WI: Hitler never invades the Soviet Union

Luftwaffe fighters and transports meant for the Soviet Union could have been diverted towards Africa to airdrop supplies, provide better air cover, and help the Kriegsmarine in the Mediterranean, making the prospect of the British losing the Battle of the Mediterranean far greater.

Logistics logistics logistics......

Air supply wasnt feasable for the LW in NA in 41, they are supplying armoured divisions not paratroops.
More LW planes makes the logistics problem even worse, as they need more fuel. Whish is coming from where, exactly?
The LW already had plenty of antiship airpower in the Med, more wouldnt have done much as you can only operate so many aircraft at a time from the relevant bases (those in range of a British operation at the particular time).

Remember, the issue ISNT how many supplies you can get to NA, its how much can you get close to Egypt. Two completely different cases.
 
*snip*
I am not saying it will happen, just that losing a piece of real estate has much larger ramifications for the loser than just the loss of that piece of real estate.

What you say has merit. Granted long chain of defeats without a light at the end of the tunnel will have ramifications far beyond the significance of Suez or Cairo. What I question, however, is the ability of Germany to capture Cairo or Suez in any circumstance. Remember, if there is no Russian front British also gain equipment which would otherwise be sent to Russia. That is some hundreds of planes and tanks.

Even at the lowest point of the tide for British, when Germans had virtually unopposed supply link to Africa and where standing at Egypt border, everything behind them secure, Afrika Korps was not supplied sufficiently well to be able to operate its full complement of armored vehicles. Why? Because, while they could put supplies in Tripoli, they couldn't get to the front. This is something that is not going to be improved in the slightest by Germany not being in Russia.
 
It can be improved if the resources freed up from having no active Russian front could be used to expand port facilities, widen the roads, get more trucks in working order, build more air bases to accomodate the additional aircraft.
 
Invasion of the Soviet Union is a necessity for Nazism. The whole purpose of Nazism is a European model of colonialism that in Hitler's own words was to make Russia Germany's India. Not to invade the USSR is a not-so-unsubtle admission that Nazism is a failure, and no ideologue will ever admit their ideology has failed.

Then based on that logic why didn't Hitler just invade the USSR in 1933? Because he needed to deal with other strategic objectives to put Germany in a place where invading Russia becomes realistic. Carring the War with Britain to a conclusion is simply a logical step before invading the USSR.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear....
OK, its the L-word time again folks.....

How is Hitler going to bring Britain to its knees? Well, he doesnt have any sea power worth mentioning, so he only really has 3 options. A direct attack on the UK (in 1841, doomed to an utter and comoplete failure that would make a 1940's Sealion defeat look successful. The British had over 30 divisions available in the UK, and Germany still doesnt have any ships)
A successful U-boar campaing. this always looks good on paper. unfortunately the Atlantic isnt paper. The RN had actually defeated the U-boats in 41 (the hight losses in 42 were mainly dye to the Americans), and in 43 they re-won it. Germany isnt going to change tactics until 43 (when lets assume, after withdrawing his U-boats Doenitz gets new, improved versions), and it will take at LEAST a year to get them into real operation. By which time the RN A/S gorce is a lot stronger (remember, in this case they arent going to slow/stop escort production as they did in OTL). The third option is of course North Africa. Now, we have issues, We cant make the Axis forces much stronger in 41 as they are limited by the forward logistics problems. Now, they could do things to improve this by 1942 - a railway along the coast, plus a better road, plus delivering supplies further forward (bear in mind they did NONE of these in OTL). Now its feasable to attack in 42. Good luck by this time at getting through the Alamein positions - its possible, but the losses will be horrific. You can now take Egypt. Luck you, you now have some pyramids, with 1,000 miles of trackless dessert between you and any oil. Said oil fields will of course be destroyed before you get close, but never mind. You should be able to get there by 43 (remember, it takes TIME to build up road and rail links in 1942). Congratulations, you now have the fun task of taking a British Army in India (falling back onto its lines of supply and support) while at teh end of a long extended line through the desert.
Whatever happens in an African campaign, its slow.
Now all this time, Hitler is (a) hoping Stalin keeps supplying him (something that was getting really tense in spring 41 OTL), and (b) the USA just sits there. Now remember that my the end of 40 the USA had basically comitted itself to around 30,000 aircraft a YEAR for Britain - come what may, these aircraft will arrive. the LW will be SO thrilled.....
And thats not to mention the USN buildup.

Oh a few other things. yes, SOME of the Arabs liked the idea of the Germqans (whether they would keep liking it after the germans arrived and they found out their scheme in the pkace of things - just above monkeys -is another issue), some of them were supporting the British.

Um, look at a map and see just how far that oil was from the Bosphorus, and the total lack of infrastructure between them.

