ORIGINAL: gamer78
I still don't understand what the goal of 'Drang nach Osten' about capturing Spain in this thread. Conquering Turkey and going through İstanbul to Baku is 2.272 KM with todays roads. Black sea land routes though far north east border with autobahn only completed 10 years ago. At the time of WW2 it was also difficult for Turkish army to move Erzurum. Somewhere -30 degrees in winter no roads and railrods.
warspite1
The question is simple. The Germans lost. Could they have adopted a different plan, one that would have seen a different outcome?
The thinking is that by delaying the attack on the USSR by a year, the Germans would have largely neutered the British. This would help the war against Stalin because the distractions of the Western Desert would have vanished, the Med would be closed and the Axis could threaten even more, the sea lanes of the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. In addition, the Germans would start nearer the oil fields of the Caucasus.
I think there are many things that are in the Axis favour – particularly if the Axis Med-first strategy is achieved through taking Suez and the Spanish and Turks – swayed by the removal of the British from the region - are brought in as willing members of the Axis. But this isn’t what is proposed. Instead the Germans attack both Spain and Turkey.
There are also a number of potential downsides to this course of action and – in true Axis fanbois style – these are simply glossed over, or in most cases, not even considered. There is also the inevitable, but painfully predictable, willingness to assume the Axis learn from real life mistakes (that they never made in this scenario and so can’t learn from (but miraculously do!)), while the dunderhead allies make the same mistakes and - where the scenario calls for decisions to be made over new events – the allies will of course take the wrong decisions here too.
It’s not a what-if if everyone takes the same decisions as in real life, but there has to be a reality check on what changes…. but sadly not it seems – and Goering becomes a tactical genius…. Finally, the Italians, Japanese, Vichy and everyone else all act as though they are mere extensions of the Germans. No country puts itself first at any point – they are all too busy doing the German’s bidding….
So what are the positives of such a scenario (assuming everything goes well for the Axis)?
The Mediterranean is closed.
Control of Gibraltar means that Malta will fall without a big fight for it (provided the Germans bring in aircraft to Sicily and Greece).
Control of Gibraltar makes things more problematical for the British in defending the Atlantic Sea Lanes
Control of Suez makes things more problematical for the British in defending the Indian Ocean
There is no war in North Africa once the British are defeated at some point in 1941. There is then no obvious place for the British to fight the Axis in the west.
Apparently the US don’t come into the war until May/June 1942
The Germans get to start Barbarossa nearer to the oil fields of the Caucasus
So what are the potential negatives and are the positives all they are cracked up to be?
Well the Mediterranean was closed to through traffic anyway. It was supposed to be closed when Italy entered the war but they couldn’t close it and needed the Germans to do it for them.
Malta falling is actually not that big a deal. There will be an advantage to the Germans in North Africa in terms of supply (but nowhere near the level many believe). But for the British, the amount of aircraft, warships and merchant ships that are saved from not having to keep the island alive is significant.
Control of Gibraltar doesn’t help the British in protecting the Atlantic sea lanes, but this is largely offset by the taking of the Canary’s.
The Indian Ocean is definitely more under threat, but this is where the knock on effects of the scenario start to make themselves known. If the British have to evacuate Suez where do they go? One thing is clear, they did not give in after France fell. They are not going to throw in the towel over the loss of Suez. The British still have plenty of places in the Horn of Africa and Middle East to make a stand – all readily supplied from east and west. If this happens then instead of the Axis having an enemy in Egypt/Libya that diverted their forces, they still have an enemy in the region i.e. the forces supposedly freed up, aren’t necessarily freed up.
And speaking of forces not being freed up…. The need to conquer Spain will mean a large occupation force is required. We can take Yugoslavia as a guide, and add some, as Spain is strategically more important. Same may well apply to Turkey too.
The fact that Spain faces a potential humanitarian crisis is not an issue?
The fact that the Germans put at risk the raw materials from Spain and Turkey is not an issue?
The US coming in in June/July (even if that comes to pass) isn’t the big deal it may seem. When was the first time American combat troops appeared in the ETO? America’s main contribution is keeping the CW (and eventually the USSR) in the war through material aid. And let’s be clear, the US are not going to have been doing nothing in terms of production and their own preparedness since Hitler turned on Spain….
Yes, the Germans are closer to the Caucasus but……
Just take one look at a map of Europe. How far is it from Germany to the Soviet-Turkish border? Look at the terrain. Apparently a whole army group full of panzers will be ready to go and fully supplied….. right.
And all this doesn’t allow for any mishaps along the way. Everywhere will be a doddle, no mistakes will be made, no wrong decisions…. Despite the Germans markedly increasing the forces required for occupation, despite a whole army group suddenly appearing in Turkey, the forces available elsewhere along the front will be unaffected…..
So there is the thinking.... the practice may be a little different....
; Julia Child
That's where they matter. Heavy industry, steel mills and shipyards in the west aka Basque country; light industry in the east or Catalonia.
