WWII what-ifs

[Officer of Engineers]

again, a light infantry force vs a mechanized one. and one that would leave India open to Japan.

The biggest recruiter against the Japanese were the Japanese.

thinking about it too, what about the other way? what if Hitler carries out his plan to take Gibraltar? it'd cost him an arm and a leg but no more than, say, the battle of France. suddenly RN's position in the Mediterranean becomes very difficult-- they'd have to move ships around the Cape to Suez to play a role.

Then Hitler would not be Hitler. He would not have gone for the Sudetenland. He would not gone for Poland. He would not gone for Greater Germany and instead would have concentrated on non-continental German power which frankly was a lot easier.

Germans could then replay Operation Torch from the other way around.

And go against the very core of Hitler himself.

the U-boats were concurrently fighting the Atlantic and the Mediterranean at the same time. again, thinking this through, if the Schwerpunkt/decisive battle here is the Mediterranean and seizing Suez, what does it matter if the Atlantic is left wide open while supporting a land operation that would likely last for no more than six months?

So, you're relying on a British Election to win the war? Who in their right mind would count on that? Hitler had an English King in his pocket and he still got war with Great Britain. To the point where the Dominions demanded Edward's removal. The Empire wanted war.

if the Germans are standing on the defensive in the north, wouldn't they be able to use interior lines to strike at the weakened Maginot line in the south? it's a lot shorter offensive needed to get from the Maginot Line to Paris than it would be from Paris through Belgium through northern Germany to Berlin.

seems to me that it would be easier for Germany to cut France's LOCs than the other way around. that's why in WW1 the initial French offensive was in the south. Germany sucker punched France with the Schlieffen Plan but given how the French generals fought in WWII, I really doubt they would be able to pull off the equivalent here.

With what? You're forgetting that France was viewed as the superior military power, even in Germany. They wouldn't be planning to strike into France, not unless the French offensive is stopped cold and that was by no means certain at the time. The amount of artillery the French, at least on paper, is stagerring.

think Mihais means how Japanese land-based air made short work of a Royal Navy detachment.

The point stands. The RN was not taken out.

No need to.The Italian Navy has German air cover over the entire Eastern Med.Malta was nearly strangled by a single German airfleet flying for a limited period.
RN capital ships were sunk or dissabled by Italian frogmen.

The Axis has enough means to keep the RN at bay or even crush it in Med in this scenario.

Could have, would have, should have. They didn't. For whatever reason. Least of which is Hitler was Hitler

WRT Turkey,its neutrality wasn't set in stone.A strong German effort can see Turkey join the Axis.Or at least allow the passage of German troops to the Levant.
As for the BIA,by 1942 it had,IIRC,about 15 divisions.That can't halt the Germans,neither in Lybia nor in Levant.

More than the Germans could bring to the table.

[Mihais]

Too bad that Ataturk was dead by 1938.

Asty,the Soviets don't need to cross the Caucasus.They only need to reach Belgrade.
No matter how you turn it,even if the entire first wave of Soviets,200+ divisions is destroyed by autumn-winter 41,they still get the expertise,they keep their industrial base intact,their population base intact and at the very least cause some damage to Ploiesti,thus hampering Axis mobility.
Keep in mid that the limiting factor to soviet offensives up until 1943 was not really the lack of trucks and tanks,it was the lack of artillery.That is no problem in this what-if.By 1943 in the best case scenario for civilization you have the Reds in Berlin.

[Mihais]

The point stands. The RN was not taken out.

Could have, would have, should have. They didn't. For whatever reason. Least of which is Hitler was Hitler

More than the Germans could bring to the table.

The Axis supported somehow an Army Group in the Caucasus.They can support a similar force in Syria well enough.And the best of the BIA was trashed by an inferior Japanese force.The 8th Army was historically superior to Rommel,yet it got pounded.It's victory came when the Germans had to fuel their vehicles with oil somehow salvaged from an oil spill.
15 BIA divisions vs 20 of the WH in 1941.With the Krauts having most of the Luftwaffe above their heads.That ends pretty much like the rest of the encounters.

