The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 12029
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2019 11:24

Problems : distance,bad railways,

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5998
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Nov 2019 11:28

corbulo wrote:
26 Nov 2019 10:48
Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them??
They may not have liked the British and French, but they positively hated the Ottomans/Turks after over 400 years of their occupation!

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1421
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Yuri » 26 Nov 2019 12:50

Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Nov 2019 11:28
corbulo wrote:
26 Nov 2019 10:48
Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them??
They may not have liked the British and French, but they positively hated the Ottomans/Turks after over 400 years of their occupation!
As the Red Army man Sukhov says: "Vostok - delo tonkoe" = "The Orient is a delicate matter".
11:00 - 11:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnqFhc9aho&t=151s.
By the way, all cosmonauts and astronauts watch the film" White sun of the desert" on the night before the flight on "Soyuz". This year this tradition is 50 years old.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5998
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Terry Duncan » 26 Nov 2019 12:54

Yuri wrote:
26 Nov 2019 12:50
Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Nov 2019 11:28
corbulo wrote:
26 Nov 2019 10:48
Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them??
They may not have liked the British and French, but they positively hated the Ottomans/Turks after over 400 years of their occupation!
As the Red Army man Sukhov says: "Vostok - delo tonkoe" = "The Orient is a delicate matter".
11:00 - 11:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnqFhc9aho&t=151s.
By the way, all cosmonauts and astronauts watch the film" White sun of the desert" on the night before the flight on "Soyuz". This year this tradition is 50 years old.
Delicate is certainly true. My great-grandfather served on the NW Frontier during WWI and came away saying that the only thing the locals liked more than killing each other was killing foreigners and that he would have rather spent the war in France - having been transfered from France in Nov 1914.

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 26 Nov 2019 20:22

Terry Duncan wrote:
26 Nov 2019 11:28
corbulo wrote:
26 Nov 2019 10:48
Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them??
They may not have liked the British and French, but they positively hated the Ottomans/Turks after over 400 years of their occupation!
They would have preferred the Germans to the British who had established the proto State of Israel....

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12029
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2019 20:29

There was no state of Israel before WWII .
And without the consent of the Turks (who are not Arabs ) ,the Germans could not invade the ME .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 26 Nov 2019 20:59

ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:29
And without the consent of the Turks (who are not Arabs ) ,the Germans could not invade the ME .
Yes they could.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12029
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2019 21:56

MarkN wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:59
ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:29
And without the consent of the Turks (who are not Arabs ) ,the Germans could not invade the ME .
Yes they could.
In post 60 Corbulo was talking about a German invasion of the ME via Turkey, not about the AK in NA . That's why I said that the Germans could not do it without the consent of Turkey .
And, as Turkey ( as Spain )would only join the Axis after the Axis had won, the whole scenario is irrelevant . Italy joined the Axis because Il Duce was convinced,wrongly, that Germany had won.Spain and Turkey would not make this mistake .Besides the scenario Corbulo is presenting would be a bad Axis strategy, even /especially if it succeeded : there was nothing in the ME except sand and camels, things the Germans did not need About the oil : the Germans could not use it and did not need it . Britain also did not need the oil of the ME .
The whole importance of the ME in WWII is something that has been transposed from 2019 to 1940 . There is a word for this ,but sadly enough I have lost it .You can't transpose the economic and political realities of 1940 to 2019 and vice versa .When Corbulo talks about a Turkish/Arab army of millions , he thinks on the today population of Turkey : 83 million, but he forget,or is unaware that 80 years ago the population of Turkey was 17.8 million .When he talks about the importance of the ME in 1940, he thinks on the oilfields of the Emirates,KSA, Irak,Iran. But in 1940 the oil production of the Emirates and KSA was insignifiant and that of Iraq was 3.4 million, lower than that of Germany which was 4.8 million ton .And, as a lot of people, he thinks that,because the economy of most countries is today running on oil, it was also so in 1940 ,while the truth is that in 1940 the economy of most countries was running on coal .
Oil is something very recent . In 1945 coal was still more important in the US than oil, in 1948 oil was good for only 10 % of the British Energy Mix .In 2000 ( 20 years ago only ) most electricity in Germany was produced by coal .In 1960 coal was still the number one in the US, not oil .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 26 Nov 2019 22:08

ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 21:56
MarkN wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:59
ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:29
And without the consent of the Turks (who are not Arabs ) ,the Germans could not invade the ME .
Yes they could.
In post 60 Corbulo was talking about a German invasion of the ME via Turkey, not about the AK in NA . That's why I said that the Germans could not do it without the consent of Turkey .

[wall of words snipped to save bandwidth]
They could do it without the consent of Turkey. Or at least they could have tried. That's why they studied it and put together a tentative plan to attack Turkey.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 26 Nov 2019 22:12

corbulo wrote:
26 Nov 2019 10:48
It would depend when in the war Turkey joined in. Fact is Turkey bordered the Caucusus and Syria, wider Middle East (including Egypt). They could have easily supplied and provided safe passage to any german force in the area and bolstered it. Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them?? How big were British forces in Iraq, for example...? I mean, the Germans conquered Yugoslavia and Greece in a matter of weeks on 1941. What problems could they have encountered with Turkish and Arab support...?
Well for starters the Turks wanted nothing to do with the war. How is Turkish support going to gained? The Coup in Iraq was hardly widely supported either there was o mass support by the Arab population.

What problems, well logistics. Evey thing has to use the dodgy Turkish rail or be trucked At some put trucked supplies stop working as more of the load is consumed by fuel. And once at the End of dodgy low volume Turkish rail it's back to trucking.


The Railways in Turkey were not high volume so only a small force could be supported and only at great Turkish expense as it would deny the Turks the use of their own railway.


And the Soviets. Any move of German units into Turkey is not going to be well received.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 26 Nov 2019 23:41

pugsville wrote:
26 Nov 2019 22:12

Well for starters the Turks wanted nothing to do with the war. How is Turkish support going to gained? The Coup in Iraq was hardly widely supported either there was o mass support by the Arab population.
The Soviets wanted a chunk of Turkey plus control of the straits, the Italians wanted another chunk of Turkey as would the Bulgarians so the Turks would have no friends other than the Germans, they can let the Germans pass or they can be picked apart by the axis like a ripe melon, Armenians, Greeks and Kurds would no doubt have a lot of fun with the Turkish civilians on what used to be Turkey if they want to play tough, which they didnt, because they were already haggling over the price to sellout the Brits (Hitler didnt like the price, decided to ask again after Barbarossa if at all needed).
What problems, well logistics. Evey thing has to use the dodgy Turkish rail or be trucked At some put trucked supplies stop working as more of the load is consumed by fuel. And once at the End of dodgy low volume Turkish rail it's back to

The Railways in Turkey were not high volume so only a small force could be supported and only at great Turkish expense as it would deny the Turks the use of their own railway.
To deal with the small UK forces there? More than enough and the Turks get to survive and even get a couple Greek islands.
And the Soviets. Any move of German units into Turkey is not going to be well received.
Allowing the passage of Soviet warships through the straits can make the situation more bearable for them.

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 27 Nov 2019 00:59

ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 20:29
There was no state of Israel before WWII .
And without the consent of the Turks (who are not Arabs ) ,the Germans could not invade the ME .
Thats why i wrote 'proto' State of Israel. Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine were on the point of rebelling against the British during the mid 1930s. Consent of the Turks was my counterfactual...

pugsville
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 27 Nov 2019 02:14

JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41

The Soviets wanted a chunk of Turkey plus control of the straits, the Italians wanted another chunk of Turkey as would the Bulgarians so the Turks would have no friends other than the Germans, they can let the Germans pass or they can be picked apart by the axis like a ripe melon, Armenians, Greeks and Kurds would no doubt have a lot of fun with the Turkish civilians on what used to be Turkey if they want to play tough, which they didnt, because they were already haggling over the price to sellout the Brits (Hitler didnt like the price, decided to ask again after Barbarossa if at all needed).
You have a source for the Turkish-German negotiations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... Friendship

Like to know what the Germans forces the envisaged

tranist was.

