The question to ask about The Italians

[Bo Rearguard]

I think the prize to be gained by seizing the Middle East is overstated. By 1941 yearly oil production of the entire Arabian peninsula was about 2 million barrels. Iraqi production was about the same. Libyan, Egyptian and Syrian oil fields were still undiscovered. Only the South Iranian oilfields were really developed, but they even were further away and also were defended by British.

In comparison, Romanian production in 1943 ~45 million, Hungary (1943) ~13 million, Germany with Austria (1943) ~15 million, and the biggie, the USSR (1941) ~ 250 million.

So there was not enough oil produced in Middle East to be really enticing for the Germans compared to what their next door neighbor had. Soviet oil production was much more significant before and during WWII, plus in invading the USSR, Hitler got lebensraum, the destruction of a rival ideology and the Ukrainian bread basket in the bargain. Plus, conquering the Middle East is going to be giving you a lot of mouths to feed, and if you don't feed them, they'll rise up against you.

I don't foresee Hitler being much interested in finding his military dependent on a overseas oil supply in Mussolini's sphere of influence that would have to be secured, repaired and then maintained with the dubious help of the Italian army, navy and merchant marine.

[warspite1]

Okay fair do’s Zap, there’s no point labouring the point. I’ve no idea why you said the Med adventures would happen six months before Barbarossa if there is no historical Battle of Britain, so I’ll not seek to understand the proposal any further. I would just comment on the following:

- I’d be interested to know what chances of success you would put on a German surface naval force safely navigating the Straits of Gibraltar. Obviously the make-up of any force would depend on the timing, given the losses and damage suffered off Norway, but I don’t think Raeder would have considered such an operation even remotely viable with any of his ships. Although the Germans succeeded in Operation Cerberus, look at the damage inflicted on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau – and that was with massive air cover, small ship assistance, minesweepers, patrol boats and operating close to a friendly shore etc.

- I am not sure what you mean about getting German troops to Africa being impossible. It was possible because it happened and I never suggested it wasn’t. What was less certain – and why I mentioned the point – was that getting troops to North Africa (eventually) was not the issue. Supplying the troops very much was. The Germans did a study in the autumn of 1940 and concluded that they could operate four divisions – but not supply all the Italians at the same time. All the time the Royal Navy were in the Mediterranean, all the while the RAF were in the skies, the Italians could not use the forward ports – and only Tripoli was any size in any case. This meant huge volumes of trucks and petrol being expended just getting supplies and reinforcements to the front line.

- So as I indicated in post 41, I think that the Germans putting maximum effort into the Mediterranean would likely have resulted in the fall of Egypt. But it’s likely going to take a damn sight more time than six months, it’s going to take time and would likely deflect from Barbarossa. I feel the logistics of the whole thing are being swept to one side here.

- I don’t really understand what the Germans in the Middle East are then going to contribute to Barbarossa (although I do believe that a victory in Egypt could well have persuaded Turkey and Spain to declare for the Axis and the Turks in the war could have, at the very least, given the Soviets another headache).

- I don’t understand the Battle of Britain comment and how a slightly earlier start to Eagle Day, would have made much difference. I’ve heard % rate of serviceable aircraft around the same level post France. But I’ll leave that to an air warfare expert.

But ultimately we at least agree that a Med strategy, properly resourced, would likely result in the fall of North Africa. I just think we are widely apart in the likelihood of it happening and even wider, in terms of what it would take to achieve.

As for Ranger Joe, I think we are so far apart in what we each consider likely – indeed even remotely possible – that I’ll leave it there.

[Curtis Lemay]

Postpone Barbarossa a year. Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain. Gibraltar and Suez fall. The Med is an Axis lake. Plus, when Barbarossa finally kicks off, there is a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku. Plus the benefits to Barbarossa from an extra year of production.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Postpone Barbarossa a year. Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain. Gibraltar and Suez fall. The Med is an Axis lake. Plus, when Barbarossa finally kicks off, there is a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku. Plus the benefits to Barbarossa from an extra year of production.

warspite1

Well that would certainly be an interesting sell to the German people. Make friends with Stalin and stab our Fascist friend Franco - that German blood was spilled to install - in the back....

