If Germany only focused on defeating Britain instead of betraying Russia, would Germany have conquered Britain?

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,394
The Germans also have He-177 that was also terrible because the Germans lost more He-177 of the frequent fires of their twin engines than from enemy fire

There also was another problem. Due to limited resources the Germans could not produce heavy planes in the same large series as the British, not to mention the Americans, who launched more than 30 thousand four-engined bombers during WWII.
Actually the problem was not so much production (though I agree resources were limited) and remember in this scenario there is no eastern front so land forces need much less production..... The problem was really Oil..... The germans simply did not have the oil budget to operate large fleets of heavy bombers... As it was the luftwaffe consumed some 30% of all the oil budget available to Germany..... and this was with a rather low number (circa 4 000 vs many more for each of the UK, US and USSR) of operational "lighter" planes.... Heavy bombers consume (at least) 2 times more than the average lighter planes of the Luftwaffe....
 
Jan 2018
126
Canada
If Germany just focused on defeating Britain instead of betraying Russia, would Germany have conquered Britain?
If Germany had chosen not to invade the Soviet Union, then it is highly likely that Britain would have succumbed to the Nazi juggernaut. Since the preparations for operation Barbarossa were so huge, and had so much inertia, this decision would have to be made weeks or months prior. Its not really possible to call the whole endeavor off at the last minute. It would lead to serious backlog, disruptions, and a loss of prestige. If Germany decided to focus their full efforts on taking Britain out of the war, there are a number of strategys on the table.

The first plan would be to invade Spain and Portugal. This would lead to the fall of Gibralter, and seal off the western Mediterranean. Thus enabling the Germans and Italians to move their ships into and out of the sea, without the British being able to do the same. Giving Italys large merchant fleet access to the Atlantic would help reduce the effect of the Allied blockade. The invasion would also give the Germans naval and air bases in Spain and Portugal, with which they could use to harass the enemy sea lanes. If they can get their hands on enough fuel, then the Italians might even be able to spear head an amphibious landing in Great Britain. (Though thats pretty speculative)

The second plan would be to invade Turkey. This is a bit of an unlikely prospect, due to the bizarre deference the Germans showed to them. (Hitler also hoped they would join the war on his side) But from a geographical perspective, it is a very sound strategy. Turkey is the gateway to the near east and the Caucasus', which are both important regions. Successfully over running the county would enable the Germans to attack the British colonys in Iraq, Transjordan. and Egypt. This would give them access to large oil fields in Iraq and Iran (both sympathetic to the Nazis), embolden the Italians, and demoralise the British. It would be virtually impossible to reinforce the near east, due to the fact that the Axis have the interior lines of communication.


Strategy #1 isn't decisive in its own right. It would definitely put Britains balls in a vice, but they have been through worse. (Unless Churchill does something stupid like trying to land troops in Portugal, which would be a complete disaster for them) In order to really have a chance of forcing the Allys to the negotiating table, the Axis would need to pour more troops into North Africa and successfully capture Egypt.

Strategy #2, while the less likely of the two, would also put the Germans in a better position when they confronted the Soviet Union. Not only would they be able to invade through the Caucasus' and secure the oil fields there, but they would also be able to send ships through the Dardanelles and into the Black sea. There was virtually no chance of failure, given that Turkish army was weak, undermanned, and obsolete.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2015
1,474
Kyiv
Tired of waiting for someone to attack them, the Russians themselves got into a world war on September 17, 1939.

Moreover, with their Secret Protocol they also rid Hitler of his last doubts whether to invade Poland with the risk of being in a war with England and France - or not. The role of the Secret Protocol for the start of World War is very large and is still underestimated by historians.

Having then loyal Russia behind his back, with which it was easy to reach an agreement giving them the right to some other country, Hitler not only attacked Poland, but then attacked France and a number of other countries.

In the summer of 1940 he discovered that the territorial appetites of the Russians went beyond all agreements of Germany with them. And their huge army looms as dark cloud over Germany. Hence, there are two options - either the Third Reich acts in the war against the allies further, having an accomplice and friend behind - for whom Berlin lost faith, or by a quick invasion to deprive the Russians of their attac power, drive them beyond the Volga and eliminate the risk of being hit in the back.