"In the meantime, on 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani launched a military coup d'état that overthrew the pro-British regime in Iraq. The four generals leading the revolt were working closely with German intelligence, and accepted military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. In exchange, the Turkish government demanded border concessions from Iraq. As the negotiations were taking place, British forces attacked Iraq. Between 18 April and 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The issue between Turkey and Germany was resolved with this development. The German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship was signed on 18 June 1941"


"In October 1941, Turkey and Germany signed the "Clodius Agreement" (named after the German negotiator, Karl Clodius), whereby Turkey agreed to export up 45,000 tons of chromite ore to Germany in 1941-1942, and 90,000 tons of the mineral in each of 1943 and 1944, contingent on Germany's supplies of military equipment to Turkey. The Germans were to provide as many as 117 railway locomotives and 1,250 freight rail cars to transport the ore. "

--------

Nations can be touchy about their sovereignty and don't roll over just because defense seems unlikely. Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939. Turks can be stubborn. Threats can often lead to intransigence. If Turkey chooses to fight it's not an easy campaign.

JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41
To deal with the small UK forces there? More than enough and the Turks get to survive and even get a couple Greek islands.
I agree that even a small force could cause serous difficulties for Britain in the middle East. Though there are plenty of problems for both. There's not much threat to the Suez with out also invading Vichy Syria which has it;s own complications.
JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41
Allowing the passage of Soviet warships through the straits can make the situation more bearable for them.
I'm not sure that woudl reassure Stalin at all. German forces in Turkey in my opinion (and that's all it is) would be pretty unacceptable to Stain.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 27 Nov 2019 03:17

pugsville wrote:
27 Nov 2019 02:14
JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41

The Soviets wanted a chunk of Turkey plus control of the straits, the Italians wanted another chunk of Turkey as would the Bulgarians so the Turks would have no friends other than the Germans, they can let the Germans pass or they can be picked apart by the axis like a ripe melon, Armenians, Greeks and Kurds would no doubt have a lot of fun with the Turkish civilians on what used to be Turkey if they want to play tough, which they didnt, because they were already haggling over the price to sellout the Brits (Hitler didnt like the price, decided to ask again after Barbarossa if at all needed).
You have a source for the Turkish-German negotiations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2 ... Friendship

Like to know what the Germans forces the envisaged
I read on this a looong time ago, IIRC the source was von Ribbentrop's diary.
"In the meantime, on 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani launched a military coup d'état that overthrew the pro-British regime in Iraq. The four generals leading the revolt were working closely with German intelligence, and accepted military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. In exchange, the Turkish government demanded border concessions from Iraq. As the negotiations were taking place, British forces attacked Iraq. Between 18 April and 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The issue between Turkey and Germany was resolved with this development. The German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship was signed on 18 June 1941"


