Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a question I have been wondering about for a long time. If Hitler had concentrated fully on capturing North Africa and the western part of the Middle East before invading the Soviet Union, would he have succeeded? And if he had, and had gained access to Iraq's oil, would the Soviet Union been able to hold out against the German forces?
The question really should not be - could he have held both, but could have he held either one or the other.
Either way you look at it, the invasion of Russia was doomed. He could have taken the Middle East and the Iraqi oil fields easily, once Alexandria and the Suez fell, but then what? His supply lines into Russia would have been too extended via that rugged route, wheras his exposure to invasion from Russia was too vulnerable.
Now, on the other hand, if Hitler had dedicated all his resources to Britian and the Med, he would have indeed defeated the Commonwealth forces there and the riches of the middle east would be his. The island of Britian may have lasted out, but the middle east and the med would fall.
Now oil as a resource was a vaulable target in itself. But I see the benifit of the middle east would more than likely be in denying the allied forces their oil, rather than obtaining oil themselves.
It's hard to say what would have happened had the Axis jumped the 7th Fallschirmjagers, plus the Folgore Airborne Division, into Malta. As it was, 7Fsjr jumped into Crete, which turned out to have little strategic value to the Axis (though its denial to the Allies was worth something, so it wasn't an entirely stupid move even with benefit of hindsight; whether it was worth the destruction of Germany's only functional parachute division remains a valid question).
Malta was a very sharp stick up the Axis posterior, giving the Allies an unsinkable aircraft carrier and major port to interdict Axis supply in North Africa. Logistics stopped Rommel more often than the Commonwealth forces did, so sending a larger troop commitment wouldn't have ensured Axis success unless the force could be supplied. The farther Rommel got from Tripoli, the further the trickle of supplies had to travel, and the more of the fuel was used up just transporting the supplies.
The other really sharp stick was Gibraltar, but its capture hinged upon Spanish cooperation, which was not forthcoming. But I think it's fair to say that even without an Axis capture of Gibraltar, the capture of Malta would have made a lot more possible in North Africa and the Near East for Team Fasces.
One must figure the British (and then American after we came in) response to ramped up German efforts. One can assume the Brits would've ramped up theirs, especially their naval and air efforts. I think all efforts in the Med would hinge on naval and air power and the Brits were supreme in naval power and very strong in air power. Not to mention British naval air power.
One must also assume that if the Germans changed strategy so would the Brits, for instance the British may have put an earlier and smaller version of Torch into gear; content to capture French ports to use as naval and air bases to threaten the Axis western flank. I dunno but one can be sure German changes would have brought on Allied ones too.
The Germans capturing Malta could've turned into a giant trap for them.
Some people here seem to think the Germans were supermen. Well there were only so many of them you know and they had only so much resources. Even Germans can't control a sea without a navy.
One must figure the British (and then American after we came in) response to ramped up German efforts. One can assume the Brits would've ramped up theirs, especially their naval and air efforts. I think all efforts in the Med would hinge on naval and air power and the Brits were supreme in naval power and very strong in air power. Not to mention British naval air power..
Yes I would agree with that. Also the British had no problem with pre-emptive attacks. i.e. - invading Iraq in 1941 to ensure they don't go "German".
But Rommel was so close to taking Egypt, and thus the Suez, and without the Suez, Malta/Gibraltor or not, I don't see how the allies would have kept the rest of the middle east. At least the German would have turned them into puppet governments like Vichy.
It all comes down to timing. By that time the U.S. was in the war and Germany's fate was sealed either way, since Allied forces would have been knocking on the Vichy french held north african door.
If Hitler had sent his panzer divisions through Turkey, whether through intimidation or outright assault, instead of invading Russia, I think he could have seized all of the Middle East. But instead, he chose to engage in an ideological struggle. Fortunately, to be a dictator, you have to deranged, which usually leads to defeat--kind of nature's way of maintaining balance.
If Hitler had sent his panzer divisions through Turkey, whether through intimidation or outright assault, instead of invading Russia, I think he could have seized all of the Middle East.
With logistics running through the Balkans, over the Dardanelles (and that pesky British fleet) and then through a hostile Asia Minor? And with British sea power a threat at several points? Sounds more difficult than simply plunging east into Russia and fighting like Hell. This Asian adventure takes the Germans farther from Russia rather than closer. Unless you'd attack Russia from Turkey through the mountains which is.......difficult.
We can't forget that the Slavic lands of eastern Europe were the very reason the Germans were fighting in the first place and the straightest route to victory was to attack and hammer directly. Had the Germans not been so damned diabolical they might've been able to gain as much in eastern Europe as they did late in the Great War.
But they WERE diabolical and the results speak for themselves.
What an intriguing question. Here's are some wild cards to throw out to help foster any more discussion. If seizing Egypt, Palestine, et. al. had been the Axis grand strategy, then it might well have succeeded. Here's why:
If Germany had fully committed to the Mediterranean, several things would have happened.
-- A much larger Luftwaffe commitment, albeit land-based would have seriously hurt the British Navy's operational range. So would a larger commitment of U-Boats to the Med.
-- If Germany had made a strategic priority out of protecting the considerable Italian fleet, then Mussolini's considerable sealift capacity would have come in very handy. Plus if the Germans had demanded control over the French fleet at Toulon as part of the surrender terms at Compeigne, then the Axis would have had, in theory, a respectable fleet in the Mediterranean. Instead, the Germans assigned little importance to either and the Italian navy was squandered.
-- Rather than try and take Egypt from Libya (After all, the salient between the impassable Qattarra Depression and the Mediterranean would have one tough nut to crack by any measure), the seizure of Cyprus, followed by flanking landings in Palestine (Under the protective bubble of Axis airpower operating out of southern Greece, Crete, and Cyprus), would have forced the British to divide their forces, defending the Suez from both East and West. Add a sympathetic Arab populace, and the British would have proved hard pressed to defend Egypt.
If Egypt did indeed fall, then the rest of the Middle East would have fallen easily, thereby cutting off Russia from important Lend Lease routes through Persia.
It wouldn't have been easy. It would have required some luck and audacity, but it could have been done.
Actually, if Hitler had placed any amount of faith in his scientists, Germany might easily have developed nuclear weaponry with which to arm their V-2 rockets--as it is, they were pretty close by 1945. And had they done so, all the Allied strategy in the world couldn't have stopped them, because you have to doubt that Hitler would've hesitated to use such weapons against anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