Since the Russian military machine had long been launched at full speed, Hitler decided not to delay with Russia. And having begun the invasion in June 1941, the Germans were once again convinced that Russia was a much greater military threat than they had anticipated.

I think the Germans simply had no choice. An attempt to make peace with England and France at the end of the Polish campaign failed. And a big Russian friend began to sharpen a knife in order to stick it in the back of Germany at a convenient moment.

Hence the war of Germany on two fronts with all the attendant risks. And the entry into the US war at the end of 1941 made the forecast for Germany sad. The Russians could only hold out until the time when the powerful economy of the States will go on a big scale. And the US provided the anti-Hitler coalition a huge advantage in the war of resources
 
Jan 2018
126
Canada
...
And do not pay attention to the phrases indicating the preventiveness of this plan. Over the past 80 years, almost all Russian seizures of foreign territories have been marked as "preventive" by the Russians. In 1939, they captured half of Poland, so that it "would not be seized by Germany." For the same reasons, they captured and annexed Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, though at that time Russia was an official friend of the Third Reich and some kind of its ally. In 1980, the Russians flooded into Afghanistan, so that - you just do not laugh - right before the Americans come there.

And in 2014, they seized the Crimea from Ukraine in order to ... not let the Americans place their military bases there. So the plan of Tymoshenko-Zhukov in May 1941 was in no way preventive. It was a plan of a big raid into Europe and plan of the German army destruction , etc.

Maybe the Russians had a big plan to defend their country from the German invasion of 1941? Where is such plan? Have you seen it?

It never existed! Othervise the Russians would publish it 100 times within last decades. They are now trying to pass a completely different plan for such a plan - a Plan of cover the western border. План прикрытия западной границы.

Find it in inet. You will see that the Cover Plan means temporary protection of the western border from a preemptive enemy strike at a time when their own army is preparing for an invasion. Exactly that. And this Cover Plan is openly local and unconvincing for the role of a large Russian defensive plan.

Was there a "Thunderstorm Plan"? План "Гроза"? Absolutely - it was. But a solid part of Russian archives for the WWII is still strictly classified. Do not even hesitate. For such plan after its publishing would become a funeral song for all Putin's propaganda, where the "Great Victory over Fascism" plays a key role, and Russia in WWII looks like a victim of nazi aggression in 1941.
Its nice to hear the perspective of a Ukrainian. You obviously have a good understanding into how the Russians really operate. Its like you said. From 1939 onward, the Soviets were engaged in expansionist activitys that were even more ambitious than the Nazis. They started off their agenda with an invasion of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Then, they invaded Finland and Romania. The Soviets topped it off by sending Molotov to Berlin, and demanding the right to seize other territorys in the Balkans!

Hitler felt that his truce with Stalin would not last much longer. He had a competitor who was looking to outmaneuver him and pull a fast one. He authorised operation Barbarossa shortly after Molotov left Berlin. The timing was not at all a coincidence. War between these two authoritarian states was inevitable, it was just a question of who would make the first move.

...
How much time would it take to defeat the German state? From Belostok to Berlin - about 700 kilometers - almost the same distance separates Belostok from Gomel in Belarus. The Germans began the Eastern campaign on June 22, 1941, and on August, 18 they entered Gomel. 45 days for the Germans to break through the huge mass of Russian troops with heavy equipment and travel such a distance

How many do you think Russians with 11 thousand tanks in the first line of attack would break through the weak German rear to Berlin during the German landing operation against the British Isles? I think - within 2-3 weeks.
Its not really that simple. The Soviets had far more tanks than the Germans did, true. But many of these were obsolescent models, and were in a poor state of readiness. And anyway, the Red Army never came close to achieving the Heers level of profiency. They were poorly led, incompetent, and had no initiative. If Stalin had authorised an invasion of Europe, they would not have been able to make much progress through Germany. Not before strong reinforcements showed up, anyway. The Red Army might have been able to punch through Romania, though, as the balance of forces was more favorable there. That would have been very damaging, as the Nazis got most of their oil from there.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,739
The first plan would be to invade Spain and Portugal.
Easier said than done. The only German zone border with Germany was very small, veyr mountainous and easily dfeneded. teh german Zone bodrer with Spoain was a few miles long. Easy to defend. Sure the Germans could collasper vichy, but thats throwing teh Frenchj colonial Empire into the Arms of the British.

