WI Nazi Germany made an attempt to reconquer former German colonies

[kenmac]

This is a self supporting fallacy. The Germans lacked these ports because they could not move sufficent supplies into the Western Desert Theater to defeat the British



Which was because, no surprise here, the British were able to provide logistical support to their forces, both from home and from the Raj. In short the British HAD sufficient logisitical lift, something the Germans sorely lacked, as well as an infrastructure that allowed them to make effective use of the lift capacity. The Reich was limited in both the amount of supply they could provide and in the ports that could be used to move the small amount of supplies available.

Logistics, the ever boring, but utterly vital, bit of warfare that is far too often ignored KILLED the Germans in Africa.

All wrong of course.
The three main Axis supply ports Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk were all operating at half their potential capacity.
Thus the understanding that two more Panzer divisions could have been supplied if available.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Im sure the Germans could have airlifted enough troops into West Africa to cause the British serious problems.

No chance in hell. How would the troops be supplied?

If they take Egypt in 1940 which would have been quite easy they will have the Egyptian ports, Red Sea and Nile to move supplies along.

Great idea, if you ignore the existence of the Royal Navy.

The British beat the Germans in Egypt not because the Germans where at the end of their supply line but because they had far more men, tanks and other equipment not to mention air superiority.

As already pointed out, these very factors were the direct result of the British having a solid logistical chain and the Axis forces lacking one.

Because the Germans were at war with the USSR and didnt have anything else available to send to Africa.

Then explain their massive reinforcement of Tunisia in late 1942.

The three main Axis supply ports Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk were all operating at half their potential capacity.
Thus the understanding that two more Panzer divisions could have been supplied if available.

Not sure of the information about port capacity (can you quote a source?), but even if you're correct, you're again ignoring the existence of the Royal Navy.

 

[Paulo the Limey]

Im sure the Germans could have airlifted enough troops into West Africa to cause the British serious problems.

If you are so sure, please explain how they do this. Don't forget that if you use paratroopers for this, then in all likelihood Crete is not captured, making it easier for the RN and RAF to interdict the flow of supplies to Africa, making the logistics even more difficult than they already were.

Italian East Africa could be held and re-supplied if Germany moves quickly in 1940-41

Again, how? Through September 1940 the German's attention was focussed on subduing the British Isles, not on African warfare. The Italian's would brook no involvement in what they saw as their North African campaign until after they had been thoroughly trounced by Operation Compass, so this puts the POD at February 1941 at the earliest. Then you'll need time to get the DAK in country and ready. This pretty much coincides with the British counter-attacks in East Africa, so your pretty much out of time, unless you have the Germans conquering all of North Africa and moving down through Sudan and onwards to Ethiopia in the space of a couple months, which frankly is ASB.

 

[mailinutile2]

The logistical problem are very big, but the point is quite interesting.
(also: do not forget morocco, which was not a german colony, but could have been. and also it is a lot nearer)
I doubt very much that a "colonial war" would cause the "total war" response that an europead war triggered.
maybe the move woul have been considered in a similar way as italian invasion of Ethiopia: general muttering, economic santions, but not a total war, and maybe bring to a negotiated solution.
of course there is also the matter of prestige: France/uk wold not been pleased. but would go on until war? remember of the war-taboo mentality after WWI

 

[Monty Burns]

unless you have the Germans conquering all of North Africa and moving down through Sudan and onwards to Ethiopia in the space of a couple months, which frankly is ASB.

Absolutely true. Even if the Germans would succeed in taking Cairo and the Suez chanel, this would require quite some time. And then they'd go for the Middle Eastern oil first. If I remember correctly, in "Manstein in Africa", a TL I'd highly recommend, the Nazis pretty much conquer Northern Egypt only.

Considering moving an army through Sudan to Ethiopia: would that be possible at all back then?

 

[kenmac]

No chance in hell. How would the troops be supplied?

From Libya by air of course.
To Equatorial Guinea and the French West Africa to use against Togoland and the Cameroon.

