WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Vichy France was not really in a position to refuse Hitler anything;

Well, they did refuse landing permission in Syria to the JU-88s that Hitler had planned to load with arms for the Iraqi rebellion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Well, they did refuse landing permission in Syria to the JU-88s that Hitler had planned to load with arms for the Iraqi rebellion.

As I recall, Rashid Ali's forces received supplies from Vichy Syria and Nazi Germany, through bases in Syria. Including German aircraft, though which ones exactly I can't remember.

This followed Mussolini's courting of the Arab world (from the late 30s onward Italian radio broadcast to anti-Zionist Arabs from Bari) and dissemination of anti-Jewish propaganda from Nazi Germany in the Arab world- including translations of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.

And of course the Mufti of Jerusalem's approaches to Hitler too, from 1936-37 onwards.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

Originally posted by Sandman


Had the Germans managed their economy more effectively (say, if Speer was promoted two years earlier), the outcome could have been quite different. Fortunately, the Nazi ideology didn't place much emphasis on economics, and their chaotic bureaucracy inhibited the adoption of mass production.

To win, Germany needs much more force by summer of '41. Speer would have had to have been in charge practically from fall of '39, if not earlier. An interesting POD, but Im not sure if its politically feasible.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle 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.

There ASW was overstretched. The blockade of Spain would be done with capital ships, and with subs. IIRC, subs were taking a big toll of Italian merchies. In this scen, the food supplies to Spain are the priority.

And Spain would suffer in the time it took the Axis to control the Med.

Now imagine that they lose Gibraltar; the Italian fleet can make it to the Atlantic;

Happy hunting for the RN.

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).

How much destruction does UK do to the facilities as Gib is falling? How long does it take axis to get Gib going as a sub base? Moving supplies in across Spains not to hot rail net, with partisan activity along the way, and with RN carrier borne air raids on Gib as they try to build it up.

I recall reading that it wasn't until '43 that the supply situation in Britain reached an acceptable level.

But dont forget they were using shipping to get ready for Torch, the US put alot of shipping into Torch itself, and the RAF was using bombers for the strat campaign against Germany that could have been used for ASW. In this scenario, priorities change.

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.

He can crush them IN North Africa - IE in Egypt. Hes not going anywhere he can do them much harm though.

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.

Im not sure that the presence of, you know, Nazis, in Iraq makes everybody in India so keen to throw the Brits out more than in OTL, esp if the Brits are willing to offer a better deal to the Indians. So unless you think the Brits are willing to cut a deal with Hitler, that is likely to leave Germany at a big advantage, for the sake of keeping a marginally better political deal in India, which I doubt, its not likely to matter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Didn't most supply problems (not all) arise from the failure to neutralize Malta ?

Thats what so many folks miss. No, it was multiple problems.

Not enough merchies, esp if they have to route them all the way to Alex (after a victory)

Not enough port capacity - UNLESS they take Alex, and the rebuilding of Alex is going to rely on the Libyan ports.

Not enough trucks.

Poor road infrastructure.

IF they are using Alex, they will still, for a while, have to deal with UK naval and air opposition from Syria/Palestine. Will delay them.


Again, see Martin Crevald, Supplying War.

[Arrian]

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.

To me, b) was always "invading Russia" full stop.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There ASW was overstretched. The blockade of Spain would be done with capital ships, and with subs. IIRC, subs were taking a big toll of Italian merchies. In this scen, the food supplies to Spain are the priority.

Well, Germany has got at least 1000 planes to spare, more likely 1500 - they're not invading Russia. Air power can help tremendously in protecting the coast - not blue water, granted, but the battle does not appear as one-sided as you claim it to be.

And Spain would suffer in the time it took the Axis to control the Med.

I say that with a strong and concerted Axis push, Gibraltar and Malta fall max within a month of a Spanish DOW.

Happy hunting for the RN.

Point granted - the weakness of the Italian fleet is a serious thorn.

How much destruction does UK do to the facilities as Gib is falling? How long does it take axis to get Gib going as a sub base? Moving supplies in across Spains not to hot rail net, with partisan activity along the way, and with RN carrier borne air raids on Gib as they try to build it up.

Doesn't really matter - if Gibraltar is destroyed, they can use Spanish ports on the Atlantic.

