Oh man...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well, Mr. Kevin has been escorted out of the building, I wish him well in cyberspace.
So
michaelmaltby
, I honestly can care less whether you agree with me or not, however, asking people to disagree in a constructive and civil manner is typically not something adults disagree over.
michaelmaltby
, I honestly can care less whether you agree with me or not, however, asking people to disagree in a constructive and civil manner is typically not something adults disagree over.Greetings GrauGeist,
I had gone back and reread Dimlee's original post and had a similar thought. Assuming a peace was established prior to Stalingrad, the German Army would have the resources to secure pretty much the entirety of North Africa. My feeling is that the principal aim of a renewed Africa campaign wouldn't be east, as you propose, but west to effectively command the Straits of Gibralter and pretty much strangle the Allies ability to send supplies via that route. Commanding the Straits would effectively prevent Operation Torch and the Italian Campaign. Commanding the Strait, and along with it the Mediterranean, would allow the Axis forces to then proceed with an easterly campaign with greater material advantages. One could see where the German Army would be able to proceed to the Suez and close that supply path as well.
From an aviation perspective, it isn't hard to imagine an aggressive air campaign from Morocco to make Gibraltar untenable. I suspect, you would also see greater emphasis on an anti-shipping capable Luftwaffe that had the tools to command the approaches to the Straits as well as the Mediterranean.
On the more imaginative side of this thought exercise. With a German/Soviet Peace you might see developments such as Germany relocating its critical war production further east, out of range of UK based allied strategic bombing. If the peace arrangement were such that Russia was supplying Germany with fuel, you might also see an arrangement where Russia provided Japan with fuel from an eastern port. Japan would still need to ship fuel, but it would be along a much safer route than from the south. Russian fuel might also lead to German high octane aviation gas and higher rated engines. This would give Germany the opportunity to develop aircraft on par with the latest western Allies developments. Then again, North Africa could supply many of the critical materials Germany would need for the war.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
In such a case, would General Franco see which way the wind was blowing and join the Axis?
Good question. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but my feeling is that Spain would maintain the same friendly/neutral stance that had adopted at the start of the war.
- Thread starter
- #68
Good thoughts...
The air campaign against Gibraltar is a very interesting scenario, indeed. Franco is stubborn but Peten and his government are probably easier to bend and they will allow the usage of French Morocco for LW bases. Yet I wonder what Germany will gain strategically? After Stalingrad, its airlifting capacity is limited and landing in Gibraltar is difficult if possible at all. Just the air war for the sake of reducing Allied air strength and for the blockade of the Rock as earlier with Malta?
Relocating war production to the east - absolutely agree. They need time to restore what has been destroyed earlier, of course. But part of the work is done already, for example, DneproGES power station was restored by Germans in 1942 in real history. In this scenario, with the Red Army partly demobilized, there is a large pool of cheap labor.
Same with the oil for Japan. They need some time to help the Soviets in railway management and more engines and rolling stock is needed. After that, regular land deliveries of crude oil to the Far East are feasible. More expensive compared to ocean shipping, but safer.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
If we see the Germans gaining control of all of North Africa and the Middle East, this leaves me to wonder what Great Britain's position would be with India.
Also, if this scenario with the Soviet Union transpired prior to Autumn 1941, would the Japanese still be interested in attacking U.S. assets, or would they press for a reconciliated peace with the U.S. (in response to U.S. embargoes) knowing that they would have access to Soviet oil plus the future prospect of middle east oil.
*IF* this scenario transpires after 7 December 41, then the industrial might of the U.S. has been set in motion and all bets are off.
Also, if this scenario with the Soviet Union transpired prior to Autumn 1941, would the Japanese still be interested in attacking U.S. assets, or would they press for a reconciliated peace with the U.S. (in response to U.S. embargoes) knowing that they would have access to Soviet oil plus the future prospect of middle east oil.
*IF* this scenario transpires after 7 December 41, then the industrial might of the U.S. has been set in motion and all bets are off.
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
If Germany and Italy took control of the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, you would see the U-Boats rampaging in the Indian Ocean for awhile...if that would be serious enough to force Britain to the table is another question.
Greetings Dimlee,
To my thinking an invasion of Gibraltar isn't needed. Its more important for the LW to establish air superiority over the Strait of Gibraltar for blockade purposes and facilitate LW patrol aircraft unimpeded out over the approaches to the Strait. That would be critical to gaining complete control of the Mediterranean. In response to questions about how this would change Britain's position in the global war. I think It significantly changes Britain's ability to contribute to war in the Pacific as a result of losing the shortest route for ships between Europe and Asia via the Suez Canal. After that, I'm not sure. The scenario being described implies a greater collaboration between Germany and Japan and who knows how that would change things?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Gibraltar could be blockaded if the Axis (including the Vichy French) held Morocco.
That would most likely see the garrison eventually capitulate due to dwindling food stores.
That would most likely see the garrison eventually capitulate due to dwindling food stores.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
One thing I haven't seen mentioned much is the relocation of air-defense/flak assets (not to mention field-maintenance/depot maintenance units) to cover Western Europe. More AA guns, more fighters, and more ground organizations to shorten turnaround on damaged airplanes.
That would certainly have made the CBO much more costly. Prohibitively so? I'm not sure. But that seems a reasonable possibility until at least 1944, when US a/c production reached its high point.
Couple that with much larger reserves, and an invasion looks undoable in 44 or 45.
Of course, Hitler in his genius could have sent all the Ostfront units to Norway, whiling away the time playing skat and standing formation.
I'm unsure how this scenario might resonate with the Turks. They always struck me as fairly adept at resisting diplomatic pressures. Even had they indeed joined the Axis, I doubt it would have helped much for German goals in NA/ME theater. Driving down the Levant to Cairo would be a huge undertaking.
Seizing the oilfields in Kirkuk would likely have been attainable. Getting that oil into Germany would have taken much effort, though. Perhaps transshipping through Turkey and across the Black Sea in order to use any spare carriage capacity in Eastern Europe?
That would certainly have made the CBO much more costly. Prohibitively so? I'm not sure. But that seems a reasonable possibility until at least 1944, when US a/c production reached its high point.
Couple that with much larger reserves, and an invasion looks undoable in 44 or 45.
Of course, Hitler in his genius could have sent all the Ostfront units to Norway, whiling away the time playing skat and standing formation.
I'm unsure how this scenario might resonate with the Turks. They always struck me as fairly adept at resisting diplomatic pressures. Even had they indeed joined the Axis, I doubt it would have helped much for German goals in NA/ME theater. Driving down the Levant to Cairo would be a huge undertaking.
Seizing the oilfields in Kirkuk would likely have been attainable. Getting that oil into Germany would have taken much effort, though. Perhaps transshipping through Turkey and across the Black Sea in order to use any spare carriage capacity in Eastern Europe?
- Thread starter
- #74
Agree about AAA relocation to the West and potential impact on CBO. Add to this huge amount of labour from the East available to Speer.
Interesting thoughts on Kirkuk. Pipeline to Haifa/Tripoli existed. If Axis is not able to control Lebanon/Palestine, a new pipeline needs to be constructed. But routes to Turkey and USSR are difficult due to the mountains.
Interesting thoughts on Kirkuk. Pipeline to Haifa/Tripoli existed. If Axis is not able to control Lebanon/Palestine, a new pipeline needs to be constructed. But routes to Turkey and USSR are difficult due to the mountains.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, I don't see any easy way to fetch that oil back to Europe where it's needed. That also assumes the rigs aren't demolished in an Allied retreat.
I hadn't even considered the loss of forced laborers. That's another strong consideration.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #76
Forced labour is lost but "volunteer" labour increases, that what I mean. Fewer numbers probably but higher efficiency. Subject USSR allows its people to travel. And it can be a part of the economic deal. It happened in real life, for example, thousands of Chinese and North Koreans worked in USSR in the timber industry, mining, etc. Soviet citizens were "leased out" by Moscow to work in the foreign shipping, oil industry.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