Now granted, none of this is actually impossible to overcome. But it assumes that both the USA and Russia just sit there (getting stronger and stronger by the day)m and do nothing. At all. There is a word in the military lexicon for countries that ignore enemies of this power just sitting around, its called Loser.

Oh, and regarding losing the med making the British support via the Cape and India? Thats what they did in OTL....not quite sure why its so different this time.
There was no serious threat of an Indian revolution in 42 despite all the reverses, its no more likely here. The Indians wanted independance, they didnt want to be part of the German Empire.

But the British could lose the Med, the Middle East AND India and it still wouldnt get german troops any closer to the UK, and all the time Tube Alloys is workng on (probably with a huge difference in priority this time)

Basically the Germans could NOT 'win the war easily', and winning it with difficulty would entail the sort of strategic risks that no military (except possibly the japanese, and look how well that worked out..) would consider even for a moment. Even ignoring the fact that the whole POINT of WW2 was so Hitler could attack Russia. Sure, lets ignore that and let Russia keep growing and growing stronger and stronger...and any POD that suggests Russia not being a target basically butterflies WW2 away completely.

I never mentioned invading Britain, and the case for the u-boats is limited considering its as much a side venture to put pressure on Britain (the same way bombing would be)

Actually if Rommel had been adequately supplied he could have broke through the el Alamein lines, and considering the losses in the Eastern Front, the losses would be relatively light. And, this is desert warfare, so the flow of battle moves extremely fast, perfect for blitzkrieg. So a major defeat for the British would move the front extremely fast. Now if the Mediterrean campaign was undertaken at the same rate, the Axis powers could easily supply their forces in Egypt. Egypt itself isn't exactly a bastion of British support (this is just a few years after the Great Arab Revolt in Palestine was crushed) and by this point Vichy France may even be convinced to join the war to get their mandates back.

This could all be done relatively quickly. If the oil wells are destroyed they can be repaired with time, and Nazi Germany has more time, and secure access to oil.

I'm not assuming that the USA and the USSR are just sitting there. The Axis powers are just carrying out the ongoing war with Britain in a logical way. Stalin may intervene to grab a slice of the Middle East, though judging from his foreign policy Stalin isn't going to risk entering the War on the British side. Why would he? Fighting a war against Nazi Germany would be a major undertaking, and Stalin had no interest in helping Britain.

As for the USA, they still hadn't come out of their period of isolationism, and Japan presumebly still signed their neutrality pact with the USSR. So Japan's aggression most likely will be seen as the main threat. Its a tall order for Roosevelt to drag the USA into a war with Germany and the Axis powers unless they are stupid enough to declare war as they did in the OTL. This may happen, but Hitler wouldn't be at war with the USSR and the Allies don't have access to the Mediterranean, so the war is likely to drag on past 1945 (assuming it is still fought to an unconditional surrender). Stalin would probably play both sides but not intervene directly until its drawing to an end and there is a clear loser he can scavenge off of (like the 1945 invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets, where the USSR gained more than the Western Allies, who had basically won the War in the Pacific by then)

Also, Hitler didn't have any real territorial ambitions in the region, so he would have probably been content to set up puppets and proxies in the Middle East and North Africa, so that would give him access to the resources and the good publicity. Given the USA's stance on British imperialism this could have won Germany some important support there, making American intervention all the more difficult.


As a side track, assuming the US and Soviet Union don't get involved, and allowing the Germans a Mediterranean theater victory but not going all the way to Iran and India, how long will the stalemate last?

If Churchill loses to Attlee, does Attlee come to terms with Hitler? Is there ever a point where Churchill would come to terms with Hitler, if he hadn't managed to bring in US or Soviets? What if Hitler was out of the picture, would he be more likely to then?

Attlee doesn't win until 1945. How much of a fleet can Germany build up by then? They'll never catch up with Britain but they could at least create a coherent invasion force and not some ragtag armada. And if Gibraltar is in Axis hands it allows the Italian navy to come out and take part in some way.

Can Hitler get Vichy France into the war against Britain if the USA never joins? Their fleet is just another force multiplier. The combined Axis navies will never equal the RN, but they can at least challenge it, and with sufficient air superiority, have a chance at mounting an invasion.

Still a very good chance this late war invasion would fail, and there would probably be years of build up, time after time of Hitler and his high command thinking they're almost ready, setting the date for next week, and then calling it off from cold feet.

But if the British end up with the nuke, that'll be the trigger to launch, do or die. And if the British are smart, they have a bomb saved for dealing with the invasion force.

It wouldn't have to wait for Churchill to lose an election. In 1941 Churchill's position was far from secure, its more likely he would lose a vote of no confidence and the new prime minister would make peace.