Well to be fair. Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon and invaded Russia while still fighting the British. It's only fair that he goes the whole hog and doesn't learn from Napoleon re stabbing his Spanish ally in the back - and we know how well that went for the average French soldier.

'Blitzing' through Turkey? That's an interesting term. I don't think Stalin is going to let that development go unnoticed - NS Pact or not. But while I can't pretend to know how long it would take Germany to subdue Turkey, I don't think there would be much blitzkrieg going on. And once they have captured Ankara, and I suspect that would be far from quick, how is a German Army to be supplied in Eastern Turkey?

The Black Sea fleet would pulverise the coast and their submarines wouldn't be allowing much traffic along the coast.

I suspect partisan activity in both countries would be pretty savage too.

What happens to Vichy Syria? Do they just allow the Germans to walk in? That's an interesting one for Petain who is being pressured by America to not be a silly boy....

Benefits of an extra year's production? Two such operations as these are going to cost Germany big....

[Bo Rearguard]

How do you blitz through topography like Turkey's?



Plus, if you thought Yugoslavs made tough partisans, wait unit you meet the Turks.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

How do you blitz through topography like Turkey's?



Plus, if you thought Yugoslavs made tough partisans, wait unit you meet the Turks.

Ah, prosaic geography 😝 you guys remind me of Yanis Varoufakis: grandiose and yet apparently easy, sound plans. If only...

I'll bite: chances are the Red Army gets to Berlin in '43...

[Zap]

Hey, I agree, that this is far from a developed thought by me. But I'm throwing out the possibilities. Feasible,smart ? that's why we are discussing this. Italian scenarios are worth exploring Oh. I didn't mean not go for England just change to a better strategy. Avoid the bomb city strategy. But go after all the airfields in stead. If they are disabled you eliminate British air power. That would seem to allow for a Sea lion event with greater chance of success.

I thought you mentioned how impossible it would be for them(German ships across the Mediterranean). I overstated your position so, I retract my interpretation.

By the way that was a great error the German made, to let those troops escape Dunkirk.

[gamer78]

to be deleted. Wrong understanding.

[Bo Rearguard]

I think a lot of the alternative strategy theorizing about WW2 always falls in the speculation trap that; Germany, Italy or Japan do this radically different thing and the other side......just kinda blinks and doesn't notice that the historical narrative has changed. However, nothing happens in a vacuum, especially when nations are fighting for their existence.

I recall a debate where it was proposed that if in the 1930s Germany had built the 300 U-Boats that Admiral Doenitz felt was the minimum to win the Battle of the Atlantic, Germany would have been the victor. As if the British wouldn't have noticed this massive pre-war build-up of submarines at all and started cranking out larger numbers of escorts in return. Not to mention that instead of having a small, elite & highly trained U-boat force, you would have had one heavily diluted with novice captains and crews.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Postpone Barbarossa a year. Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain. Gibraltar and Suez fall. The Med is an Axis lake. Plus, when Barbarossa finally kicks off, there is a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku. Plus the benefits to Barbarossa from an extra year of production.

warspite1

Well that would certainly be an interesting sell to the German people. Make friends with Stalin and stab our Fascist friend Franco - that German blood was spilled to install - in the back....

Well to be fair. Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon and invaded Russia while still fighting the British. It's only fair that he goes the whole hog and doesn't learn from Napoleon re stabbing his Spanish ally in the back - and we know how well that went for the average French soldier.

'Blitzing' through Turkey? That's an interesting term. I don't think Stalin is going to let that development go unnoticed - NS Pact or not. But while I can't pretend to know how long it would take Germany to subdue Turkey, I don't think there would be much blitzkrieg going on. And once they have captured Ankara, and I suspect that would be far from quick, how is a German Army to be supplied in Eastern Turkey?

