WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[Fake Boris]

When people speak of outcomes that could have lead to an Axis victory in WW2, it usually boils down to the three following 'mistakes' :

a) Hitler's decision of bombing British cities instead of concentrating on RAF infrastructure in August '40 ;
b) Going for Ukraine instead of Leningrad and Moscow, in the summer of '41 ;
c) failure to devote sufficient forces to the Mediterranean front.

I think that A is a big 'what-if' : it's not certain that Germany had the capability of conducting an invasion of the British isles. B probably not as much, but it's difficult to predict if the fall of symbolic cities would have harmed the Soviet regime more than the loss of their economic powerhouse.

On the other hand, it seems that had German strategy been different, C could have resulted in a more assured outcome.

Franco required of Hitler French Morocco in order to join the war. Obviously, given that Vichy had already been bled dry, it was unreasonable of Hitler to touch her colonies. However, one could imagine that he could have secured Morocco, if, say, he had been more lenient to France, and left them Alsace-Lorraine, demanded lower reparations, etc.

From then, I would imagine the following : Axis forces seize Gibraltar ; Malta falls ; Afrikakorps quickly drives through Egypt and to the Middle East. Germany grants Iraq independance and contents itself of a friendly regime. Now, with British power seriously hampered, and its fleet having lost the huge strategic advantage of the Suez canal, the colonial empire is at risk : rebels in India and Africa take arms.

On the home front, the capture of Gibraltar is a boon to Germany's submarine warfare; the British economy is strangled, its colonial empire is collapsing. UK sues for peace.

The real question here, in my opinion, is to know whether or not it would have been diplomatically feasible to get Morocco from France in exchange for more lenient peace terms on other fronts.

What are your thoughts ?

EDIT: misspelled 'Mediterranean' in the thread title

[BeBMan]

I will never understand why people invest so much in what-iffies that are unprovable anyway.

Not that this should stop anyone

[Fake Boris]

I do because I played a bit of Avalon Hill's grand classic Advanced Third Reich.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro
I will never understand why people invest so much in what-iffies that are unprovable anyway.

Not that this should stop anyone

It's fascinating to speculate though.

What if Arminius had not defeated Varus ?


What if Rome had established a permanent large colony in Germania ?


You'd be a wine-quaffing Romance language speaking aesthete now....


I picked this up for £ 1.00 in a charity shop in Fulham:

This book is an excellent collection of chapters on a variety of military theatres in World War 2. Some of the stories are more plausible than the others -- the Japanese landing in the Persian Gulf struck me as the least likely -- but they were all thought-provoking. Could the Germans have conquered Moscow by concentrating on the Soviet capital? Or would the poor roads of Eastern Europe always have limited their pre-Barbarossa build-up in 1941 - and thus limited how far they could have got in that first campaigning season?

If the Germans had concentrated on the Mediterranean theatre, would they have driven the British out of Egypt? (Boris, mon oncle, nota bene)


Could the Allies have lost at D-Day? And could the Germans have got the A-Bomb first? History always seems inevitable. The skill of some of the writers in this book, shows that it isn't like that at all.

The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II (Greenhill Military Paperback) (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Options-Alternate-Decisions-Greenhill/dp/1853673129

It's edited by Kenneth Macksey who also wrote 'Invasion', so it's more absorbing than some of the schlockier ' Alternate...' series, where Mahatma Gandhi is a guerilla, et cetera.

[lord of the mark]

Most of Spains major cities relied on grain imports, IIUC. Which had to come by sea. Spain's rail infrastructure couldnt handle them, even if the Germans had grain to spare. If Franco had let the Germans through, the RN would have blockaded Spain, leading to starvation and renewed civil war, and probably blocking the rail lines from the French border to Granada. Not that Franco would have let it get that far. If Hitler had invaded without Francos consent, hed have had Spanish partisans all over the rail lines.

The Germans werent going to take Gibraltar, no way, no how.

[lord of the mark]

"Afrikakorps quickly drives through Egypt and to the Middle East."

Give us dates. when do they do this? If its too close to November of '42, its way too late. Torch will hit them in the rear anyway.