This would lead to the fall of Gibralter, and seal off the western Mediterranean. Thus enabling the Germans and Italians to move their ships into and out of the sea, without the British being able to do the same.
The British did not use the Mediterrain route to Egypt.,

Giving Italys large merchant fleet access to the Atlantic would help reduce the effect of the Allied blockade.
Excpet that
(a) Itlay did not have a large merchnat fleet.. and they lost most oof it in allied ports at teh start of the war.
(b) the axis lacked eitehr funds or goods to trade
(c) with the Royal Navy controlling teh seas these merchanst woul dbe easy prey.


The invasion would also give the Germans naval and air bases in Spain and Portugal, with which they could use to harass the enemy sea lanes.
The British would pick up teh carnies and the axores enablingthem to close the mid alanatic air gap. The Germans would aquire no bases that were closer to the north alantic routes.

If they can get their hands on enough fuel, then the Italians might even be able to spear head an amphibious landing in Great Britain. (Though thats pretty speculative)
the Italian Navy and the German Navy are still pitfully weak compared to the Royal Navy, which stil controls the waves. The Italiians had virtiually no ampahiious inavsin experince, nor any special training, or rquipmet (liek you know landing craft) What exactly are they bringing to the table? 2nd rate aircraft?

invading Spain would give teh Axis very very little,.

The second plan would be to invade Turkey. This is a bit of an unlikely prospect, due to the bizarre deference the Germans showed to them. (Hitler also hoped they would join the war on his side) But from a geographical perspective, it is a very sound strategy.
Again easier siad than done. The Turkish Amry might had the Dardanelles and the bosphorus.

Turkey is the gateway to the near east and the Caucasus', which are both important regions. Successfully over running the county would enable the Germans to attack the British colonys in Iraq, Transjordan. and Egypt.
Turkish railways were really really crappy. Really crappy. There is a very hard limit how far trucks can support a ww2 army. Germany lacked the trucks and the fuel. Logistically projecting any sort of serious force through Trukey is extrmeely diffacult,. istanbul to Basira where most of the oil is 2,721 Km. tripoli to Cario is only 2044 Km and Rommel seroiiouys hit teh wall at Al Alamein just truckig supplies,. Russian Border to Moscow in 1941 was onlt 1,000 Km. And middle east was brutal on trucks. And german trucks were poor for desert conditions. At some piont the entire load of teh truck is feiul consume to get teh truck there and you are simply unmable to supply anything well before that piont is reached.

Invading Turkey would actually give the axis very very little.,

This would give them access to large oil fields in Iraq and Iran (both sympathetic to the Nazis), embolden the Italians, and demoralise the British.
And how exactly would any of this Oil get anywehre useful? Axis don't have many tankers, and the British Bases in Aden or India would be well placed to sink them anyway.. There are no railays.

It would be virtually impossible to reinforce the near east, due to the fact that the Axis have the interior lines of communication.
As historically almost all British Shipping went around africa to Egypt and the middle east anyway, the Acxis already had teh advanatge of interioir lines. It did not help.

Strategy #1 isn't decisive in its own right. It would definitely put Britains balls in a vice, but they have been through worse. (Unless Churchill does something stupid like trying to land troops in Portugal, which would be a complete disaster for them) In order to really have a chance of forcing the Allys to the negotiating table, the Axis would need to pour more troops into North Africa and successfully capture Egypt.
Except trhat it would not increae the Axis logistical liimitation in North Afria. Shipping, Port Capcity and Trucks. It would not enable teh Axis to support any signficinat greater force in North Africa. The Axis FOrces in North africa were already beyond the limit of what could be supplied efefctively.