Great idea, if you ignore the existence of the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy will want to stay out of the way of Axis airpower.

As already pointed out, these very factors were the direct result of the British having a solid logistical chain and the Axis forces lacking one.

It was pointed out wrongly as the Axis ports where only running at half their potential.
They just did not have the forces available.

Then explain their massive reinforcement of Tunisia in late 1942.

At the expense of the Soviet campiagn.

Not sure of the information about port capacity (can you quote a source?), but even if you're correct, you're again ignoring the existence of the Royal Navy.

Ill find it for you.

 

[kenmac]

If you are so sure, please explain how they do this. Don't forget that if you use paratroopers for this, then in all likelihood Crete is not captured, making it easier for the RN and RAF to interdict the flow of supplies to Africa, making the logistics even more difficult than they already were.

No need to drop the troops they can be landed by air from Libya into French West Africa and Equitorial Guinea.
The supplies landing in Libya were enough to meet Rommels needs so we will should not have a problem here.

Again, how? Through September 1940 the German's attention was focussed on subduing the British Isles, not on African warfare. The Italian's would brook no involvement in what they saw as their North African campaign until after they had been thoroughly trounced by Operation Compass, so this puts the POD at February 1941 at the earliest. Then you'll need time to get the DAK in country and ready. This pretty much coincides with the British counter-attacks in East Africa, so your pretty much out of time, unless you have the Germans conquering all of North Africa and moving down through Sudan and onwards to Ethiopia in the space of a couple months, which frankly is ASB.

The thread is about Nazi Germany wanting to re-take its ex-colonies thus we must assume that they will be no Battle of Britain and Germany will move it's forces to Libya after the fall of France.
with Rommel in Africa in late Summer 1940 Egypt could be in Axis hands by Christmas.
At this point all East Africa is in Italian hands and will just be waiting to hook up in Sudan with the rest of the Axis forces in order to hold on when the British counter offensive happens.

 

[kenmac]

Absolutely true. Even if the Germans would succeed in taking Cairo and the Suez chanel, this would require quite some time. And then they'd go for the Middle Eastern oil first. If I remember correctly, in "Manstein in Africa", a TL I'd highly recommend, the Nazis pretty much conquer Northern Egypt only.

Considering moving an army through Sudan to Ethiopia: would that be possible at all back then?

In Manstein in Africa the Axis armed forces are split in two to go East and South but he hasnt wrote what happens to either yet.
The Red Sea would be the logical supply route.
The Axis would have air superiority so the Royal Navy would have to stay away but they would also have to clear the Suez Canal first.

 

[Dilvish]

Where?

In the Pacific? The U.S. and Japan will likely object. Japan was going to return the Mandates when they were pried from their cold dead hands. The USN is an utter overmatch for the Kriegsmarine, especially when the German fleet is operating at the end of 16,000 mile supply line.

In China? See the above comments about Japan.

Ah, now here is something that could give Japan and the USA common ground. The USA didn't have any former German colonies, but I doubt they would look kindly on islands changing possession back to Germany. Former German colonies include the Solomans, which gets Australia involved too.

I'm thinking that if Germany tries to get Tsingtao back, the USA will have something to say there as well.

 

[Pikers3]

If the Germans had kept bombing the RAF bases in the battle of Britain they could of destroyed the RAF. They could then probably force Britain to a peace negosation where in exchange for non-occupation and whatnot they would get Tanganika and German South West Africa back.
I know its not reconqueoring them but its a ay of getting them back

(My knowleadge of WW2 is a bit basic but i have heard that Britain was only weeks away from the RAF being destroyed due to the Germans bombing their bases)

 

[Chengar Qordath]

All wrong of course.
The three main Axis supply ports Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk were all operating at half their potential capacity.
Thus the understanding that two more Panzer divisions could have been supplied if available.

Incorrect; the problem was not getting supplies into port, it was moving the supplies from the ports to the frontlines. In OTL there often stockpiles of supplies left sitting on the docks because there was no way to move those supplies to the troops from Benghazi to the frontlines in Egypt.

