WI Afrika Corps Focus instead of Barbarossa?

A good tactics, and a good logistics. Surely it was hard, but it was doable. Don't expect things to be walk in the park... BTW, if the battle of Britain was butterflied away, surely it can add up the experienced pilots in African Campaign?
Luftwaffe sure needs the experienced pilots they can muster...:)
 
The POD has Germany taking a totally different WW2 strategy, so I think different actions/thoughts are given. Also, people asked how it could be done. So I gave the capability part of an "intent and capability" analysis.

I find it interesting how people argue the Nazi could not make different decision, but they accept other people in history can make different decisions. Basically, the argument is Hitler/Nazi did X in OTL, therefore, they could not have ever done Y. I understand this argument if one is having Hitler suddenly like the Jews, but it does not make sense on tactical/strategic /diplomatic matters. Hitlers was anti-USSR, til he he was pro-USSR, til he switched back to anti-USSR. Hitler made pragmatic decisions.

And BTW, Hitler did exempt a lot of Jews from persecution, including SS member #2.

Hitler was never pro-USSR, he was just forced into something of an alliance when he realized that the UK and France were never going to just let him overrun Poland. In fact the immediate origin of planning for Barbarossa was the Soviets demanding the Nazis implement the Agreement as it had been agreed to.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Hitler was never pro-USSR, he was just forced into something of an alliance when he realized that the UK and France were never going to just let him overrun Poland. In fact the immediate origin of planning for Barbarossa was the Soviets demanding the Nazis implement the Agreement as it had been agreed to.

Hitler did sign an non-aggression pact that split up eastern Europe, and this shows he would switched tactics, even if the tactics required making temporary sacrifices to his long-term objectives. There is no difference in deciding that Germany has to defeat the UK first, and signing the non-aggression pact. Both would involve Hitler and senior Nazi's deciding that a war with the USSR would have to wait.

This qualifies as pro-USSR.

Do you see the non-aggression pact as a hostile act towards the USSR?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I was under the impression that there were disturbances in 1940 and an attempted uprising in 1944 to coincide with the battle of the Bulge. There were also Palestinian Arabs in the SS and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem issued a Fatwa calling for a Holy War against Britain in May 1941.

The main revolt against the British was in 1938. Part of the reason that the UK decide to sign Munich was to free up the land forces to defeat the Arab rebellion. While in retrospect unwise, there were understandable reasons why the UK gave into Hitler.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Actually, that's a good question. How do you supply troops in Dakar?

You mean besides hopes and dreams? 'Cause it seems to me like Germany's gambit depended on those two factors if it was going to be successful.

The G-2 of the USA thought it was doable, do you have a source on why it was undoable?

I would guess a combination of coastal shipping, roads air transport, rivers, caravans, and railroads. We would likely also see extra railroads and roads built.
 
Hitler did sign an non-aggression pact that split up eastern Europe, and this shows he would switched tactics, even if the tactics required making temporary sacrifices to his long-term objectives. There is no difference in deciding that Germany has to defeat the UK first, and signing the non-aggression pact. Both would involve Hitler and senior Nazi's deciding that a war with the USSR would have to wait.

This qualifies as pro-USSR.

Do you see the non-aggression pact as a hostile act towards the USSR?

It was a short term expedient to get what both wanted at that moment, it was no more pro-USSR than was US lend lease to the USSR. You admit Hitler was going to invade Russia at some point, everything else was just tactics towards that end.
 
A tactic which left Hitler with several allies in Eastern Europe, gains both territorial and economic and weakened the Soviet position.

About as pro-Soviet as Munich was pro-Czech.
 
The one thing most of you are forgetting is you would need the Italian Navy to have more fuel and half again as many DD and TB to run escort for the merchant fleet caring supply's to North Africa. This means less Steel for Tanks and Arty and more Steel for The Italian Ship yards . Can you see Goering or Himmler agreeing to give Italy 40-60% of Germany's steel production from 1940- 1944 .
 
Hitler did sign an non-aggression pact that split up eastern Europe, and this shows he would switched tactics, even if the tactics required making temporary sacrifices to his long-term objectives. There is no difference in deciding that Germany has to defeat the UK first, and signing the non-aggression pact. Both would involve Hitler and senior Nazi's deciding that a war with the USSR would have to wait.

This qualifies as pro-USSR.

Do you see the non-aggression pact as a hostile act towards the USSR?

No, I see the Pact as something intended to forestall a war with the UK and France and that as such a war came actually in most ATLs probably would benefit the USSR more than it ever did Germany. Hitler could not sacrifice his Lebensraum and butchering all the Slavs and Jews of Europe, it was his ideology's sole reason to exist to start with.
 

iddt3

Donor
Hitler did sign an non-aggression pact that split up eastern Europe, and this shows he would switched tactics, even if the tactics required making temporary sacrifices to his long-term objectives. There is no difference in deciding that Germany has to defeat the UK first, and signing the non-aggression pact. Both would involve Hitler and senior Nazi's deciding that a war with the USSR would have to wait.

This qualifies as pro-USSR.

Do you see the non-aggression pact as a hostile act towards the USSR?
What sacrifice? He gained both short term and long term, he lulled the USSR into a false sense of security and stopped them from looking to Britain and France for some sort of understanding, got lots of raw materials he couldn't get else where, ensured Poland surrendered quickly...
In 1939 Germany wasn't ready for war with the USSR, 1941 was really the optimal time, the USSR was only getting stronger over time as it fixed the issues shown by the winter war, and Germany had looted Europe for all it was worth. Ideally he would have hit the USSR a bit earlier, but really, opportunistically using someone to the maximum then backstabing them at the earliest possible moment, while intending to do this all along, can hardly be construded as a pro-USSR policy.
 
Top