The Black Sea fleet would pulverise the coast and their submarines wouldn't be allowing much traffic along the coast.

I suspect partisan activity in both countries would be pretty savage too.

What happens to Vichy Syria? Do they just allow the Germans to walk in? That's an interesting one for Petain who is being pressured by America to not be a silly boy....

Benefits of an extra year's production? Two such operations as these are going to cost Germany big....

Someone is thinking of the game Third Reich.

Germany wants Turkey and Spain on it's side. If not actively fighting, then actively neutral in support.

Certain areas in Turkey have underground caves where people hid from enemies thousands of years ago - they are still there. Those would be nice for the partisans to hide with their families and supplies. Not to mention the cold summers as well, bring lots of water. Those little hills would be nice for mortar attacks, use horses and mules for transport. Not to mention rifle and machine gun fire. Small AT guns or even AT rifles at the heavily armoured top of AFVs. Or the open half tracks where the bullets would bounce around because of the armour.

Best for Germany, advance on Dunkirk and capture the men there if they want to surrender. Then build up your airfields as was needed and bring in the supplies before attacking England. Take out the radars and keep pounding them while also attacking the airfields - including low level attacks coming in through the new gaps in the radar coverage.

If the Germans could have had air superiority and an area free of radar, then at dusk load up the small invasion vessels and set sail while the paratroopers load up and drop at first light. Gliders could bring in some tanks, artillery and small vehicles. Practice loading at dusk and sailing out of the harbour then back to set off any alarms from the spies, the same for the paratroopers so when it really happens, the British might have sung "Here we go again, same ole shyte again . . . "

If the Germans could have gotten even a fighter strip with limited fuel, ammo, and ground crew in England, the fighters could have landed there to top off their fuel tanks then go play with the RAF. It could also have been used as an emergency landing field for the fighters and bombers as well. Save the crews if not the aircraft.

If I remember correctly, the British only had one armoured brigade equipped in the British Isles after Dunkirk. A lot of formations did not have their equipment replaced and the replacement equipment had not yet been made.

Vichy Syria ended up being invaded by the Allies before too long, so who knows what would have happened there. Especially if Italy had built up Rhodes and then managed to capture Cyprus in a rush. If the Italians had frogmen available in May/June 1940, they could have been used to cripple the Royal Navy in the Easter Med, at least their have ships. A sacrificial lamb also going through the Suez Canal, dropping explosive eggs at night . . . [X(]

[Curtis Lemay]

I don't see the terrain in Turkey as worse than in Yugoslavia or Greece. Plus, the Turks can be bribed into cooperation with Baku oil. Their true enemies are the Russians. Once subdued, there are rail lines to the East.

Once Gibraltar is taken, Franco can have Spain back, with Gibraltar as the peace bribe.

Syria? The Allies invaded it without any consequences elsewhere. Why wouldn't that apply to the Axis?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I don't see the terrain in Turkey as worse than in Yugoslavia or Greece. Plus, the Turks can be bribed into cooperation with Baku oil. Their true enemies are the Russians. Once subdued, there are rail lines to the East.

Once Gibraltar is taken, Franco can have Spain back, with Gibraltar as the peace bribe.

Syria? The Allies invaded it without any consequences elsewhere. Why wouldn't that apply to the Axis?

May I ask what pharmaceuticals that you are using and have they been legally prescribed?

The Turks would fight. Their honour would be at stake.

Invading Vichy Syria would have put the Vichy fleet into Allied hands.

Attacking Spain, the Hispanic world would never forgive you.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

May I ask what pharmaceuticals that you are using and have they been legally prescribed?

The Turks would fight. Their honour would be at stake.

Such a fight would be empowering the Soviets - their true enemies. In realpolitik the Turks are fundamentally on the side of the Germans.