[Monash]

Sans Turkey entering the war in 1940 on the Axis side there's no realistic way for Hitler to get strategically dominate forces into the Near East or Africa by the end of 1942. Historically the Axis were simply unable to transport and sustain large numbers of German troops in North Africa. Rommel was crippled from the get-go by the inability of Germany to transport significant numbers of troops, Panzers, ammunition and that most precious of resources (from his point of view) fuel across the Med to North Africa. The British recognized from the onset the frailty of his supply lines and went all out to disrupt Axis sea links with Libya, just as the German tried to do the same in return with less success.

As I see it is the problem is the political and social inertia the Nazis have to counter in order to get Turkey on board. Frankly I don't see any way on Earth a National Socialist (and Aryan) Germany is going to convince a Turkmen and deeply conservative Muslim nation to side with the 'master race'. The main problem is that the Germans can't promise the Turks anything in exchange for their co-operation that the Turkish Government of the day will realistically believe they can come through with. They will know Germany is supporting Italy's claims on North African and new 'Roman' Empire. They also know a British backed administration is already entrenched in Egypt and Iraq, not to mention their very clear memories of how much they lost in terms of territory in the last war - far more than any of the other nation aligned with the central powers. They also don't have a strong industrial base of their own to support a war effort and are not in position to make a strong 'push' into the Near East by themselves even with a 'rump' of German support. A few German divisions thrown in as support on a 'flying the flag' exercise simply won't cut it. So from their perspective the best alternative is to do exactly what they did do - pull their heads in and wait for the shooting to stop. I mean look at the problems Europe has had in trying to integrate Turkey into the EU now after decades of trying, what hope did Nazi Germany have of pulling off a similar trick in a mere 2 years or so?

[Officer of Engineers]

The Axis supported somehow an Army Group in the Caucasus.They can support a similar force in Syria well enough.

That army group did not see the combat intensity that is expected here.

And the best of the BIA was trashed by an inferior Japanese force.The 8th Army was historically superior to Rommel,yet it got pounded.It's victory came when the Germans had to fuel their vehicles with oil somehow salvaged from an oil spill.

Wrong. Both 8th Army and the BIA started winning when they got Generals who knew what they were doing. Further more, the very fact that the Afrika Korps had to salvage an oil spill states unequivocally that the Germans knew squat all about extended logistics. That was also seen on the Russian Front when no one had planned for winter clothing. British Generals, I might add, Montgomery and Slim who understood logistics better than Rommel.

15 BIA divisions vs 20 of the WH in 1941.With the Krauts having most of the Luftwaffe above their heads.That ends pretty much like the rest of the encounters.

And the rest of the Empire somehow magically disappeared? 8th Army Gone? 1st and 2nd Canadian Armies gone? Australian Desert Rats gone? RAF gone? RN gone?

[Bigfella]

It is also worth pointing out here that in this scenario North Africa pretty much grinds to a halt. A major German push through Turkey is going to suck up every hull bigger than a motor launch that the Germans can get their mits on. Given that they are supplying the naval cover, the Italians will be able to keep enough shipping to supply their troops in Nth Africa, but not for them to be storming toward Cairo. Of course, absent the Afrika Corps, which is now going to be the Anatolia Corps, there won't be much storming going on anyway. My recollection of Italian offensives during that period was that they only tended to work with overwhelming superiority of numbers against a retreating or barely trained enemy. Even then they were patchy.

The upshot is that virtually all the British forces that would have been committed to NA are going to end up in Syria or Turkey. Those are some handy units and provide a strong 'backbone'. Because Britain can ship units rapidly across the Eastern Med to Egypt if required it is possible to strip out most of what was there. Britain may also move good stuff from the Far East or simply not send it - which might actually save some quality troops spending the war in Japanese POW camps. It should be remembered that there were some pretty handy units fighting in East Africa in 1941 (that is where Slim first saw combat - got shrapnel in his arse). Combat conditioned and used to a war of rapid movement, if not massed armour. The BIA troops that stormed Keren were as tough as anything Germany faced up to that point. Rather than send some of them east they go north.