Strategy #2, while the less likely of the two, would also put the Germans in a better position when they confronted the Soviet Union. Not only would they be able to invade through the Caucasus' and secure the oil fields there, but they would also be able to send ships through the Dardanelles and into the Black sea. There was virtually no chance of failure, given that Turkish army was weak, undermanned, and obsolete.
Excpet of course logistics matter. Without any efefcrtive railroads, only a pitifully small German force could be supported via Turkey into the Caucasus, and could easily be defeinded by Russians, they had a large garrison. terrain highly favouring the defender. Simply put the logsitics would prevent teh Germans mustering enough force to be effective.

What ships coul dbe sent into teh Black sea and what could they do?

People had been Assuming the Turkish amry was weak repeatedly. It often performed well above those expectations. The Turks had been rearming with modern equipment,. Abnd Invading Turkley may well bring Russia into teh war eitehr directly or indirectly.
 
Likes: Lord Fairfax

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,739
I

Its not really that simple. The Soviets had far more tanks than the Germans did, true. But many of these were obsolescent models, and were in a poor state of readiness. And anyway, the Red Army never came close to achieving the Heers level of profiency. They were clumsy and incompetent. If Stalin had authorised an invasion of Europe, they would not have been able to make much progress through Germany. Not before strong reinforcements showed up, anyway. They might have been able to punch through Romania, though, as the balance of forces was more favorable there. That would have been very damaging, as the Nazis got most of their oil from there.
Eaxtky the Russian punch through and burn Ploesti to the Ground. At that piont the war is over the Germans have utterly lost.

teh Red Army had problems. It was acreaking orgaization. But it did beat teh crap out of the german army 1941. Sure the Russians took huge losses but the Germans took bad losses to., Barbarossa was no cakewalk. the German were stopped not by the weather but by the Russians.

The Surprise attack in 1941 cost the Russians badly. Srtarts with a attack f teh Russian chossing it's signficnatly different sitiuation. Their aircraft do not get slaughtered on the ground. Not syaing it would make the Red Amry some paragon of miliatry effecientcy but it would be opertaing better.
 
Jan 2018
126
Canada
Easier said than done. The only German zone border with Germany was very small, veyr mountainous and easily dfeneded. teh german Zone bodrer with Spoain was a few miles long. Easy to defend. Sure the Germans could collasper vichy, but thats throwing teh Frenchj colonial Empire into the Arms of the British.
Nonsense. The Germans had just conquered France and the low countrys the previous year. By comparison, an invasion into the Iberian peninsula was a walk in the park. First off, Spain and Germany are unofficial Allys, and Franco owes Hitler (and Mussolini) a debt of gratitude for their aid in the civil war. Second, even if we assume that Spain was willing to fight a full fledged war against Germany, it wouldn't matter very much. They still hadn't recovered from the civil war, and their military was in a sorry state. The Spanish couldn't put up much of a fight, not even against the modest forces the Nazis planned to send.



The British did not use the Mediterrain route to Egypt.,
The British used the straits of Gibralter to plug up the Meditteranea and prevent any Axis ships from entering or leaving. They routinely sent warships and freighters back and forth to Malta. It helped them maintain an iron gip over the western Med and keep the Italian navy stuck in port. Losing the rock is a major setback for them.

Excpet that
(a) Itlay did not have a large merchnat fleet.. and they lost most oof it in allied ports at teh start of the war.
(b) the axis lacked eitehr funds or goods to trade
(c) with the Royal Navy controlling teh seas these merchanst woul dbe easy prey.
A) They actually had the 5th largest merchant fleet in the world, at 3.5 million tons. Thats nothing to sniff at. The Italians did lose lots of freighters in port due to Mussolinis failure to alert them of the DOW, but you're overstating the numbers. They lost about 35% of their fleet at the outset of the war. But even then, not all of those ships were seized outright. Some of them evaded capture, but couldn't return to Italy due to interdiction at Gibraltar.

B) Germanys financial problems were largely solved by looting the combined wealth of Europe in 1940. The only complication was that they had no access to foreign markets over the oceans, thanks to the British blockade. This dynamic would change somewhat with the capture of Spain and Portugal, and the acquisition of their own merchant fleets. (Though some ships would probably flee at the outbreak of war)

C) It depends. Some of those ships were fast enough to serve as blockade runners, but they never got the chance to be used that way because of the British presence at Gibraltar. Once it falls, however, they would be able to break out to the Atlantic and access the worlds sea lanes. The slower moving freighters would be a different story. The Italian navy could only offer local escort to them, limited to within a few hundred km of the straits of Gibraltar.