Why does this myth that Germany controlling the Med somehow causes doom and destruction for the British Empire keep going??

Please read OTL history.
Only one convoy went through the Med (very soon after Italy declared war) - the only others were to resupply Malta, which arent needed if its fallen...
Everything else went around the Cape.
The British prewar strategy was to abandon the Med and just hold on to Gib and Egypt; Gib us a useful port, but again they can live without it quite easily.

yet again and again I keep reading posts that assume somehow not being in the Med is totally disastrous

I think you've totally missed the point. Its not that Britain can't get troops through the Med, its that the Germans and Italians can unmolested. This would have made the Axis logistics much more secure in North Africa and allow for a major offensive.

What you say has merit. Granted long chain of defeats without a light at the end of the tunnel will have ramifications far beyond the significance of Suez or Cairo. What I question, however, is the ability of Germany to capture Cairo or Suez in any circumstance. Remember, if there is no Russian front British also gain equipment which would otherwise be sent to Russia. That is some hundreds of planes and tanks.

Even at the lowest point of the tide for British, when Germans had virtually unopposed supply link to Africa and where standing at Egypt border, everything behind them secure, Afrika Korps was not supplied sufficiently well to be able to operate its full complement of armored vehicles. Why? Because, while they could put supplies in Tripoli, they couldn't get to the front. This is something that is not going to be improved in the slightest by Germany not being in Russia.

Hitler never put any real effort into supplying the Afrika Korps, and a large part of that was his focus on Russia instead.
 
It can be improved if the resources freed up from having no active Russian front could be used to expand port facilities, widen the roads, get more trucks in working order, build more air bases to accomodate the additional aircraft.

Resources allotted to an overland attack and thus completely unsuitable for amphibious warfare can create more resources for a very different kind of war? How's this work again? :confused:
 
Then based on that logic why didn't Hitler just invade the USSR in 1933? Because he needed to deal with other strategic objectives to put Germany in a place where invading Russia becomes realistic. Carring the War with Britain to a conclusion is simply a logical step before invading the USSR.
Referring to the nearly non-existent German army as "other strategic objectives" seems a bit tame.
 
Resources allotted to an overland attack and thus completely unsuitable for amphibious warfare can create more resources for a very different kind of war? How's this work again? :confused:

I'm not saying you can put railroad tracks across the ocean, but labor and materials used on the Eastern Front can be repurporsed for this task here. You can't use everything obviously, but the resources put into the Eastern Front were so massive that I think they'd have a lot to work with.
 
Having a lot of resources mean jack shit if you cannot reallocate them. Resources are not a single variable you can move at will - they represent real capital and productive investment designed for a given purpose, and cannot easily be repurposed from fighting a titanic land war on the Eastern Front to fighting a war in the desert. It takes a lot of time, and a lot of effort, and it may take as much in terms of resources in retooling this stuff as anything else you might build or mass produce
 
Are you saying that Germany is completely incapable of doing anything to improve its logistical situation in North Africa when the Eastern Front is dormant? I know you're not.
 
Hitler never put any real effort into supplying the Afrika Korps, and a large part of that was his focus on Russia instead.

Please explain.

Some things are given. Among those is the port capacity in Libya which is up to 70.000 tons a month. Axis forces require around that much to function. Even unopposed, this 70.000 tons is the top Germans can achieve and they achieved this only couple of months in 1942, IIRC. However much you deliver to Tripoli, which is only viable port, as others have been demolished (Benghazi, Tobruk), there is problem of getting the supplies to the front. There is one road from Tripoli to the front. Any improvement of the delivery requires substantial amount of supplies not delivered, instead delivering either trucks or railroad building equipment and rolling stock and locomotives. Any of those further exasperates the situation demanding more and more deliveries.

Perhaps trucks could be made available, I will grant that. I do not know how many would be needed, but I am sure somebody here can dig out this info. With more trucks you need more fuel, more spare parts, more men and more supplies for those men. At any time the single road can be cut by Allies and bunch of trucks destroyed. Supply line can be interdicted by air force. Long range desert group can raid it.

With East front dormant, no doubt much can be done to improve this situation. But that requires time. At the same time Britain is able to do something. And they are in position to do much more than Germans.

Railroads present their own set of problems. You need steel, wood, rolling stock, locomotives, engineers to build railroad, coal to run trains, infrastructure built along the railroad. And still face interdiction at any point of the 1000 miles long line of communication.
 
The only way you can improve things in Africa is to build some LST type vessels to land vehicles directly on the beaches, but doing that (unlikely anyway given the Axis' lack of experience with ships) pulls resources and men from other fields, like building new ships (to replace both the ones getting sunk and the ones you're modifying), and repairing damages ones.
 
Top