[Mihais]

That army group did not see the combat intensity that is expected here.

Wrong. Both 8th Army and the BIA started winning when they got Generals who knew what they were doing. Further more, the very fact that the Afrika Korps had to salvage an oil spill states unequivocally that the Germans knew squat all about extended logistics. That was also seen on the Russian Front when no one had planned for winter clothing. British Generals, I might add, Montgomery and Slim who understood logistics better than Rommel.

And the rest of the Empire somehow magically disappeared? 8th Army Gone? 1st and 2nd Canadian Armies gone? Australian Desert Rats gone? RAF gone? RN gone?

The only thing that doomed the Germans in Africa was the lack of railroads.It hurt losing ships,it hurt to be interdicted from the air,but what hurt them the most was spending for each liter of fuel that reached the front several times the amount.
A German Army Group in Levant suffers from none of the issues above.There is no naval or air interdiction of the LOC,enough rail can be laid,as was done in Russia,and additional forces can be brought to bear .
The only question is about the scale of the British evacuation.

[Officer of Engineers]

The RN can ship faster than Germans can laid rail.

[Mihais]

Yes Sir,but ship what?In the 1940-41 timeframe.

[Officer of Engineers]

There were two fresh Canadian divisions sitting in the UK. And since this scenario requires the Kreigsmarine to challenge RN Med dominance, that meant the Atlantic is weakened and more supplies and troops arriving from Canada. Just imagine all the convoys getting through with zero casualties.

[Mihais]

Ok,if we add the BIA,the 8th Army,the CA we get what?25 divisions,30 at most,that need to be shipped,supplied etc...
A quarter of the Wehrmacht is 45-50.It was done in S Russia in 41-42.The Axis somehow managed to keep such a force in the field.It wasn't in the best condition,but in Levant they won't face the huge Red Army,but a paltry force by comparison.
And the British force still has to fight.The 8th Army got trashed by a Panzer Corp,repeteadly.In Levant there won't be 3 mobile divisions,but at least 10.

Also,the KM has no need to challenge the RN in Eastern Med.Only to secure it.The Italian Navy and the land based German AF are more than enough.

[Officer of Engineers]

However, this all assumes that Hitler stops being Hitler. For all practical purposes, the Brits were knocked out of the war. Rommel and the Afrika Korps were sent to rescue the Italians, not any specific designs on British holdings. So what if the Brits lost Egypt? Hitler was counting on a British election to have a pro-German London? He had that before in a King and did him squat all.

Winning Egypt requires a massive undertaking that would take Hitler's eyes off his main prize - the USSR. I mean, really, from the 1941 perspective, what does winning Egypt helped him with? The Brits can't do crap all to stop him and he is fighting a war, losing men and material, that would gain him nothing in conquering Russia.

Even if he wins Egypt, does that mean a German army is going to march through the streets of London? Not a chance in hell.

In fact, I can't get my head around this. In hindsight, yeah, winning Egypt before taking on the USSR made sense but from the viewpoint of the period in question? Win Egypt, Churchill loses a non-confidence vote and a new election that may or may not get the Brits out of the war. In the mean time, supplies and re-enforcements are rushing to the British Isles making an already impossible invasion more impossible.

In the mean time, I've just spent an entire army group taking Egypt for nothing and that army group is not going to help me to take Moscow. In the meantime, Stalin is getting stronger and stronger and we both know that war is coming. I just got weaker and Stalin is stronger. Do I wait to rebuild my army group or go without it, bearing in mind that Stalin is also using the same time to get stronger.

From the standpoint of 1941, taking North Africa makes zero sense. Not when my goal is to take the USSR.

[Officer of Engineers]

Ok,if we add the BIA,the 8th Army,the CA we get what?25 divisions,30 at most,that need to be shipped,supplied etc...