But dont forget they were using shipping to get ready for Torch, the US put alot of shipping into Torch itself, and the RAF was using bombers for the strat campaign against Germany that could have been used for ASW. In this scenario, priorities change.

You're talking about fall '42. I'm talking about fall '40. The UK was nowhere near having the capacity of a Torch in '40. Besides, even imagining a super-weak Spanish mobilization, they've probably got 20 divisions to spare on defending Morocco. With a bit of material help from the Germans, I'm sure they'd be fierce defenders, being seasoned soldiers.

He can crush them IN North Africa - IE in Egypt. Hes not going anywhere he can do them much harm though.

I don't buy into this. IIRC, Rommel was only getting 40% of the supplies that he was sent. With the Mediterranean under Axis control, he's probably getting twice as much, if not 3-4 times (because merchant ships can move unprotected, now that there's no submarine threat).

I agree that moving supplies in NA is an issue, but again, without an invasion of Russia, there's lot of half-tracks to spare. Rommel did reach Sollum while Tobruk was besieged, after all.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Well, Germany has got at least 1000 planes to spare, more likely 1500 - they're not invading Russia. Air power can help tremendously in protecting the coast - not blue water, granted, but the battle does not appear as one-sided as you claim it to be.

Germany has no real experience in ASW, now do they? Also they need to base them somewhere along the Spanish coast, and they dont have any decent bases in Spain, they have to set them up WHILE the blockade is underway.

But yes, not doing a war against the USSR is a big plus for Germany, at least in the short term, and thinking only of the UK. Of course this may mean that Japan, its rear unsecured against Russia, may not attack the ABDC powers, which releases assets for the allies as well.

It also means Hitler has to sit around while the USSR rebuilds its armed forces post-purge, while they rebuild the Stalin line along the new border, and well they press him for concessions in the Balkans.

I say that with a strong and concerted Axis push, Gibraltar and Malta fall max within a month of a Spanish DOW.

But that doesnt give them command of the Med yet. They still need to win the war in Egypt and THEN push the UK out of Syria/Palestine.

Doesn't really matter - if Gibraltar is destroyed, they can use Spanish ports on the Atlantic.

None of which has the facilities Gib has. It will still take some time to get them going, and they will still be vulnerable, and at the end of a long and vulnerable supply line.

You're talking about fall '42. I'm talking about fall '40.

Excuse me, YOU were the one who mentioned the problems up through 1943. Do you want me to find the quote? The uboats werent nearly as effective in 1940, IIRC, cause there simply werent all that many of them yet, they werent using wolfpack tactics, etc, etc.

And I dont think Rommel was even in North Africa in 1940.

The UK was nowhere near having the capacity of a Torch in '40. Besides, even imagining a super-weak Spanish mobilization, they've probably got 20 divisions to spare on defending Morocco. With a bit of material help from the Germans, I'm sure they'd be fierce defenders, being seasoned soldiers.

Youre missing the point. IF a German campaign in Spain successfully harms UK shipping, then there isnt going to be a Torch right away. The shipping that in OTL was used for Torch (both directly, and indirectly to build up the ground forces in the UK) will be used to keep UK itself supplied instead, and to offset the longer routes.

I don't buy into this. IIRC, Rommel was only getting 40% of the supplies that he was sent. With the Mediterranean under Axis control, he's probably getting twice as much, if not 3-4 times (because merchant ships can move unprotected, now that there's no submarine threat).

UK subs can operate from Haifa or Alex, if necessary. Until hes taken Alex. And to rebuild Alex, he still has to move supplies through Libyan ports. Which are still limited in capacity.

And there arent enough Merchant ships, even if they dont need escorts.

I agree that moving supplies in NA is an issue, but again, without an invasion of Russia, there's lot of half-tracks to spare. Rommel did reach Sollum while Tobruk was besieged, after all.

Tobruk doesnt add that much capacity (compared to Tripoli, IIUC) , and its a longer haul for the Italian merchies. It does ease the trucking distances some.

But adding trucks increases the need for diesel fuel, which in turn needs to be shipped by truck, adding to the importance of the ports.


Now, since you are proposing a what if, will you please provide specific dates for the time line?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Well, Germany has got at least 1000 planes to spare, more likely 1500 - they're not invading Russia. Air power can help tremendously in protecting the coast - not blue water, granted, but the battle does not appear as one-sided as you claim it to be.

