same way I root for the USA conquering Canada and Mexico, or the Roman Empire conquering Germania and surviving, etc. My political views are far hawk in foreign policy, centrist in economic matters, and far liberal in social and environmental issues. If this looks like "Nazism" to you, too bad.

Having said that, do as you like. :rolleyes: I return to the issue of the Mediterranean strategy.
 
Last edited:
Whatever. Too bad that you mistake Germanophilia and Anti-Communism for pro-Nazism, but oh well. :rolleyes: No I simply despise him for his Plan Morgenthau genocidal anti-German racism, for his fanatic anti-fascist agenda which was utterly unconcerned about Europe falling under Communist tyranny as long as he got Hitler's scalp, and for his Unconditional Surrender policy which prolonged the war in Europe by several years, causing huge additional deaths and destruction, allowing the Holocaust to run unchecked to the end, and the fall of Eastern Europe to Stalin. I admire him hugely for his New Deal policy, but he should have died or lost the election before 1940, allowing a moderate interventionist Republican or Democrat to wage the war against Hitler in much more sensible way. That is, being mindful that saving Europe from Hitler and leaving it to Stalin is a tragic senseless waste of blood, that toppling the Nazi regime is far different from grinding Germany into total destruction, that the wlelfare of Europe requires the former but is gutted by the latter, and that a policy offering post-Nazi Germany a fair peace (independence, national unity, and ethnic borders) can likely cause a coup in Germany and end the carnage years in advance and make democracy safe in all of Europe. Take a look at Plan Morgenthau and you'll know why I refuse to worship at the altar of late Roosevelt. My concept of an optimal ending for WWII is not Nazi victory, is a successful Walkurie in 1943 and a compromise peace between the Western Allies and post-Nazi Germany which keeps Germany united and independent in her post-Munich rightful borders and on the swift path back to democracy, freedom restored in Western Europe with much less bloodshed, the Holocaust cut short, and Stalin contained out of Eastern Europe. Roosevelt's Unconditional Surrender extremism was the main reason why this scenario did not fulfill, and for this reason I convict him.

Personally I have no sympathy whatsoever for Nazism and his lunatic racial polcies, and besides them I regard Nazism as a hopelessly flawed political model eventually doomed to fall much like the Soviets did. I have much sympathy for a "Napoleonic" Greater Germany unifying the continent, which is far different. My sympathies are for hegemonic imperialism as a vehicle to peace, unity, and prosperity, not to Nazism or fascism or such. If anything, I root for Germany partitioning the Habsburg Empire in late 1800s and winning WWI with an Anglo-Italian alliance, not WWII, much the same way I root for the USA conquering Canada and Mexico, or the Roman Empire conquering Germania and surviving, etc. My political views are far hawk in foreign policy, centrist in economic matters, and far liberal in social and environmental issues. If this looks like "Nazism" to you, too bad.

Having said that, do as you like. :rolleyes: I return to the issue of the Mediterranean strategy.

There is so much wrong with that I'm not even going to try. Valkyrie happened because some people in the army were panicky and desperate and willing to take absurd risks to try and end the war (via, IIRC, unconditional surrender :rolleyes:). They wouldn't try it until things are self-evidently going badly for the Reich; also, even if they successfully killed Hitler, they're still facing the Gestapo, the SS and at least some of the army. And it wouldn't have worked the way you want anyways - Stalin wasn't going to make peace until his T34s are driving under the Brandenburg gate.

Unconditional surrender possibly stretched things out in the Pacific but there's no way Hitler is accepting any peace less than "Continent-Spanning Domination Bwahahahaha" and no way Stalin is leaving Germany alive either. So really, I find it hard to see how WWII-Europe could have neded any less decisively than it did.

I'll just wrap up by saying
post-Munich rightful borders
:eek: and leave it at that.
 

General Zod

Banned
There is so much wrong with that I'm not even going to try. Valkyrie happened because some people in the army were panicky and desperate and willing to take absurd risks to try and end the war (via, IIRC, unconditional surrender :rolleyes:).

At that point it was an act of sheer desperation about ending the senseless bloodshed since Germany was doomed anyway, not about saving your country by killing the tyrant and earning a just viable peace. And it might be argued that the looming unconditional surrender unpleasentness made them halfheartened enough to make them bungling Walkurie. For certain US made them disheartened enough not to try untill 1944. If the Allies had offered a decent compromise peace it is almost sure that the anti-Nazi generals would have staged a coup as soon as it looked that Germany was going to lose the war (early 1943) and they would have been much more determined and wholehearted, and hence liekly more efficient, about it.

also, even if they successfully killed Hitler, they're still facing the Gestapo, the SS and at least some of the army.

The 1943 Walkurie may or may not succeed. The possibility of its failure does not justify Unconditional Surrender. If the coup succeeds, the benefits to Europe are huge. Making it more likely to happen and succeed by ditching US is the best choice.

