[Triiooman]

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

Not that this should stop anyone

[hwood]

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-Optio.../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.

[Enrobrorb]

"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.

[vdw4Epsi]

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?

[gniewkoit]

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.

[letmelogin]

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.

[Stengapsept]

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.

[dosugxxx]

In 41 the Royal Navy already had gained the upper hand in the Med vs. Italy (after the Taranto raid in late 1940 and the win at Cape Matapan march 41), I think you seriously overestimate axis capabilities here.

[ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE]

Well, that was mainly against the "the Italian fleet can make it to the Atlantic" and "Italian raiders" part.....at this time the Italians already played their "fleet in being" game because they were too scared to lose the rest of the once proud Regia Marina....

[st01en_lox]

Well, hasn't it been documented that Franco was willing to join the war in exchange for French Morocco ?

Was he just making knowingly unreasonable demands so as to have a convenient pretext, or did he really mean it ?

[gennnniiikk]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, hasn't it been documented that Franco was willing to join the war in exchange for French Morocco ?

Was he just making knowingly unreasonable demands so as to have a convenient pretext, or did he really mean it ? As has been pointed out, Spanish involvement means:

losing the Canary Islands
blockade and no more oil and other imports
SOE encouraging Spanish guerilla warfare

Franco made a reasonable choice

[SawbasyWrab]

I think it's documented that Spain didn't want to join the war because Spain was in no shape to support a war effort and he was never fully convinced that the Axis was going to win it. Furthermore until the invasion of the western coasts of North Africa by the Allies Morroco wasn't Hitler's to give away, it was a colony of Vichy France.

Supply lines were an enormous problem for the Axis in the western desert. They were under continual attack by Allied airpower and land raiders. People today don't realise that the German (and Italian) army's in WW2 were generally highly dependent on animal transport to relay supplies from railheads to the front line. Animals also moved artillery. The typical Wehrmacht division used more than 1000 animals for transportation. I'm not sure if that includes those devoted to moving the artillery. In the Sahara desert this wasn't possible so everything had to be moved by truck. I'd guess that the average division in North Africa required 5 to 10 times more motor transport than the average German division deployed in Europe. You can imagine how the commanders of other fronts felt about that. Remember, the Germans came a lot closer to seizing the Soviet Union's oilfields than they did to seizing the oilfields of the Middle East.
Actually the main oil supply for the British Isles prior to the entry of the US into the war was Trinidad.

[duawLauff]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
OK, but if the plan goes well, this loss is temporary, right ? Possibly, although I tend to think that the U.S. would not tolerate an Axis base in the Canary islands.

[Theariwinna]

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.

EDIT: misspelled 'Mediterranean' in the thread title 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.

[lopaayd]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, hasn't it been documented that Franco was willing to join the war in exchange for French Morocco ?

Was he just making knowingly unreasonable demands so as to have a convenient pretext, or did he really mean it ? Vichy France was not really in a position to refuse Hitler anything; but the essay in the book I've mentioned has Hitler convincing Franco to go to war before Taranto and the air strike on the Italian fleet at anchor.

Franco's Spain was still recovering from a devastating civil war, and all the destruction and distrust such a war entails.

The conquest of Gibraltar could have been the 'Falklands factor' for the new regime; a hoped-for easy victory which unites the whole of the populace behind the Franco regime.

[adultcomicssitedessaa]

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.

[replicamuse]

[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.

[Nzmoafzn]

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

[flueftArete]

[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?

[chelviweeme]

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.