Oh, and even assuming that the Germans can build and supply airbases adequately, and can be good at ASW.

Youre assuming the blockade is purely coastal. But the food imports mainly come from much farther away, and the RN can get them in open ocean away from axis airbases. Unlike the UK, the Axis doesnt have bases all the way across the Atlantic.

And there arent the merchant ships to handle it, once UK merchies arent allowed to supply the grain. Theres not a helluva lot of neutral merchants in the world at the time, the US apart (and the US will cooperate with the UK on this, without a doubt)


Oh, BTW, didnt you say you were talking fall 1940? In fall 1940 the Germans are NOT in the USSR, so where do the additional 1500 aircraft come from? Presumably from the Battle of Britain, in turn freeing British assets.

You see thats why you have to specify a dated timeline. So you cant cherry pick some factoids applicable to fall 1941 or later, and others applicable to fall 1940, and blend them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I say that with a strong and concerted Axis push, Gibraltar and Malta fall max within a month of a Spanish DOW.

The strength of the push, IE the number of divisions they can move toward Gib, is going to be constrained by their ability to move supplies over the Spanish rail system.

[ískallin]

Wasnt there a plan to invade Malta using Italian and German paratroopers. Plus a sea-land invasion by italians?
But Hitler didnt want to use his paratroopers after Crete so he canned it.
And the Italian paratroopers were sent to Africa instead.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But that doesnt give them command of the Med yet. They still need to win the war in Egypt and THEN push the UK out of Syria/Palestine.

It's worth remembering that just in terms of manpower, the British/Commonwealth forces were greatly outnumbered in Africa- the Italians were already in Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia and Libya, and took British Somaliland (which was recaptured).

Also, Egyptians such as Nasser and Sadat were pro-Axis, like the Grand Mufti and Rashid Ali.

Perhaps with a fallen Malta and Gibraltar, the Germans could have 'persuaded' Vichy France to lend some arms/equipment/bases in North and Western Africa too... after all, Senegal and Madagascar were not exactly pro-de Gaulle and the Free French.

Darlan too, was an Anglophobe- something of a family tradition, apparently, but exacerbated by his experiences at naval conferences with the British in the 30s.

[Dr Strangelove]

From what I've read Franco was simply not inclined to enter WW2 under any circumstances. He wanted to rebuild Spain and he simply did not trust Hitler or Mussolini - even thought they did make his victory possible. He observed how Hitler became the dominant partner in the relationship between he and Mussolini and he did not want to become anyone's puppet. That's really the important thing - by 1940 he had a splendid little country to run all by himslef and he didn't want any interference. Perhaps despite being a fascist he was abetter judge of character than we think.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
How about letting the French and British escape at Dunkirk?

Attacking Russia, especially before defeating England?

Signing the treaty with Japan that allowed the Japanese to force the US into the European War.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Actually, Japan did not force the US into the European war - it was Germany's declaration of war on the US which enabled the US to go to war there. If Germany had not declared war, FDR would have had a hard time getting a declaration of war on Germany.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm

The US did not attack Japan, therefore Germany was not obligated to declare war on the US.

Yes , but if Germany had not made such a treaty they would not have felt obligated to declare war on the US. If it makes you feel better you can restate number 3 of my 3 reasons to say:

Pulling America into the European conflict.

Either way, to me, those were Hitler's 3 largest blunders. If he had avoided all 3, I think you may have seen the 40's end with a continental Germany, Russia in the East and a totally different Cold War/Iron Curtain situation.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

It's worth remembering that just in terms of manpower, the British/Commonwealth forces were greatly outnumbered in Africa- the Italians were already in Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia and Libya, and took British Somaliland (which was recaptured).

But by 1941 the Brits had already taken both Somalilands and Ethiopia, IIUC.

Perhaps with a fallen Malta and Gibraltar, the Germans could have 'persuaded' Vichy France to lend some arms/equipment/bases in North and Western Africa too... after all, Senegal and Madagascar were not exactly pro-de Gaulle and the Free French.

Madagascar is too isolated to be a threat. The UK didnt even bother with it till Japan was in the war, and threatening across the Indian Ocean. In '40, or early '41, Madagascar is not hard to take, although that means some diversion of forces from elsewhere.

Senegal is also vulnerable to a seaborne attack, which will be done with more force than in OTL if Vichy is more openly aiding the Axis.