He who gets there the firstest with the mostest wins. And that would be the Brits.

[astralis]

col,

Winning Egypt requires a massive undertaking that would take Hitler's eyes off his main prize - the USSR. I mean, really, from the 1941 perspective, what does winning Egypt helped him with? The Brits can't do crap all to stop him and he is fighting a war, losing men and material, that would gain him nothing in conquering Russia.

the RAF bombing campaign also hurt, and Hitler was willing to spend quite a bit to cow the UK into a treaty. i mean, he fought the Battle of Britain after all, and was fighting the Battle of the Atlantic.

eliminating the Brits would mean he's safe on the Western European flank from all bombing, and now you can retask U-boats and the Luftwaffe to mass against the USSR. eliminate the threat from the southern flank.

Even if he wins Egypt, does that mean a German army is going to march through the streets of London? Not a chance in hell.

he didn't need the UK, he just needed the UK out of the war. he was willing to offer status quo antebellum after the battle of france and he hinted it again after the battle of britain.

In fact, I can't get my head around this. In hindsight, yeah, winning Egypt before taking on the USSR made sense but from the viewpoint of the period in question? Win Egypt, Churchill loses a non-confidence vote and a new election that may or may not get the Brits out of the war. In the mean time, supplies and re-enforcements are rushing to the British Isles making an already impossible invasion more impossible.

In the mean time, I've just spent an entire army group taking Egypt for nothing and that army group is not going to help me to take Moscow. In the meantime, Stalin is getting stronger and stronger and we both know that war is coming. I just got weaker and Stalin is stronger. Do I wait to rebuild my army group or go without it, bearing in mind that Stalin is also using the same time to get stronger.

all the men manning anti-aircraft guns, unbombed factories, no need for an atlantic wall, freeing up the entire Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe surely isn't nothing. hell, Rommel and his 250,000 men at least would be freed up, along with whatever italian odds and sods. no huge 1943 diversion to rescue mussolini.

From the standpoint of 1941, taking North Africa makes zero sense. Not when my goal is to take the USSR.

eliminate the two front war. basically, the way i see it, Hitler loses what, one year taking North Africa and Egypt, knocks Britain out of the war. even if Hitler DOES take higher than expected casualties, surely it wouldn't equal all the men lost to the Allied bombing campaigns, the 1943 diversion to italy, and the entire western front from 1944 on.

the funny angle of your argument is that you seem to be arguing that Hitler timed his attack on the USSR perfectly, and that it was a -good- strategic decision to attack.

[astralis]

on the other gibraltar gambit (man, there are a lot of scenarios floating around here).

Then Hitler would not be Hitler. He would not have gone for the Sudetenland. He would not gone for Poland. He would not gone for Greater Germany and instead would have concentrated on non-continental German power which frankly was a lot easier.

why not? Hitler himself pushed for it multiple times. in fact, the entire operation was scuttled because of one man, Admiral Canaris, whom actively advised Franco to oppose Hitler and deceived Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix

On 24 August, Hitler approved a general plan for seizing Gibraltar. On 23 October, he personally met with Franco at Hendaye, France, and proposed that Spain enter the war on the Axis side as early as January 1941; Gibraltar would be taken by special Wehrmacht units and turned over to Spain. Franco however refused the offer, emphasizing Spain's need for large-scale military and economic assistance. Hitler took offence when Franco expressed doubts about the possibility of a German victory in fighting the UK on its home territory. Franco also pointed out that even if the British Isles were invaded and conquered, the British government, as well as most of the British Army and vastly powerful Royal Navy, would probably retreat to Canada and continue the Battle of the Atlantic, with U.S. support.

On 12 November, Hitler issued Führer Directive No. 18,[6] which stated that "political measures to induce the prompt entry of Spain into the war have been initiated" and that "The aim of German intervention in the Iberian Peninsula (code name Felix) will be to drive the English out of the Western Mediterranean." It also mentioned the potential invasion of Portugal if the British gained a foothold and requested that the occupation of Madeira and of the Azores be investigated.[7]