Invading Vichy Syria would have put the Vichy fleet into Allied hands.

But then the Germans would occupy Vichy France. I don't see anything happening. Nothing happened when the Allies invaded.

Attacking Spain, the Hispanic world would never forgive you.

Again, that would empower the leftists - Franco's true enemies. Again, in Realpolitik Franco is fundamentally on the side of the Germans.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

May I ask what pharmaceuticals that you are using and have they been legally prescribed?

The Turks would fight. Their honour would be at stake.

Such a fight would be empowering the Soviets - their true enemies. In realpolitik the Turks are fundamentally on the side of the Germans.

Invading Vichy Syria would have put the Vichy fleet into Allied hands.

But then the Germans would occupy Vichy France. I don't see anything happening. Nothing happened when the Allies invaded.

Attacking Spain, the Hispanic world would never forgive you.

Again, that would empower the leftists - Franco's true enemies. Again, in Realpolitik Franco is fundamentally on the side of the Germans.

It does not matter about true enemies, they would fight. They would be less likely to forgive the destruction of their country - unlike you who would apparently be content with the destruction of your country.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It does not matter about true enemies, they would fight. They would be less likely to forgive the destruction of their country - unlike you who would apparently be content with the destruction of your country.

No. It very much does matter. The Germans invaded Yugoslavia. Plenty of non-Slav Yugoslavians fought for the Axis.

Franco would be expected to join a coalition that consisted entirely of Antifascists. Turkey would be expected to join a coalition that - in their area - consisted entirely of Slavs and Greeks. And the Germans could offer the Turks plenty of Greek and Slavic territories - Cypress and areas in Yugoslavia for example.

While there would be resistance, it would not compare to the resistance of true enemies. Franco and the Turks would be highly conflicted in their choices. Axis sympathizers would be in abundance and available to form counter-resistance.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It does not matter about true enemies, they would fight. They would be less likely to forgive the destruction of their country - unlike you who would apparently be content with the destruction of your country.

No. It very much does matter. The Germans invaded Yugoslavia. Plenty of non-Slav Yugoslavians fought for the Axis.

Franco would be expected to join a coalition that consisted entirely of Antifascists. Turkey would be expected to join a coalition that - in their area - consisted entirely of Slavs and Greeks. And the Germans could offer the Turks plenty of Greek and Slavic territories - Cypress and areas in Yugoslavia for example.

While there would be resistance, it would not compare to the resistance of true enemies. Franco and the Turks would be highly conflicted in their choices. Axis sympathizers would be in abundance and available to form counter-resistance.

There weren't/aren't many non-Slavs in Yugoslavia. Also, that government was still pro Axis, just less so.

The Turks kicked out any non-Muslims. No Greeks or Slavs nor even Celts unless they were Muslims - except for any Jews.

If you offer Turkey any part of Yugoslavia, which part? The part that was given to the Turks which is now part of Macedonia which is now a Slavic dominated area? Bosnia, which is land-locked and not Muslim dominated? Montenegro? Don't get me started on those clannish people.

It sounds like you want to attack, invade, and ally with the Turks and the Spanish - all at the same time.

So again:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

May I ask what pharmaceuticals that you are using and have they been legally prescribed?

[warspite1]

The biggest frustration with these debates is not the different views – that’s the fun, and let’s face it, we are all entitled to our opinion and none of us can ever be proved wrong! – the problem is that there is often little effort put in. Example:

Postpone Barbarossa a year. Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain. Gibraltar and Suez fall. The Med is an Axis lake. Plus, when Barbarossa finally kicks off, there is a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku. Plus the benefits to Barbarossa from an extra year of production.

Well, okay, but instead of just marching armies to all points of the compass, how about putting some detail on that? Timeframe, political context, forces required, some examples to support? So at what point do you propose Hitler makes this massive volte-face? Why does he do so? Where does the historical meet the “What-if”?

