Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.

Skip to content

What if the Suez was reached by the A.Korps?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today.

Re: What if the Suez was reached by the A.Korps?

Postby Jon G. on 22 Apr 2010 16:34

I've deleted a handful of off-topic posts by Roddoss72 and PatriotTurk.

Stay on topic if you don't want to see your posts deleted. Thank you.

Jon G.
Former member
Denmark
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 01:12
Location: Europe

Re: What if the Suez was reached by the A.Korps?

Postby ljadw on 22 Apr 2010 17:28

no one is denying the bravoure of the Turkish troops.
But
1)given the situation of the Turkish economy,it is highly improbable that Turkey could modernize its armed forces,they would need help from Germany and the Germans had already shortages for their own forces .
2)I doubt that the Turkish railways would be capable to transport and supply an army on the Caucasus .
3)I think that the possibility for a Turkish (or German )army to advance trough the Caucasus and occupy the oil fields would be very small.
4)That the Germans would be able to bring back into limited production the oil fields is an illusion :after the German retreat from the Caucasus,the Russians did not succeed to bring back the oil fields into production for the remainder of the war :they advanced to Berlin without the oil of the Caucasus .

ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if the Suez was reached by the A.Korps?

Postby kfbr392 on 22 Apr 2010 19:06

Von Schadewald wrote:Did Axis aircraft ever try to mine it?


Yes! There were air attacks on the Suez canal, one is recounted here:
http://afrikaaxisallied.blogspot.com/20 ... crete.html


Roddoss72 and PatriotTurk, you might want to continue you discussion on Turkey here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27964&start=120

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Germany
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 24 Jun 2004 16:05
Location: Germany

Re:

Postby resipsaloquitor on 28 Apr 2010 23:10

Tim Smith wrote:If the British decide to LET South Africa break out of the Commonwealth and declare its neutrality, then yes, possibly - that would encourage other British mandates to do the same, especially Iraq and India which might attempt revolt.

But the South Africa ports were vital stopovers and fuelling points for naval vessels and convoys transiting between Britain and India/Australia. Without South Africa, life becomes much more difficult. So Britain might try and hold South Africa by force, treating it as an occupied country.


Centurion wrote:So if South Africa breaks out of the Commonwealth after the Italo-German conquest of the Med and the Mid East ín 1940 it could mean the end of the Empire?


And then the British are pre-occupied with suppressing rebellions and not fighting the Axis, which benefits the Axis. Moreover, if South Africa and India are in open revolt (and Iraq under Axis control), how does the Churchill government find the political resources to stave off a vote of no confidence? How do the British convince the Australians and New Zealanders from saying breaking away to focus on the Japanese threat? To me it seems if the Axis capture the Suez and the Middle East Britain is left only with the support of Canada and a bunch of African backwaters because the rest of the Empire is occupied or in open revolt.

resipsaloquitor
Member
United States
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 20:57

Re: Re:

Postby Roddoss72 on 29 Apr 2010 16:11

resipsaloquitor wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:If the British decide to LET South Africa break out of the Commonwealth and declare its neutrality, then yes, possibly - that would encourage other British mandates to do the same, especially Iraq and India which might attempt revolt.

But the South Africa ports were vital stopovers and fuelling points for naval vessels and convoys transiting between Britain and India/Australia. Without South Africa, life becomes much more difficult. So Britain might try and hold South Africa by force, treating it as an occupied country.


Centurion wrote:So if South Africa breaks out of the Commonwealth after the Italo-German conquest of the Med and the Mid East ín 1940 it could mean the end of the Empire?


And then the British are pre-occupied with suppressing rebellions and not fighting the Axis, which benefits the Axis. Moreover, if South Africa and India are in open revolt (and Iraq under Axis control), how does the Churchill government find the political resources to stave off a vote of no confidence? How do the British convince the Australians and New Zealanders from saying breaking away to focus on the Japanese threat? To me it seems if the Axis capture the Suez and the Middle East Britain is left only with the support of Canada and a bunch of African backwaters because the rest of the Empire is occupied or in open revolt.


They can't, Prime Minister John Curtin would tell Prime Minister Churchill to go to heck and certainly we would pull out and bring home the troops, as i suspect the New Zealanders would also, the worse case scenario is that if the domino effect took place and that it involved India going Axis, then we might however unlikely seek to be incorporated as a state of the USA, essentially if we can't get an assurance from Britian to protect us, then we will go to the Americans as our only saviour.

User avatar
Roddoss72
Former member
Australia
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: 21 Jul 2005 05:44
Location: Australia

Previous

Return to What if

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 3 guests