"Germany grants Iraq independance and contents itself of a friendly regime. Now, with British power seriously hampered,"

How? UK didnt need Iraqi oil, the US had enough to spare.

At least you havent said Germany uses the Iraqi oil. I trust you know why that doesnt work.


"and its fleet having lost the huge strategic advantage of the Suez canal, the colonial empire is at risk : rebels in India and Africa take arms."

They were moving supplies and ships around Good Hope anyway, in OTL. What rebels in africa?

"On the home front, the capture of Gibraltar is a boon to Germany's submarine warfare;"

So then Churchill forces bomber Harris to spare more aircraft from the strat bombing campaign to ASW.

" UK sues for peace."

give a date. If they didnt make peace in May 1940, they probably wont do so in the above scenario. Churchill is probably gone, but the new PM will carry on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
I will never understand why people invest so much in what-iffies and write out a whole timeline without mentioning a single date

fixed.

[Lord Avalon]

Wasn't part of the problem the Germans had in N. Africa their code having been broken by the Brits, so their supply chain was vulnerable, and not a lot got through to Rommel? Imagine what he could have done with full supplies.

As far as the Battle of Britain goes, if Germany had kept after the RAF and managed to take it out, then they could bomb everything else at will and possibly force Britain into a truce without invading.

Going after Stalingrad was just stupid. IIRC Moscow was a rail hub, take it, and it's really hard to resupply the south. Also wouldn't problems arise for Stalin if he couldn't hold the capitol?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Wasn't part of the problem the Germans had in N. Africa their code having been broken by the Brits, so their supply chain was vulnerable, and not a lot got through to Rommel? Imagine what he could have done with full supplies.

Not alot was going to get through to Rommel anyway, cause the Italians didnt have enough merchant ships. Even if they did, the port facilities in Libya were inadequate (they hoped to get Alexandria to overcome that, but the Brits would have trashed Alex before they left, and it would have taken precisous weeks or months to rebuild). They also didnt have enough trucks, and were dependent on a coast road subject to Brit amphib and naval attack.

See Martin Crevald, Supplying War

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
As far as the Battle of Britain goes, if Germany had kept after the RAF and managed to take it out, then they could bomb everything else at will and possibly force Britain into a truce without invading.

Except the RAF had bases that were out of range, unless the Germans were willing to send their bombers without fighter protection. Cant do that for very long.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Going after Stalingrad was just stupid. IIRC Moscow was a rail hub, take it, and it's really hard to resupply the south. Also wouldn't problems arise for Stalin if he couldn't hold the capitol?

OB is referring to the choice in '41. '42 is probably too late, whatever the Germans do.

[lord of the mark]

Re: WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
When people speak of outcomes that could have lead to an Axis victory in WW2, it usually boils down to the three following 'mistakes' :

a) Hitler's decision of bombing British cities instead of concentrating on RAF infrastructure in August '40 ;
b) Going for Ukraine instead of Leningrad and Moscow, in the summer of '41 ;
c) failure to devote sufficient forces to the Mediterranean front.

I think that theres very little that could have plausibly led to an Axis victory in WW2. Allied victory in that war happens to be one of the most overdetermined outcomes in modern history. To the extent an axis victory is even possible, with a post-1939 POD, it requires either a UK offer for a negotiated peace BEFORE Dunkirk, well before the BoB, or things going vastly better for the Germans in Russia in summer of 1941 (and some of the more widely discussed possibilitied dont do it)

A POD well before 1939 is a much better bet, but at some point if you change things enough, it doesnt really look like what we think of as WW2.

For ex, probably the best bet for a German victory in a great power war during the 1940s, is to have the far left take power in Germany in 1919. Germany, allied WITH the USSR (despite probable tensions in the relationship) stands a pretty good chance.

[Ned]

German supplies lines stretched from Tunisia. Logistics is was what stopped Rommel. I don't see any scenario that fundamentally alters the situation.

Germany lost in Russia for the same reason.

A German invasion of Britain was nearly impossible for the same reason. They would have had to supply their forces in England in the face of both British air and sea power.