 

[kenmac]

Incorrect; the problem was not getting supplies into port, it was moving the supplies from the ports to the frontlines. In OTL there often stockpiles of supplies left sitting on the docks because there was no way to move those supplies to the troops from Benghazi to the frontlines in Egypt.

In 1940 the Axis would have had enough force to take Egypt and get ports in Egypt.
In 1941 and 42 with no war with the Soviets they would have had more than enough land transport available to full all their needs.

 

[Astrodragon]

In 1940 the Axis would have had enough force to take Egypt and get ports in Egypt.
In 1941 and 42 with no war with the Soviets they would have had more than enough land transport available to full all their needs.

Such a shame that in order to get to Africa they need SEA transport, then, isn't it....

Please explain the way you get to Ethiopia from germany by land, it should be interesting....

 

[Astrodragon]

If the Germans had kept bombing the RAF bases in the battle of Britain they could of destroyed the RAF. They could then probably force Britain to a peace negosation where in exchange for non-occupation and whatnot they would get Tanganika and German South West Africa back.
I know its not reconqueoring them but its a ay of getting them back

(My knowleadge of WW2 is a bit basic but i have heard that Britain was only weeks away from the RAF being destroyed due to the Germans bombing their bases)

Mmm, how can I put this succinctly? No. there, that sounds about right....

Continual bombing of the southern RAF bases merely makes them relocate a bit further north. That is, if the Luftwaffe lasts that long, they were taking higher losses AND the British were outproducing them in aircraft.

In any case, even if the RAF is destroyed in autumn 1940, it still doesnt make SeaLion work, and Churchill isnt going to sue for peace for anything less than a successful invasion of Britain.

 

[Deckhand]

But in 1940 they would have had severe trouble supplying such a force.

In a brilliant maneuver typical of the Italians they gave their merchant marine one day of warning before declaring war. As a result, roughly one third of their merchant navy was sunk or captured by the Brits as it was outside the med at the time. (The germans did something similiar and lost half)
Including 46 of their 76 tankers, and most of the cross atlantic ones( ie. the big and fast ones). So merely by declaring war, the italians threw away 60% of their capacity to supply mechanized forces in North Africa. This capacity was not replaced (partially) until 1941 when some of the losses had been rebuilt and some of the Greek and Yugoslav merchant marine was captured.

The whole panzers in Africa in 1940 thing is a fantasy. They could have got there, but they would run out of gas somewhere near Tobruk.

Logistics, the Italians and Germans just didn't do it very well.

All this also ignores the point that has been made by others. Fascism is a Nationalist ideology. It is about the foundation myth, and the strength and power of your nation. Italy could not accept help from Germany in 1940. To do so would be to admit they needed it. And the Italy that did that prior to the massive fails of Compass and Greece was an Italy that never went to war in the first place.

 

[kenmac]

Such a shame that in order to get to Africa they need SEA transport, then, isn't it....

Please explain the way you get to Ethiopia from germany by land, it should be interesting....

Italians succeeded in putting an average of 72,000 tons of supplies ashore a day in Africa.
Or did this not happen?

 

[kenmac]

But in 1940 they would have had severe trouble supplying such a force.

In a brilliant maneuver typical of the Italians they gave their merchant marine one day of warning before declaring war. As a result, roughly one third of their merchant navy was sunk or captured by the Brits as it was outside the med at the time. (The germans did something similiar and lost half)
Including 46 of their 76 tankers, and most of the cross atlantic ones( ie. the big and fast ones). So merely by declaring war, the italians threw away 60% of their capacity to supply mechanized forces in North Africa. This capacity was not replaced (partially) until 1941 when some of the losses had been rebuilt and some of the Greek and Yugoslav merchant marine was captured.

The whole panzers in Africa in 1940 thing is a fantasy. They could have got there, but they would run out of gas somewhere near Tobruk.