"In October 1941, Turkey and Germany signed the "Clodius Agreement" (named after the German negotiator, Karl Clodius), whereby Turkey agreed to export up 45,000 tons of chromite ore to Germany in 1941-1942, and 90,000 tons of the mineral in each of 1943 and 1944, contingent on Germany's supplies of military equipment to Turkey. The Germans were to provide as many as 117 railway locomotives and 1,250 freight rail cars to transport the ore. "
Yeah, as you can see from your own quote the Turks didnt refuse, they put a price and the Germans lost interest after the Iraqis folded plus they were off to invade the Soviets anyway, in this scenario were there is no Barbarossa the Germans would be far more motivated.
Nations can be touchy about their sovereignty and don't roll over just because defense seems unlikely. Belgium in 1914, Poland in 1939. Turks can be stubborn. Threats can often lead to intransigence. If Turkey chooses to fight it's not an easy campaign.
The Turks were very pragmatic, when France collapsed and Italy declared war they became neutral, they didnt join the UK as stipulated by its alliance... plus they put a price, so it wasnt a matter of principle.
JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41
To deal with the small UK forces there? More than enough and the Turks get to survive and even get a couple Greek islands.
I agree that even a small force could cause serous difficulties for Britain in the middle East. Though there are plenty of problems for both. There's not much threat to the Suez with out also invading Vichy Syria which has it;s own complications.
Many weapons and resources for the Iraqis came from Syria at German request, the intent to cooperate was there already and the LW Bf 110s refueled there...
JAG13 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 23:41
Allowing the passage of Soviet warships through the straits can make the situation more bearable for them.
I'm not sure that woudl reassure Stalin at all. German forces in Turkey in my opinion (and that's all it is) would be pretty unacceptable to Stain.
I doubt he would have gone to war in 1941 over it, he wasnt ready.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by thaddeus_c » 27 Nov 2019 03:57

ljadw wrote:
26 Nov 2019 08:35
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 03:07
thaddeus_c wrote:
25 Nov 2019 23:58
mezsat2 wrote:
22 Nov 2019 09:28
The problem with knocking out GB and leaving Stalin at large is they have a permanent enormous threat to the East. Stalin had no intention of honoring the non-aggression pact. This is beyond discussion based on the historical record- he was buying time only.

Certainly, the assumption has to be that GB will not ever accept permanent German rule under these circumstances. The fleet remains intact. Much of their empire remains. The majority of Africa is wide open to a vast, uncontested landing by U.S. and imperial forces.

I've made no headway through the years with this argument, but Hitler's only chance of success in this conflict would be to simply withdraw from the British tussle once their army is kicked off the continent. The entire focus then becomes the USSR. With just a modicum of assistance of the Japanese in drawing off Stalin's reserve forces in Siberia and temporarily (perhaps permanently) foregoing aggression against the USA, Barbarossa succeeds.
my speculation is always for Germany to seize the Baltic and Black Seas, while invading up to Leningrad and Rostov, as they could be supplied (at least partly) by sea.

by skipping the Battle of Britain, they would have spared the worst of the LW losses, and have more force to pursue Soviet industry and hydroelectric plants.

while the Soviet oil is a mirage for the Germans (IMO) the coal reserves were within their grasp?
This is a good plan. Germany conquered the coal in the Donbass in 1941/42. This would have gone a long way toward solving Germany's coal shortage if they had focused on utilizing the coal mines, but that didn't happen until 1943 when it was too late. Hitler should have listened to Fromm and gone over to the defensive on all fronts in 1942. That might have allowed Germany to hold out another year or so.
And what would have happen after that year ?
About the coal : German occupation of the Donbass could not solve German coal shortage ( if this existed ) as it was impossible to transport millions of tons of coal in wartime from the Donbass to Germany .
What happened is that the loss of the Donbass was hurting the Soviet economy, more than what the loss of the Caucasian oil could do , but even then the Soviets were able to catch this loss .

In 1940 most Soviet trains were running on coal, in 1945 most Soviet trains were running on wood
And although the Soviets were hurt by the loss of the Donbass they were able to replace this loss
my scenario envisions using producer gas vehicles (the water tank size attachments or trailers) which can burn coal, so it would alleviate some of their fuel shortages. shipping coal (on coal fired ships) all the way to the Danube and onward (of course supplying their Balkan allies along the way)

if they are in control of Donbass, one can assume they have control over most of Ukraine farmland? while the Soviets were "swimming" in oil, holding that grain producing region until perhaps 1943(?) would have severe results.

Return to “What if”