The British would pick up teh carnies and the axores enablingthem to close the mid alanatic air gap. The Germans would aquire no bases that were closer to the north alantic routes.
Assuming that they can beat the Axis to the punch and take the island before them. The Allys ended up taking the Azores in mid 1943, anyway, so nothing changes in that regard. What would change is the fact that the Germans can put air bases on the Spanish or Portugese coast, and extend the radius of their bombers by 400 km. That would give them a deeper reach into the Atlantic, and force British convoys to take more winding routes to and from the island.

the Italian Navy and the German Navy are still pitfully weak compared to the Royal Navy, which stil controls the waves. The Italiians had virtiually no ampahiious inavsin experince, nor any special training, or rquipmet (liek you know landing craft) What exactly are they bringing to the table? 2nd rate aircraft?

invading Spain would give teh Axis very very little,.
The scenario was speculative, and probably isn't the route that Hitler or Mussolini would choose. Italy would need to build up a stockpile of fuel to help out with an invasion of Great Britain. They can provide a flotilla of warships and support craft to help fill out the depleted ranks of the Krigsmarine. The Germans would be carrying out the landings, while the Italians run interference for them. The Luftwaffe would also be thrown into the mix, with a 2nd battle of Britain taking place. Under these circumstances, Sea Lion would actually have a half decent chance of success.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2018
126
Canada
Again easier siad than done. The Turkish Amry might had the Dardanelles and the bosphorus.
This isn't going to be some convoluted repeat of Gallipolli. The Germans in 1941 are in a much better position to take Turkey than the British ever were in 1915. They will overrun Thrace in a matter of days, then position artillery on their side of the Bosphorous and Dardanelles. With complete control of the air, the Axis can then cross the straits at their leisure. This isn't an amphibious operation: Its more like a glorified river crossing.

Turkish railways were really really crappy. Really crappy. There is a very hard limit how far trucks can support a ww2 army. Germany lacked the trucks and the fuel. Logistically projecting any sort of serious force through Trukey is extrmeely diffacult,. istanbul to Basira where most of the oil is 2,721 Km. tripoli to Cario is only 2044 Km and Rommel seroiiouys hit teh wall at Al Alamein just truckig supplies,. Russian Border to Moscow in 1941 was onlt 1,000 Km. And middle east was brutal on trucks. And german trucks were poor for desert conditions. At some piont the entire load of teh truck is feiul consume to get teh truck there and you are simply unmable to supply anything well before that piont is reached.
The Turks actually modernised their railway lines in the 1930s, with financial help from the Nazis. It had much better coverage than the lines in North Africa did. The Germans would be able to use this network to effectively supply their army and advance at a steady rate. If that seems hard to believe, then remeber. In 1942, they managed to supply an entire army group all the way from Krakow to the Caucaus. The distances and terrain they overcame were similar to those in Turkey.

''Unlike the German and Ottoman empires, the Baghdad Railway emerged from the First World War bearing some semblance of its original form. Construction on the railway continued until 1940, when the first train made history by traveling nonstop between Baghdad and Istanbul. By then, the railway had become the property of the new independent states of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.'' -Distant Ties: Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the Construction of the Baghdad Railway, by Jonathan S. McMurray.

Invading Turkey would actually give the axis very very little.,
Turkey itself wouldn't give them very much, other than a large stockpile of chromium. But it does give them access to the soft underbelly of the British empire, in the near east. They went apeshit when Hong Kong fell in 1941, imagine their reaction when Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt are captured! Churchill would be crucified.

And how exactly would any of this Oil get anywehre useful? Axis don't have many tankers, and the British Bases in Aden or India would be well placed to sink them anyway.. There are no railays.