Logistics, the Italians and Germans just didn't do it very well.

All this also ignores the point that has been made by others. Fascism is a Nationalist ideology. It is about the foundation myth, and the strength and power of your nation. Italy could not accept help from Germany in 1940. To do so would be to admit they needed it. And the Italy that did that prior to the massive fails of Compass and Greece was an Italy that never went to war in the first place.

Italy are more than capable of putting enough supplies into Libya in 1940 to mount an invasion of Egypt with German help.
The Germans could greatly increase this with airlift.
Im sure had the capture of the former German colonies been the priority Hitler would have had little problem in getting Mussolini to allow him to land forces in Libya.
After all Italy would be getting Egypt and Sudan out of the deal.

 

[I Blame Communism]

(My knowleadge of WW2 is a bit basic but i have heard that Britain was only weeks away from the RAF being destroyed due to the Germans bombing their bases)

That's a simplistic view. We were under the greatest pressure during the attacks on our main inland airfields, certainly, but both the contemporary leadership and the historians are divided as to whether the refocus to other targets was really crucial. Dowding didn't think so.

It has to be remembered that our intelligence consistently overestimated the Luftwaffe. They also faced attrition from these attacks (much worse: they couldn't save their pilots over enemy territory), to compound their numerous failures of intelligence (they underestimated that RAF by a factor of three at one point, which of course was murderous for Luftwaffe morale), logistics, and organisation. The attacks on civilian targets may simply represent the Luftwaffe losing its will before we did.

In any case, even if the RAF is destroyed in autumn 1940, it still doesnt make SeaLion work, and Churchill isnt going to sue for peace for anything less than a successful invasion of Britain.

Perhaps not even then: Eden asked the army's top men how many troops would go to Canada with no bones about it. Lord Lothian was trying to work out the necessary arrangements with the Americans.

We shall nevah surrendah, indeed.

 

[CalBear]

All wrong of course.
The three main Axis supply ports Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk were all operating at half their potential capacity.
Thus the understanding that two more Panzer divisions could have been supplied if available.

Bard, is that you?

The Germans lacked, among other things, the transport bottoms to supply a force of the size you are putting forward as possible. An Armored Division is effectively a bottomless pit into which one throws supplies with a hope of obtaining sucessful results. It requires huge amounts of fuel and ammunition every day it is in action, and burns a remarkable amount of supply simply sending other supplies forward. The Germans never did manage to get a full armored divsion into the Western Desert, primarily because there was no way to supply one.

Even with the Axis ports in full operation, their capacity paled compared to the British ports. Alexandria alone was able to handle moe shipping at one time than any two of the Axis ports (and Tobruk was only Axis on an occasional basis).

Lastly, but critically, if one accepts your position stated in another post, that the Luftwaffe effort againt the UK is not taking place. This will allow the RAF to go from general air superiority, which sometimes see-sawed to the Luftwaffe, to total air supremacy. The Luftwaffe will not be able to greatly increase its presence for the same reason it was impossible for the Heer to support full armored divisions in the Western Desert, logistical weakness. If an armored division is a bottomless pit for supplies, a fighter or bomber wing is a Black Hole.

The British can supply their forces, even a much increased force, the Germans simply can not. Couldn't IOTL, can't in this scenario.

 

[Bearcat]

This is one of those ATLs that doesn't ever quite work.

As others have pointed out, Nazi Germany as it existed at the outbreak of war doesn't have the naval or merchant marine strength to pull this off.

You can try an earlier POD, where Germany goes for a more maritime outlook.

However, this means that war with England likely comes sooner.

It's almost inescapable that, once Germany capitulates in WW1, its colonies are a dead issue.

On the greater issue of NaziWank, it can only be said that Germany had no realistic, non-ASB chance of winning the war. Hitler would have needed to be more rational, and highly lucky to pull it off (like winning the lottery several weeks in a row).

Hell, if you're that lucky, go to Monte Carlo, get rich, have a nice mistress, and screw the war.