1940. The fall of France has taken the whole world – Hitler included – by complete surprise. Lebensraum however is his thing and preparations start in August 1940.

Meanwhile, Britain won’t surrender much to Hitler’s disbelief, so preparations for an invasion are made. But no invasion can happen without air superiority. The Luftwaffe can’t do this and suffer losses in trying that they never recover from.

Eventually, in September, Sea Lion is postponed (although not cancelled until February 1941). But in the meantime, in addition to German own war plans stalling (Franco has rebuffed Hitler too by presenting impossible requirements for entering the war), Italy’s military – has made an arse of itself. Attacking Greece in a fit of pique, in October, Mussolini’s troops are soon stopped, surrounded and then pushed back. A month before, the great Italian push into Egypt starts… and then stops just a few miles inside Egypt… Worse follows as the British launch their own limited raid which sees them destroy the Italian 10th Army and kick the Italians out of Cyrennaica. And so as the German army are preparing for Barbarossa, at the start of 1941 everything is suddenly going Pete Tonge.

Hitler has no choice but to help his ally. Gibraltar is forgotten about and limited air and land forces are sent to North Africa/Sicily. Then with the coup in Yugoslavia, Hitler decides the Balkans needs fixing before he can turn on the USSR. By May 1941 the situation is stabilised. Yugoslavia and Greece are defeated, the British are kicked back to Egypt (Tobruk excepted) and Malta is no longer available to the RN.

So at what point in all this do you propose Hitler decides to simply “blitz through Turkey and Spain” and confidently state that Barbarossa is “postponed for [just] a year”? Are these operations simultaneous? Separate? Where are the few German specialised anti-shipping squadrons to be allocated? Malta? Spain? Turkey? They can’t all be in different places at once and unless the Germans can neutralise the RN, Gibraltar is going to be a tougher nut to crack and the Bosphorus/Black Sea is a potential killing ground for Soviet Black Sea subs and RN forces. Again, this isn't some theoretical mumbo-jumbo - THIS HAPPENED. When X Fliegerkorps were in Sicily, the RN couldn't operate from Malta. Move them elsewhere (as the Germans were compelled to) and guess what? The Malta Striking Force comes to play. German resources are limited. So when you propose all these things, it would help if you could provide some detail.

I don't see the terrain in Turkey as worse than in Yugoslavia or Greece.

Well you may not and you may be right – though I suspect that is not quite true. But have a look at a map. Forget terrain for a moment. Where is Belgrade distance-wise from Hungary? Where is Athens from Bulgaria? Now look at Turkey. Now look at the distance involved in reaching the capital. Look at the terrain that the army has to move over and supplies run through.

there are rail lines to the East.

a German Army in Eastern Turkey, ready to quickly grab Baku

Not sure anything involving attacking the Soviet Union was easy or “quick” and I’d like to see those rail lines. To the extent there were any, I suspect the volume was low and could easily be knocked out of action. How is a German army going to be readily supplied along the length of Turkey – it sure as hell isn’t going to be done by sea.

How are the Germans going to garrison Spain and Turkey? One of the reasons it suited Hitler to have the Vichy French defending their own colonies was that German troops didn’t have to. The Germans have enough trouble with manpower but at the stroke of a pen, you have magnified those problems. As said, I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to expect some serious partisan warfare in these two countries. But you got around that with this bland statement:

Once Gibraltar is taken, Franco can have Spain back, with Gibraltar as the peace bribe.

So that’s how it works? Thanks for invading my country? Thanks for yet more deaths and suffering (food shortages are already an issue) and making my country a war zone (how much collateral damage do you think there is going to be from the British defending Gibraltar?). Thanks for proving that the wishes of the Spanish people are unimportant and that I am your puppet. Yes, give me Gibraltar and everything is fine. Seriously? Where does giving me Gibraltar give me food which sure as hell isn't now coming from the US?

Franco would be expected to join a coalition that consisted entirely of Antifascists.