And it wouldn't have worked the way you want anyways - Stalin wasn't going to make peace until his T34s are driving under the Brandenburg gate.

Rather unlikely that he's going to win a total victory against post-Nazi Germany, or that the Anglo-Americans are going to let him. Anyway, if the Walkurie government finds itself in dire straits, with Stalin refusing a compormise peace after the Western Allies have accepted it, they have a sure way to save their butt: surrender Eastern Europe to the Anglo-Americans. I doubt that Stalin is so mad as to send the Red Army against the Anglo-Americans (and if he does, he will soon get a nuke). He will surely get the 1941 borders back (too bad for the Baltics and Ukraine, but it can't be helped). But he can be contained out of Poland, Romania, etc.

I'll just wrap up by saying

:eek: and leave it at that.

And your problem with German Austrians and German Sudetenlanders exercising their right to national self-determination and choosing to stay with their brethern in a democratic united post-Nazi Germany is... Do I smell a fishy double standard here ? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
At that point it was an act of sheer desperation about ending the senseless bloodshed since Germany was doomed anyway, not about saving your country by killing the tyrant and earning a just viable peace. And it might be argued that the looming unconditional surrender unpleasentness made them halfheartened enough to make them bungling Walkurie. For certain US made them disheartened enough not to try untill 1944. If the Allies had offered a decent compromise peace it is almost sure that the anti-Nazi generals would have staged a coup as soon as it looked that Germany was going to lose the war (early 1943) and they would have been much more determined and wholehearted, and hence liekly more efficient, about it.



The 1943 Walkurie may or may not succeed. The possibility of its failure does not justify Unconditional Surrender. If the coup succeeds, the benefits to Europe are huge. Making it more likely to happen and succeed by ditching US is the best choice.



Rather unlikely that he's going to win a total victory against post-Nazi Germany, or that the Anglo-Americans are going to let him. Anyway, if the Walkurie government finds itself in dire straits, with Stalin refusing a compormise peace after the Western Allies have accepted it, they have a sure way to save their butt: surrender Eastern Europe to the Anglo-Americans. I doubt that Stalin is so mad as to send the Red Army against the Anglo-Americans (and if he does, he will soon get a nuke). He will surely get the 1941 borders back (too bad for the Baltics and Ukraine, but it can't be helped). But he can be contained out of Poland, Romania, etc.



And your problem with German Austrians and German Sudetenlanders exercising their right to national self-determination and choosing to stay with their brethern in a democratic united post-Nazi Germany is... Do I smell a fishy double standard here ? :rolleyes:
You Make Several Interesting Points here ...

While I'm Not Sure I can Agree with you your Reasoning Shows No Obvious Flaws; I can See Why you Chose The Superman Villain as your Screen Name ...

As a Very Reluctant Zionist, I Tend to Agree with you about The Idea of National Self-Determination; However, I Caution you to Remember that One does NOT Always get to Choose which Side of The Arbitrary Line-in-The-Sand One Resides!
 
Now the Axis can land and maintain as many troops in North Africa as the logistics of Libya can support (more than enough to pry open El Alamein and sweep Egypt, in any case).

From Martin Van Crefeld's 'Supplying War'

Tripoli, the largest Libyan harbour by far, capable of handling – under ideal conditions – five cargo ships or four troop transports simultaneously. Its capacity, as long as no unforeseen explosions wrecked the quays, and the largely local labour-force was not driven off by air raids, amounted to approximately 45,000 tons per month.



At Tripoli, however, the problem of maintaining an army in North Africa was only just beginning. On operational grounds, Hitler wisely made his agreement to help Mussolini in Africa conditional on the Italians holing not just Tripoli and its immediate surroundings, as they had originally intended to, but a considerable area that would enable his forces to manoeuvre and afford some protection form air attacks. This decision, together with Churchill’s withdrawal of part of Wavell’s force for employment in Greece, led to the front being stabilised at Sirte, 300 miles east of Tripoli. Since there was no adequate railway running eastwards from Tripoli this meant that, even under the most favourable circumstances, the German force would have to operate at a distance from its base half again as large as that normally considered the limit for effective supply of an army by motor transport (something that, instigated by his generals, Mussolini pointed out but got ignored).