As historically almost all British Shipping went around africa to Egypt and the middle east anyway, the Acxis already had teh advanatge of interioir lines. It did not help.
The Royal Navy presence in Aden is irrelevant. The Germans aren't going to ship the oil through the Red sea, thats preposterous. They have a much, much more direct way of getting their hands on the oil. If they can fight their way through Turkey, then the Iraqis will gladly help them overthrow the British. In that case, the Germans can simply use the pipeline built by the Iraqi petroleum company. It extends from Kirkuk to Hadith, and then to Tripoli to Haifa (in Transjordan). From there, it could be shipped to Italy. Or it could be delivered by train through Turkey. And since they have the interior lines, the Germans can always send in more reinforcements much faster than the British can with their painfully slow convoys that circle down Africa.

Except trhat it would not increae the Axis logistical liimitation in North Afria. Shipping, Port Capcity and Trucks. It would not enable teh Axis to support any signficinat greater force in North Africa. The Axis FOrces in North africa were already beyond the limit of what could be supplied efefctively.
An increased commitment to North Africa won't run into insurmountable problems. The Nazis won't be busy fighting the Soviets, after all. That will free up a massive amount of resources. The supply lines can benefit from more trucks. Railways can be extended by construction crews. The limitation of port capacity are overstated, and in any case, can be bypassed by using lots of transport aircraft. The Africa corps could be expanded to at least five Panzer and motorised divisions, enough to overrun the British even faster than they historically did.

Excpet of course logistics matter. Without any efefcrtive railroads, only a pitifully small German force could be supported via Turkey into the Caucasus, and could easily be defeinded by Russians, they had a large garrison. terrain highly favouring the defender. Simply put the logsitics would prevent teh Germans mustering enough force to be effective.

What ships coul dbe sent into teh Black sea and what could they do?

People had been Assuming the Turkish amry was weak repeatedly. It often performed well above those expectations. The Turks had been rearming with modern equipment,. Abnd Invading Turkley may well bring Russia into teh war eitehr directly or indirectly.
Again, Turkey had a fairly decent railway network. Its overage in the Caucasus was minimal, though. In the event of war, the Axis can use mountain divisions to invade through there supported with amphibious landings and paratroop drops where needed. If the Red Army manages to beat them back, however, they can just bomb the oil fields and starve the enemy of fuel.

Anyway, the Turkish army was quite weak. They might be a match for the Italians, sure. But they had no hope at all of stopping the Germans. They were the best army in the world at that time, and were essentially without peer. Turkey would be smashed and overrun within a few weeks.

''Basically a World War 1 force, the Turkish army lacked mobility and was commanded by officers who were largely untrained in mechanised warfare. Obsolescent equipment of hetereogenous origin contributed to the difficulty of finding spare parts and ammunition. The Turkish navy, although somewhat better prepared, had few modern warships and almost no up-to-date shipyards. The Turkish air force had practically no offensive capability and lacked an integrated air defense organisation.'' -History of the Office of the Secretary of Defense: The formative years, 1947-1950.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,739
Nonsense. The Germans had just conquered France and the low countrys the previous year. By comparison, an invasion into the Iberian peninsula was a walk in the park.
.
Different situations. the Pyrennes are not tank country.

First off, Spain and Germany are unofficial Allys, and Franco owes Hitler (and Mussolini) a debt of gratitude for their aid in the civil war. .
Which Franco was not feeling. the Germans had inisisted on a high price for their Aid.

Second, even if we assume that Spain was willing to fight a full fledged war against Germany, it wouldn't matter very much. They still hadn't recovered from the civil war, and their military was in a sorry state. The Spanish couldn't put up much of a fight, not even against the modest forces the Nazis planned to send..
Well any buuild up would be obivious . The Attack area is extrmely small. It's not a slam dunk.


The British used the straits of Gibralter to plug up the Meditteranea and prevent any Axis ships from entering or leaving. They routinely sent warships and freighters back and forth to Malta. It helped them maintain an iron gip over the western Med and keep the Italian navy stuck in port. Losing the rock is a major setback for them.
A amjor setback but changes little in Egypt.

