warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zap
So far the consensus says that extra time would not have helped Italy. It had too many problems based on the Italians major army disorganization and Germany needing better economics to build, so they could not supply the Italians..
So it leaves only this?
Instead of sending Italy alone into Africa Both simultaneously take over African Oil/ Middle East oil. Best done from the wars start. That means Germany would have too hold off on Russia. I think they had more to gain by going to Africa. Capture all the resources available. Minimal loss. Secure holds on Libya and they would have fuel to support their Military.
The major part of the War would have been fought in Africa not Europe.
warspite1
I am afraid anything from the war’s start – September 1939 – is a no no. Firstly, Mussolini – for all his bombastic talk - stepped back in September 1939 because a) he didn’t realise how successful Hitler would be and, as such, he was more realistic in his thinking on Italy’s woeful position and b) only when the war was all but won did Mussolini involve Italy so he could present his “few thousand dead” to the peace table and thus share the spoils.
But this is a what-if and so let’s get Mussolini over that line as you suggest. But what actually changes?
First off Hitler takes Poland to get rid of that Versailles sore. He has kept the USSR quiet through the NS Pact and that involves offering up approx. half of Poland and setting out spheres of influence elsewhere. Poland is a potential enemy in any war so for those very practical reasons I think Poland needs to happen to avoid going into fantasy land.
We know that Poland was a comparative walkover, however, many issues were found in achieving that victory (not surprising given the way the German Army had so quickly expanded), ammunition stocks were seriously depleted and many units needed training/replenishment. The German Army wasn’t going from Poland into anything else without a breather.
Secondly, we know with hindsight what the state of the French Army was in 1939/40. We know what happened in May/June 1940. But at the start of the war no one knew that France would be swept aside in six weeks and the army was in a mess. So knowing what everyone thought they knew, no major commitments were going to be possible hundreds of miles away in the Mediterranean – even if this was something that anyone could get Hitler to look at. Knocking out France was the whole point of the NS Pact. No two front war while Germany took care of the annoying French/British combo. He hoped – desperately hoped – that this would happen by means of a negotiated peace. But a military solution would have to be found if not. One could point to Norway to suggest this is not strictly true however, there are massive differences between Norway and North Africa – not least of which was that the Norwegian Campaign was driven in response to the possibility of the British/French getting there first and it was on Germany’s doorstep so couldn’t be ignored.
So under your scenario that leaves the possibility that Mussolini would make a start on his ‘Parallel War’ in the Mediterranean in September 1939, initially without the Germans – and with the German promise of assistance as and when France is taken care of. As we know, no one would have been banking on German help arriving anytime soon, after all, France, Britain, Holland and Belgium weren’t going to just roll over were they?
Would Mussolini have begun such a war alone? Well we know what happened when Italy took on the British without German help in 1940. There was nothing to suggest anything different in 1939 – in fact there was – different for the worse. The two Littorios would not arrive until late 1940 and the two Andrea Dorias were being modernised and wouldn’t be ready until mid-1940. That left just two modernised WWI battleships with 12.6-inch main armament to secure the shipping lanes to Libya.
It’s difficult to make an argument for this even with what we know, but without hindsight? I suggest that having joined the war, Mussolini would have little choice but take a defensive stance until help from the North arrived or the British and French had been massively weakened.
BUT, France did roll over, Britain was kicked off the continent and the entire book of war on what was possible was re-written in May 1940. So that having happened, what comes next?
As always we have to suspend belief for this what-if. Hitler’s plan was that Germany would never again be subject to blockade and would – like the US – be self-sufficient. That meant Lebensraum, that meant the wheat of the Ukraine, the oil of the Caucasus, the coal of the Don Bass and the myriad other resources within the USSR. Plans for Barbarossa started to be drawn up as early as August 1940.
I think it’s reasonable to believe that if Hitler attempted the prelude to Sea Lion first, then the failure of Goering over the Channel would further turn him against naval warfare adventures in the Mediterranean. He’s lost a good portion of his small navy against Norway and his Luftwaffe has taken losses over Britain it will never recover from. The window of opportunity for an attack on the USSR is starting to close….
But for the purposes of this exercise let’s ignore that and say that Hitler could be persuaded that taking Britain out in one form or another was necessary as a prerequisite for an attack on the USSR. Sea Lion wasn’t working out to well so a Mediterranean strategy would be employed.
This is a scenario SO rich in possibilities it just gets the juices flowing thinking about it.
But one thing to say initially. Apologies if I am wrong but you seem to be suggesting that Libya was producing oil in WWII? This is not so. And as Shellshock says, I do not believe that the oil of the Middle East is going to be available anytime soon – even if your ‘minimal loss’ victory comes about – and there is no reason to believe that would be the case.
As said, Britain (and as usual, all references to Britain refer to the Commonwealth) vs Italy, then it’s no real contest. One old, out of shape, heavyweight and former champion of the world, is easily able to beat back the skinny, underweight southpaw challenger, fighting in a division that is waaay out of his league. However the old timer can’t land the killer blow because, although he can see the big prize, his concentration in his frail dotage is too easily broken and he gets distracted, and the challenger will keep trying to nip at his ageing opponent. So we end up with a highly unsatisfactory (for both parties) fight that goes on and on to no good purpose.