A motorised force of one division, such as the Germans originally sent to Libya, required 350 tons of supplies a day, including water. To transport this quantity over 300 miles of desert, the Army High Command calculated that, apart from the troops organic vehicles and excluding any reserves, thirty-nine columns each consisting of thirty two-ton trucks would be needed. This however, was only the beginning. Rommel had scarcely arrived in Tripoli when he started clamouring for reinforcements and Hitler, overriding Halder’s objections, decided to send him the 15th Armoured Division. This raised the motor-transport capacity needed to sustain the Deutsches Afrika Korps (DAK) to 6,000 ton; since this was proportionally ten times as much as the amount allocated to the armies preparing to invade Russia, the announcement was met by howls of protest from the OKH quartermaster-general who feared lest Rommel’s insatiable requirements would seriously compromise Barbarossa. Moreover, should Rommel receive still more reinforcements – or should he go beyond the 300 mile limit – a shortage of vehicles was bound to ensure. Coastal shipping, it was found, could not significantly alleviate the problem; while granting Rommel his trucks, therefore, Hitler coupled them with an explicit order forbidding him form taking any large-scale offensive action that would raise his requirements still further.

Crefeld suggests it was the problems in moving supplies on the ground more than disruption to shipping that caused the problems - supplies were piling up in the ports due to lack of motor transport. For the small force Rommel had, he was demanding over 8,000 trucks at a time when all four armoured groups operating in Russia had only 14,000 between them.
 
@ Zod I share your distaste of FDR (That **** seized my family's property and interned my mothers family) , but I think you read too much into American Politics from his actions.

The UK had a powerful lobby for Intervention in place in the United States, and given that Churchill had already moved the United States from absolute neutrality into a position of Lend Lease in March 1941, and probably would have been in the war by 1942 given a hawkish leader in charge. (Reuben James and other sinkings would draw the USA into a war it was looking far, assuming that Anglo-American cooperation didn't emerge from Pearl Harbor)

Even in 1939 there was overwhelming political support for the Allies over the Axis Powers. This Political support only increased when France was crushed and more neutral countries bumped off by the Reich. So, unless the USA elects someone like Charles Lindbergh with actual pro-Axis views, count on the USA to be moving towards war as long as the UK is still in it.

And would the UK still be in it? Even if Churchill were removed, would a peace deal with the Axis powers be sought? Eden and Atlee certainly are not dovish when it comes to the Third Reich. The Axis are going to have to make it to Iran to get the UK to leave the war--and it would not be enough to remove Churchill from office.

As for having French ports in the Middle East: NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria-Lebanon_campaign
The UK, even if ejected from Egypt, would clearly have Syria and Lebanon occupied. And that keep the Turks from supporting the Axis as long as they could. The Axis Powers will have to contend with Cyprus as long as the UK holds Beirut, not Alexandria. And France will loose those ports as soon as Vichy adopts a pro-Axis stance. That simple.

The UK will also be scorched earthing this entire distance--so count on the Axis not able to immediately use Tobruk after its recapture, and this continuing to Alexandria, Suez, Tel Aviv and Beirut.

The Axis Powers are going to have to go all the way to Persia to KO the UK. Well before they get there the USA will be a part of the allies and the Soviet Union will be fully prepared for a German Attack.

And frankly, German control of Palestine means that the Holocaust is going to be confirmed around Jeruaslem--one can imagine what this means for any attempts for Germany to receive a peace deal; and Italy would be involved in a big way as well. So--Nuking Italy, even Rome, would be a likely result if it were obvious that Italy and Germany have killed two million people--and that's going to be in the cards if Germany occupies Israel.

There is going to be no easy peace after Anglo-American forces drive into what used to be Israel and find German and Italian forces have killed two million people. At that point, expect the Allies to hit Axis civilians deliberately.

Zod, if you had to put a Percentage on the UK getting kicked out its oilfields in Iran before the USA joins , how likely do you think that is? I say the Axis has 20:1 Odds against.

So I give the Axis about a 4% chance of winning.
 
Interesting - shows that no matter how much people may wish something to be 'doable' it ain't necessarily so!

Shows too, though if (and it's a big if) this were to be the case - Med. not BoB, then Cairo & Alexandria need to be taken before the end of the year. Then supplies can go by ship all the way, rather than be a wasting asset go by truck across the vast desert.
Then the trucks (or whats left of them) can be returned to be readied for the 'Eastern Front'.
But is that reasonable - IMO - no, the British would have made a fighting retreat, while still beating the Italians in East Africa. This last part is important because the US can now ship in supplies direct to Egypt via the Red Sea without going through a 'war' zone.

Given that logistics prevent a larger German force in North Africa than OTL, then the alternative scenairo should be - to have one of a similar size to OTL but for it to arrive much earlier. Hence, this would not be an alternative to BoB but an addition to it. Even if Sealion went ahead the Germans with a large army, could cope with a Africa korps and an Invasion army!
 
The "problem" with the view that a larger German force can not be supported in Libya is that it fails to take in consideration that the British managed to do so in late 1942 and early 1943 when the 8th Army was there. Using the same ports with the same "insufficient" capacity. :cool:


So much for van Creveld. :D

Just because he writes a lot of books doesn't necessarily mean he knows what he's talking about. As one of my professors used to say "theory is nice but there will always be some emphirical proof screwing up a good theory".
 
Top