A) They actually had the 5th largest merchant fleet in the world, at 3.5 million tons. Thats nothing to sniff at. The Italians did lose lots of freighters in port due to Mussolinis failure to alert them of the DOW, but you're overstating the numbers. They lost about 35% of their fleet at the outset of the war. But even then, not all of those ships were seized outright. Some of them evaded capture, but couldn't return to Italy due to interdiction at Gibraltar.
Most of their better ships, most of their tankers. Losing 35% was still a hard blow,


B) Germanys financial problems were largely solved by looting the combined wealth of Europe in 1940. The only complication was that they had no access to foreign markets over the oceans, thanks to the British blockade. This dynamic would change somewhat with the capture of Spain and Portugal, and the acquisition of their own merchant fleets. (Though some ships would probably flee at the outbreak of war)
Incorrect. Germany still have no real forign exchnage. Any imports had to be paid for by exports which were generlay think sveyr very nessacary for teh war effort. The Areas conquered in 1940 mostly were short of teh same things as Germany itself. No the gold resevres were removed. Loot is exactly convertable currency. What exactly did the German loot that could readily be traded?

C) It depends. Some of those ships were fast enough to serve as blockade runners, but they never got the chance to be used that way because of the British presence at Gibraltar. Once it falls, however, they would be able to break out to the Atlantic and access the worlds sea lanes. The slower moving freighters would be a different story. The Italian navy could only offer local escort to them, limited to within a few hundred km of the straits of Gibraltar.
Escort a few hundred kn's from Gibralter does nothing. the Royal navy would sink.cature these ships. British submarines can easily patrol the outlet.


Assuming that they can beat the Axis to the punch and take the island before them. The Allys ended up taking the Azores in mid 1943, anyway, so nothing changes in that regard. What would change is the fact that the Germans can put air bases on the Spanish or Portugese coast, and extend the radius of their bombers by 400 km. That would give them a deeper reach into the Atlantic, and force British convoys to take more winding routes to and from the island.
The Island are unsupportable without control of the sea. The occuptaion of Portagul and Spain would do nothing at all for the NorthLantic ocnvoy routes which carried the bulk of British shipping movements, the stuff going around Afria would have to divert further out, given the length of the vovage that effect would be very negilable.


The scenario was speculative, and probably isn't the route that Hitler or Mussolini would choose. Italy would need to build up a stockpile of fuel to help out with an invasion of Great Britain. They can provide a flotilla of warships and support craft to help fill out the depleted ranks of the Krigsmarine. The Germans would be carrying out the landings, while the Italians run interference for them. The Luftwaffe would also be thrown into the mix, with a 2nd battle of Britain taking place. Under these circumstances, Sea Lion would actually have a half decent chance of success.

The RAF whipped the Lufwaffe in the first. With double the aircraft production, catching up with air ocmbat doctine and aircraft design., the RAF woudl easily win any later attempts.
The Addition ofthe Italain Navy chnages nothing at sea,
Sealion remains unfeasiable.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,739
This isn't going to be some convoluted repeat of Gallipolli. The Germans in 1941 are in a much better position to take Turkey than the British ever were in 1915. They will overrun Thrace in a matter of days, then position artillery on their side of the Bosphorous and Dardanelles. With complete control of the air, the Axis can then cross the straits at their leisure. This isn't an amphibious operation: Its more like a glorified river crossing.
It's more than a river crossing. How are teh german troops crossing teh river? Riubber assult boats? The Germans also had a poor ;logistical base. Raliays in Bulgaira are not good.

The Turks actually modernised their railway lines in the 1930s, with financial help from the Nazis. It had much better coverage than the lines in North Africa did. The Germans would be able to use this network to effectively supply their army and advance at a steady rate. If that seems hard to believe, then remeber. In 1942, they managed to supply an entire army group all the way from Krakow to the Caucaus. The distances and terrain they overcame were similar to those in Turkey.

''Unlike the German and Ottoman empires, the Baghdad Railway emerged from the First World War bearing some semblance of its original form. Construction on the railway continued until 1940, when the first train made history by traveling nonstop between Baghdad and Istanbul. By then, the railway had become the property of the new independent states of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq.'' -Distant Ties: Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the Construction of the Baghdad Railway, by Jonathan S. McMurray.
Mioderised is a bit much. The lines were extrmely low capcity. Germany was very short of rollong stock and engines, (and I suspect it would not match Trukish railawys) in terms t=of teh volume it could support it's basically irrvelant, a few divsions at best. Not enough,


Turkey itself wouldn't give them very much, other than a large stockpile of chromium. But it does give them access to the soft underbelly of the British empire, in the near east. They went apeshit when Hong Kong fell in 1941, imagine their reaction when Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt are captured! Churchill would be crucified.
SIngapore yes , Honk Kong no. They were losing a lot Honk Kong was just lost in the wash.
You woudl have to declare war on Vichy france. And really tehlogistcal situation is not good fopr proejecting force into the middle east.