Except of course he didn’t when he had the chance, but now, when Spain is attacked – he will happily sign up?? Please, how do you possibly reconcile what actually happened in real life in October 1940 with what you've suggested??

Turkey would be expected to join a coalition that…..

Really? As said in post 41, if the Germans are successful and turn the Med into an Axis lake then I can see them being swayed. But happily joining with a country that attacks them? You do seem to have a very simplistic notion of the way people behave. Turkey wasn't persuaded to join the Axis (frankly she was too scared of the USSR) but in this scenario all Turks happily move to the German side when they are attacked by said Germans?

And the Germans could offer the Turks plenty of Greek and Slavic territories - Cypress and areas in Yugoslavia for example.

Again, simplistic. If you start to look at the problems Hitler had with Spain joining the Axis (the need to keep Spain/Italy and Vichy happy and not rock the boat - essentially 3 into 2 doesn't go) then you have similar issues with Turkey and the Balkans and the former Ottoman lands to the south of Turkey. Hitler already had Hungary and Romania for allies - and they were two countries that would prefer fighting each other than the Soviets - he didn't need more.

Syria? The Allies invaded it without any consequences elsewhere. Why wouldn't that apply to the Axis?

Sorry but I think you should read about Vichy France. Once again everything appears so simple on paper. “Nothing happened when the Allies invaded”. What has the Allies invading got to do with the Germans marching through Vichy territory? That is a very naïve statement and you seem to be completely disregarding the tightrope Petain was walking; he's created Vichy to save France and her empire. If the French Empire is being walked over by Germany then that facade kind of crumbles pretty quickly....

What losses are you predicting for these campaigns? You say the extra year can be used to boost production – but any boost comes only when losses have been made up…. and losses to experienced airmen and troops isn’t going to be.

And you’ve assumed everything is going to be so straightforward and easy. But what if its not? What if there is a reverse or two along the way?

What is Stalin doing in the meantime? And pact or no pact, you think he’s just going to accept a German invasion of Turkey?? How many divisions did Germany use for the conquest of Greece/Yugoslavia? How many do you think they are going to need for Turkey?

So come on Curtis Lemay - give us some detail here. Make a proper case.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It sounds like you want to attack, invade, and ally with the Turks and the Spanish - all at the same time.

No. I'm suggesting they conquer then make very favorable peace deals with them.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It sounds like you want to attack, invade, and ally with the Turks and the Spanish - all at the same time.

No. I'm suggesting they conquer then make very favorable peace deals with them.

Who said that they would accept? Remember, they are not the French.

Hitler and Stalin worked together. Churchill had Stalin were not friends, Hitler drove them together. What you propose would drive the Turks and the Soviets together. What would have happened while Germany was deep into Turkey when the Soviets attacked?

To repeat this that you still have not answered:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

May I ask what pharmaceuticals that you are using and have they been legally prescribed?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It sounds like you want to attack, invade, and ally with the Turks and the Spanish - all at the same time.

No. I'm suggesting they conquer then make very favorable peace deals with them.

warspite1

Absolutely unbelievable.

So When Franco and Hitler met at Hendaye, Franco told Hitler what the terms favourable to Spain would be to allow Spain to align with Germany. That involved taking Gibraltar and, just as importantly, Spanish Morocco (amongst other items). When Hitler couldn't give these - and when I say couldn't I don't mean wouldn't I mean couldn't - Franco walked away.

BUT, according to you, having stabbed Spain (and Franco personally) in the back, invaded his country, cost Spain who knows how many casualties and more infrastructure damage and destruction, you think Franco will jump at a peace that still doesn't give him all the food and resources (that Germany simply can't give) and Spanish Morocco that he turned aside previously.

Franco was a fascist but, unlike Mussolini, he was also a realist. He knew that his country relied on the US and CW. But according to you he now just ignores all that??

So once again, how can you make this statement given what happened at Hendaye?