But, add in the Germans? We know what was possible from the Luftwaffe and u-boats in 1941 and a concerted strategy that has full buy-in from Hitler (and by that I mean he needs to start telling Goering what’s what) could see Malta captured and then a campaign to drive on Egypt and then into the Middle East.
As said I am not sure where the ‘minimal losses’ comes from – the British aren’t going to leave the Mediterranean without a fight. But moreover I don’t think such a campaign necessarily has that much effect on its own. The British are not going to give in because Suez falls. Instead it’s just a question of where they make their next stand. Let’s say that by the end of 1941 the Germans have cleared North Africa, conquered Egypt and taken Iraq. What has actually changed?
- Well the Med is closed to through shipping. No change, the British assumed this in the event of war, although they were able to maintain this on a limited scale when it was just the Italians in opposition
- Persia is an interesting one. I suspect Stalin would move on Persia very quickly if Germany entered Egypt
- Suez is closed but there is no Egypt or Middle East to supply so…
- Malta is captured, but (ignoring the human cost of more people under Axis rule) that actually assists the British as Malta was incredibly costly in aircraft, shipping and warships
- And Hitler’s desire for Lebensraum isn’t going to be satisfied by a few broken oil wells and thousands of miles of desert.
The reason why this is so tantalising is less for the immediate military results, but what does it mean for Spain? For Turkey? And what does it mean for the United States?
Britain kicked out of the Mediterranean potentially puts the position of both Spain and Turkey in a potentially very different light. There would now be a considerable easing of the pressure (exerted by the USA and Britain) on Spain to stay out. Spain joining the Axis is likely to see Gibraltar fall, but it is difficult to see how Spain would suddenly drop her demand for her pound of flesh from France. If Spain does this, Mussolini isn’t going to sit back and allow it to happen.
Hitler doesn’t need this aggro with the impending attack on the USSR. He may simply realise that having Spain in the fold is not worth the aggravation. Alternatively Hitler could decide that now is the time for the reckoning with France (obviously all this would depend on time available ahead of Barbarossa). But Vichy could be dissolved, the remainder of France occupied and the parts of the empire in Axis hands are carved up between Germany, Spain, Italy and….. Turkey who jump at the chance for some Ottoman territories in exchange for joining the Axis camp.
Under this scenario, Britain isn’t giving up and still has all the Dominions intact – but Australia and New Zealand are partially stranded as the Indian Ocean is now available to u-boats operating from the Red Sea. The supply of oil from Persia is now almost certainly in the hands of the USSR as a counter to what by now is an incredibly worrying situation for Stalin that he never foresaw when agreeing to that stupid pact (“where’s Molotov? he’s going to Siberia for his holidays”). U-boats are also operating from Gibraltar and possibly as far south as Morocco.
India’s position is looking incredibly vulnerable now and the situation deteriorates with every passing day. (Subhas Chandra Bose faces the camera, twirls his moustache and gives a cheeky grin).
The point is, there is nowhere really for the British to fight the Axis, other than the air war – and suddenly all those aircraft that Germany had in the Mediterranean are looking for a new home…..
And now… NOW the American isolationist chickens come home to roost. Always best to get into a fight you know you are going to have to get involved in eventually, while you’ve still got allies… and somewhere to fight…..
What is most uncertain about the above (apart from everything) is the timing. When is all this taking place? If Germany begun to move south in the summer of 1940 (no Battle of Britain) or late 1940/early 1941 (Battle of Britain lost) is important. If, as appears likely, they do take Egypt, when does that happen? Does Japan still follow the same steps to war or does anything in Europe make them move sooner? Would the USA realise at any point they’ve made the wrong call and get involved earlier?
When do the Germans attack the USSR? Well a lot depends, as said above, on the time scale for getting through the Med, Africa, the Middle East. How far back do the British fight rear-guard actions? How many losses of aircraft has the Luftwaffe suffered? It’s also interesting to wonder just what level of re-armament has the USSR managed while Germany has been playing in the sand and sea?
quote:
“The major part of the War would have been fought in Africa not Europe”.
Sorry, can’t buy that. I love what-ifs, I love exploring them. But we all have our limits for what we believe should be acceptable when setting parameters. Hitler going for a Med first strategy, not really, but I can go with it because it’s interesting to kick around not least because there are so many moving parts. That Hitler would not attack the Soviet Union and try and achieve Lebensraum? No, that was always going to happen (unless Hitler was defeated before hand) – it was his raison d’etre. If not stopped before he got the chance, Hitler would always have attacked the USSR and this would always be the major part of the war in Europe.
If all the above comes to pass, does this tip the scales and make Barbarossa winnable? Well I think you can make the argument for and against. Whichever way you slice it, the USA is key to the outcome.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/8/2020 9:34:42 AM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 
- but their equipment was hopelessly obsolete by 1942: M13s could fight British early cruisers but against Grants and Shermans had no chance at all. 
), they are too many indeed 
). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread