The use of the term "obliterate" in reference to U-boats in the Atlantic is incorrect. U-boats, like surface to surface missiles, were a form of warfare that was impossible to eradicate because their usage was offensive in nature. At best the Anglo-Americans could neutralize the U-boats such that the investment Germany made in them did not make an adequate return. This is what happened after mid-1944, but even so, it was clear that technological developments towards the end of the war were not favorable to the Allies. One thing to stop a Type VII in 1944. Quite another to keep Liverpool functioning against hundreds or thousands of unsweepable air and submarine laid Oyster mines in 1946!HistoryGeek2019 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2019 03:03A German-Turkish alliance wouldn't have kicked the British out of the Middle East. It didn't kick the British out in WW1, and there's nothing to suggest the result would have been any different in WW2.
And the Middle East wasn't all that important to the Brits in WW2 anyway. The British merchant fleet sailed the long way around Africa, and that wouldn't have changed. The Brits still would have had the backing of the United States, which is all that mattered. The UK and USA would still obliterate the U-boats in the Atlantic and the Luftewaffe over Europe, and landed in France to destroy the rest of the Werhmacht.
WRT to British convoys and the Indian Ocean, if Egypt falls then the Axis will attempt to repair the Suez Canal. If they succeed, then Axis naval power can use the Suez Canal to enter the Red Sea to threaten Aden. Again, as you say, not decisive because Britain's lifeline was to the Americas, not to India. But, by the same token, was there a point at which Churchill decides that he doesn't want to be the PM that loses the whole empire?