The Royal Navy presence in Aden is irrelevant. The Germans aren't going to ship the oil through the Red sea, thats preposterous. They have a much, much more direct way of getting their hands on the oil. If they can fight their way through Turkey, then the Iraqis will gladly help them overthrow the British. In that case, the Germans can simply use the pipeline built by the Iraqi petroleum company. It extends from Kirkuk to Hadith, and then to Tripoli to Haifa (in Transjordan). From there, it could be shipped to Italy. Or it could be delivered by train through Turkey. And since they have the interior lines, the Germans can always send in more reinforcements much faster than the British can with their painfully slow convoys that circle down Africa.
No the Germans cannot send reiinforcvements they need supplies. and their logistical bnetwork would be incpable of supporting it. Interioir lines cut for nothing if the volume of moevment they can support is extrmelyt small.
A pipline through the desert which the British would not destroy? Even if captrued intact the LDRG, SAS, Arab Legion and the Jewish Guerilla in Palestine would make short work of cutting it.
The Iraqi support for the Axis was not that great the Coup was put down pretty easily.


An increased commitment to North Africa won't run into insurmountable problems. The Nazis won't be busy fighting the Soviets, after all. That will free up a massive amount of resources. The supply lines can benefit from more trucks. Railways can be extended by construction crews. The limitation of port capacity are overstated, and in any case, can be bypassed by using lots of transport aircraft. The Africa corps could be expanded to at least five Panzer and motorised divisions, enough to overrun the British even faster than they historically did.
Wel lthis is just delusional. The Limiataions were real. Historically they stopped teh deployement of more forces. Germany did not have lots of transport aircraft,. And it's a maginal stragey runs a lot more fuel then ships. The Axis could not adepuetely support the forces they had. What math are you claims based on?

Logistics Matter, they cannot be just waved away with vague statements.

Again, Turkey had a fairly decent railway network. Its overage in the Caucasus was minimal, though. In the event of war, the Axis can use mountain divisions to invade through there supported with amphibious landings and paratroop drops where needed. If the Red Army manages to beat them back, however, they can just bomb the oil fields and starve the enemy of fuel.
NO Turkey did not havbe a fairly decent railway network. Pathetic is the more accuarate term. What vo;lume of traffic can be supported and what force does that amount to.
Mountain Divsions, Paaratroop divsion. I think you are in denail of the size of the Red Army. The Red Amry Garrsion was quite large. There 's a lot more to warfare than drawing lines on a map.
Germna amphibious landing capacity was virtually nil.

Who says the Germans get within flight rnage of the Oil? ROmainia oil is already in Soviet flight range. If thats enough the Germans are in a worse situation.


Anyway, the Turkish army was quite weak. They might be a match for the Italians, sure. But they had no hope at all of stopping the Germans. They were the best army in the world at that time, and were essentially without peer. Turkey would be smashed and overrun within a few weeks.

''Basically a World War 1 force, the Turkish army lacked mobility and was commanded by officers who were largely untrained in mechanised warfare. Obsolescent equipment of hetereogenous origin contributed to the difficulty of finding spare parts and ammunition. The Turkish navy, although somewhat better prepared, had few modern warships and almost no up-to-date shipyards. The Turkish air force had practically no offensive capability and lacked an integrated air defense organisation.'' -History of the Office of the Secretary of Defense: The formative years, 1947-1950.
I mostly agree, but ww1 style forces in static defence were tanbks cannot be used can be forminable. Exctlh how much of the German army can be delpoyed? Not much. I thnk teh GErmans will win but not easily, and I don;lt think teh Russians are going to just sit back and watch. How far do the Gemrans get before they meet the Soviet forces coming the other way?
 
Likes: Lord Fairfax