The US and Britain finally invaded France after more than two years of buildup of forces and supplies in England. Had the allies attacked any sooner, the invasion would have failed for the same reason the German invasion of Britain would have failed in 1940: logistics.

I think Germany's only chance of winning WWII was to be patient and invade Britain when it could. That might not have happened in '40 or '41. But if they had not attacked Russia and ignored Africa, Germany could have taken Britain. That (and keeping America out of the war) was their key to victory.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Ned
German supplies lines stretched from Tunisia. Logistics is was what stopped Rommel. I don't see any scenario that fundamentally alters the situation.

Yes, logistics, but not because of long supply lines. It was because supplies weren't getting accross the Med. If they had, maybe Rommel would have gotten to Egypt. I don't know that he would have gotten a lot of troops, though, since this was just a sideshow. Germany only sent the Afrika Korps down because Italy so badly screwed the pooch, so they were giving a small helping hand to their ally.

Germany lost in Russia for the same reason.

No, not really. Long supply lines were much more of a factor here than in N Africa, but also the failure to send winter gear when it was needed. Failure to take Moscow, and then losing the Battle of Stalingrad were also major factors.

A German invasion of Britain was nearly impossible for the same reason. They would have had to supply their forces in England in the face of both British air and sea power.

Again, not exactly. If Hitler hadn't diverted the Luftwaffe into bombing London and continued to attack the RAF as much as possible, it would have been crippled.

LOTM, point taken about some bases being out of range. But if the RAF pulls their remaining fighters back to those bases, they're even less able to respond to the Luftwaffe bombing whatever is within fighter escort range. Can Britain even stay in the war?

Back to a potential invasion, IMO Germany didn't have the transports to ship an invasion force across. So I don't see how they do it. Maybe the RAF would be almost out of the picture, but there's still the RN.

The US and Britain finally invaded France after more than two years of buildup of forces and supplies in England. Had the allies attacked any sooner, the invasion would have failed for the same reason the German invasion of Britain would have failed in 1940: logistics.

The Allies were attacking in Italy, so invading France wasn't going to happen earlier. Also, we were cranking out all the various types of transports needed for the huge invasion. I guess that does fall under logistics.

I think Germany's only chance of winning WWII was to be patient and invade Britain when it could. That might not have happened in '40 or '41. But if they had not attacked Russia and ignored Africa, Germany could have taken Britain. That (and keeping America out of the war) was their key to victory.

As I said, I don't see Germany invading Britain. I think they'd have to pound them into submission and get them to call a truce. If Germany takes Moscow, will Stalin remain in power? Will Russia continue to fight? If not, then that would be a win.

[Fake Boris]

Honestly LOTM, I don't see how the UK would have been in a position to blockade Spain into submission, especially assuming that they lost control of the Mediterranean. Their fleet was already overstretched in '41, with the Battle of the Atlantic raging. Now imagine that they lose Gibraltar; the Italian fleet can make it to the Atlantic; convoy routes are deviated, because Axis vessels can use Gibraltar as a forward base, effectively diminishing by a significant amount the amount of tonnage the UK can move per month (longer routes=less tonnage capacity).

I recall reading that it wasn't until '43 that the supply situation in Britain reached an acceptable level. With the Royal Navy having to deal with Italian raiders, and U-boots being able to operate from Gibraltar, I think that the supply situation in Britain could have reached the 'catalyst' point where their industry falls into serious disarray. Remember, the adverse effects of diminishing supply increase exponentially.

Something important that I didn't mention: I'm assuming here that the Axis delays invasion of the USSR to 1943 at the earliest. Even imagining that they need to keep 100 divisions on the Eastern Front as a dissuasive defensive force, that leaves them with 60 spare divisions. I have absolutely no difficulty to conceive that Rommel, with full supply, 500 more planes, and an extra Panzer or two, would have crushed the British in North Africa.

My argument wrt to the British colonial empire simply assumes that rebels, in India at least (in Africa perhaps, no precise idea though), would have 'smelled the blood' and revolted against the UK, seeing it in difficulty. Yup, the British didn't specifically need Iraqi oil; I'm not describing the fall of Iraq as an economic blow, but rather as a symbol of British weakness that could have triggered unrest in the rest of the empire.