warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
I can't see why the nazis would need all these weird detours. The original attack or plan already was good enough. Yes, It was.
Except some particular details (operations in the Balkans pre Barbarossa and panzers diverted to Kiev area from Army Group Centre), the plan worked: destruction of countless Soviet divisions and armies. The amazing fact is not that Hitler's hordes failed. The astonishing fact is that the Soviet colossus somehow survived such utterly catastrophic blows 😳
And this was when the nazis *concentrated* their forces. Now you somehow propose a scheme in which concentration of force is not evident. + 1 year to fortify the border, Frontier districts and producing war materiel... And I'm talking about the USSR.
Think about this. The Red Army could pull both a "Finland" aka a miserable failure or a "Khalkin Gol" aka the utter trashing of Japanese Army units.
So + 1 year, what Red Army are you gunna meet? Wanna gamble? Are you sure? 😝😝😝
And besides all these detours only would make sense if you weaken your future victim. I can't see how these operations would weaken them. I still see the Red flag over the Reichstag in '43 or '44. Serves Hitler's hordes right, for not concentrating his forces and destroying (actually trying) his main enemy or future "India", as it's clear Adolph wanted to emulate the British Empire. The USSR was to be the "jewel". Apéritifs (Spain, Turkey)? What for?
warspite1
Hitler wanted Lebensraum - that was his raison d'etre. But one can understand the logic behind the 'detours' (even if Hitler couldn't see it because he was fixated on the east). But these what-ifs assume his admirals and generals could bring him round.
Hitler wanted to attack the USSR yesterday but there was a little island nation off northwest Europe that was peeing in his cornflakes. Napoleon made the mistake of invading Russia with the British unbeaten and active in Spain. The dreaded two front war. The Kaiser had the same problem.
So two schools of thought;
Attack the USSR and deal with them as quickly as possible - ignore the British and let them carry on making limited trouble in the desert, over Germany, and on the periphery of Hitler's Europe - and accept they may be a potential source of supply for the USSR. This course of action means they can't afford to get things wrong, Germany simply hasn't got the industrial capacity and manpower to be fighting on two fronts for an extended period.
OR
Learn from history, don't risk a two-front war. Before turning on the USSR, knock Britain out of the war so that they can then concentrate exclusively on the Soviets. If Britain can't be defeated directly because the RAF and navy are too strong, then perhaps indirectly by defeating them in the only place they can take the war to the Axis (Desert) and in so doing, take key territories that will make the management of their empire harder, their own survival more difficult AND in so doing, attract would-be nations to the German cause.
Which would be the better course of action? Well we know how things panned out don't we? We know that the USSR (with help from the US/UK) was able to stop the Germans, so when looking at the two options its interesting to consider what could have happened had the alternative approach been tried.
What ifs are fun to explore but it helps if the scenarios are properly thought out and considered. Of course what is 'proper' none of us can really know, but it helps to try and properly think through the various options. What is irritating are simplistic pronouncements like 'blitz through Turkey and Spain' with no appreciation of what that means from a political, military or economic standpoint.
You and I have both made the point that in taking this extreme course of action, even if Germany was successful and they achieve a wiping out of the British from the Mediterranean and the Middle East (and in the tight timescale envisaged), what is the effect on the German armed forces come 1942? Bo Rearguard and I have both made the point that changes to historical events for one side, does not mean the other side has to take its historical path - the situation is dynamic and one can expect reactions.
Without wishing to sound like GoT (actually I do but the references have been ignored  ) there is only one war that matters in Europe. In real life the British refusal to give in was crucial to deflect the Germans both pre and during Barbarossa. Its quite astonishing the number of artillery pieces the Germans had to keep in Germany - artillery that was sorely missed on the Eastern Front. It's eye opening to realise just what % of German aircraft was not in the USSR but having to be employed in the West and the Mediterranean.
But the war that broke the German Army was that in the East. This will decide the fate of Hitler. Even if this simple 'blitz through Spain and Turkey' is successful, nothing has really changed - and certainly not for the better - in terms of the Eastern Front, only that the USSR has had another year to prepare, the Germans finite resources have been further reduced and worst of all perhaps, their attack on the Straits would almost certainly (in my view) bring retaliation from Stalin. And no I don't mean an all out attack. But I do think they would come to the aid of Turkey, I do believe they would immediately stop all shipments of oil, wheat and other resources to Germany and the supply of Turkish Chromium to Germany would immediately be put at risk.
So suddenly (and assuming Spain was dealt with first under this twin blitzkrieg) Gibraltar has fallen but that hasn't radically changed things for the CW in the desert, and now the right pincer of the 'blitz' has been stopped from getting anywhere near Syria and beyond, by a threat to its flanks in Turkey.
Sure, its possible that everything goes well for this 'blitz' and all operations are mopped up super quick by autumn 1941 say. Its been possible because Stalin not only doesn't get involved and is happy for the vital Straits to be in German control  but he doesn't stop any resources going to Germany as per the NS Pact. As a German army starts to build up in Eastern Turkey, Stalin, other than continuing to build up his own forces, simply looks on. Losses to precious aircraft, tanks, trucks etc have been negligible. Everything has gone like clockwork for the Germans.
I say again, even if your dream scenario goes as planned. What has changed?
If everything has gone so well, to the point of ridiculousness, for the Germans they will be a bit stronger materially. Manpower wise they won't be in any better position. They will be less concentrated having to stretch their army to Turkey.
As RangerJoe points out the Soviets will have had a full year to build up their T-34's etc. They will be better fortified. They will have better trained troops. We are talking 1942 so the differential in quality will favour the Soviets.
What about the British? Well they don't have Malta or Egypt to worry about and we'll assume they put extra troops - even some tanks and Hurricanes (or whisper it - Spitfires)! in the Far East and India. Remember, not only are the replacements that went to Egypt now surplus, but all the tanks, aircraft and supplies that went to the Soviet Union are available. Well that's bad news for the Japanese given how close Malaya was..... Imagine Malaya/Singapore with a few Hurricane/Spitfire squadrons, with a few FAA and Coastal Command squadrons and an armoured division or two.......
But moreover, when the fighting comes between the Soviets and the Germans, there will be no more fighting for limited RN resource as to whether to supply the Soviet Union or the Mediterranean. Arctic convoys are going to be bigger and more frequent.
And of course the biggie, the game changer. Assuming they haven't come in earlier because Japan got all excited by the German 'success', the US enter in December 1941* - before the Germans have even had a chance to launch Barbarossa..... Remember about things being dynamic, fluid and changing events affecting both sides? Well the US have a blank slate to work with......
....The French in Northwest Africa are still smarting about how Syria was trampled over....
.... the British still have possessions in the horn of Africa, India and the Middle East from which to counter the German garrison (yet more German troops tied up and away from the Soviet Union) in Egypt....
.... Did Germany take the precaution of occupying Portugal? Might want to think about that Adolf....
If I was Adolf I wouldn't be feelin' this development....
* Roosevelt hasn't got the hindsight we've got re the performance of the USSR. With the Med gone, surely even the isolationists aren't going to pretend they don't need to get involved without Hitler declaring war on them. But again, worst case and let's say they are that dumb, then Roosevelt isn't and he is going to be giving the Soviets and CW everything he can. Historically Torch wasn't until November 1942 so again, even here, nothing changes for the better for Germany even if the US don't join in a shooting war immediately.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 8/12/2020 6:33:13 AM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 
Assuming Germany will never win the war. As a victor Soviets would decide the fate.
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