Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#76

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Oct 2020, 03:57

Glenn239 wrote:The power of Anglo-American airpower suggests that Germany's oil industry could not have maintained adequate production.
But it didn't suggest as much to contemporary leaders. I'm not offering that historical fact as conclusive, only as a suggestion that your conclusion may be skewed by hindsight application of OTL's air war.

More significantly, you're right that AA airpower would lead to oil industry's destruction if you're right that AA airpower would be decisively stronger. As that's the matter in dispute...
Glenn239 wrote:x2 for sure. x3? Not sure on x3. But with the Soviet Union as a German ally, then you can get to x3 for sure, and maybe even where the Axis are outproducing the Allies in combat aircraft by 1945.
I disagree on the directional impact of the SU on LW production. If un-Barbarossa'd RKKA with 600 divisions is sitting on Germany's border, the Heer gets more production than it would if the SU has been beaten: It needs only ~40 mediocre divisions for occupation but needs >150 to watch the border if the SU is un-Barbarossa'd.

Furthermore, Germany benefitted immensely from Soviet forced labor, would have benefitted more had it beat SU, and benefits not at all in your ATL.
Glenn239 wrote: to me x3 would be about 180,000 German planes and x2 would be 120,000. This, assuming that German 1944 aircraft production (about 39,000) would have been more like 60,000 without the Allied strategic bombing campaign.
OK we're using different assumptions on bombing's impact (I was being more conservative) but arriving at roughly the same German production numbers.

...which usefully clarifies things.

But it also prompts me to ask: How do the Allies accomplish total air supremacy everywhere against 150,000 Axis plane production?

Your ATL seems to assume that German training programs collapse as in OTL but that again assumes the successful oil campaign that relies on total aerial dominance. Seems circular.
Glenn239 wrote:Counter question - if Stalin did take the deal and destroyed the British Empire in 1942 (no Japanese attack on the Americans in 1941), do you think Churchill would fall and that the US would enter the war, or do you think that the British would cut their losses and make peace, and the US would stay clear of Europe?
In your ATL I agree that Britain would make peace. Even Churchill probably would have done so. I also agree that absent PH and absent Hitler DoW'ing the US, America probably stays out as well. There's IMO no way for the Anglosphere to beat Germany and/or Japan if fighting both at once; add the SU to the equation and it's even more clear.
Glenn239 wrote:Put it another way - what other possible strategy could Germany have pursued that would have ruptured the Anglo-American alliance? (Sealion?)
My other thread gives good evidence of exactly this rupture opening had Germany beaten the SU:
As early as April–May, OPD, G-2, and the joint committees had begun to explore
the appropriate response should this ‘‘desperate situation’’ result in a Soviet collapse, and in early August
the JSSC completed and forwarded to the JPS a massive
study of such a contingency. This study indicated that Russian collapse would be
a ‘‘catastrophe’’ of such magnitude as to put the United States in a ‘‘desperate’’
situation too, one in which it ‘‘would be forced to consider courses of action
which would primarily benefit the United States rather than the United Nations.’’


A revival of isolationism and an ‘‘increase
in defeatism’’ within the country were also possible in this scenario. Even without
British withdrawal, however, the only sound U.S. response to a Soviet collapse
would be to ‘‘adopt the strategic defensive in the European Theater of War and to
conduct the strategic offensive in the Japanese theater.’’
There was, IMO, no way to invade Japan in my ATL while simultaneously prosecuting war in Europe. There was no way, IMO, that the American public would have abided an indefinite and possibly losing war against Germany+Japan when peace with Germany would allow defeat of Japan.

I can't emphasize enough how much SU's fall changes in the Pacific as well as in Europe. Kwantung Army is freed up, meaning China falls. With China occupied the Japanese industrial complexes of Manchuria and Korea are bomb-proof until the 1950's. India is highly endangered by the land routes from southern China to Burma. America probably has to invade China to beat Japan.

In that ATL, there's no way beat Japan while fighting Germany and no way to beat Germany while fighting Japan (or at all). The choice of Japan seems clear. Britain would have to deal with that.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#77

Post by Peter89 » 28 Oct 2020, 09:13

glenn239 wrote:
27 Oct 2020, 18:55
Peter89 wrote:
26 Oct 2020, 20:48
What do you mean by that the Germans were unable to reach Iraq? How so? First of all, they did, landed a number of aircrafts and personnel. Second, the Vichy reinforcement attempts via sea from Saloniki were doomed to fail mostly because the Germans didn't provide them air cover.
I don't know enough about the particulars to go beyond initial impressions, which are that Iraq was at a sufficient distance from Germany that British sea power can probably outdo German land power for the overall logistics picture. Indian troops should also be available, as per the arrangement in WW1 where Indian troops fought along the Euphrates. If the Germans managed to capture Iraq, they could not exploit its oil production capacity because they could not transport oil from Iraq to Europe in meaningful quantities.

These objections should not apply to the Soviet Union. Their logistics and forces would vastly exceed anything the British could bring to the table, and their logistics should be able to extract more oil from Iraq to the Soviet Union that Germany could from Iraq. Iran was probably an even better theatre for Soviet explotation due to the Caspian Sea. The idea for German strategy is that if Germany cannot exploit the Middle East, then it could seek that the Soviet Union takes it and compensates Germany with oil from Soviet production for the arrangement.
To sum it up, the British were only able to destroy the Iraqi rebellion and capture the Vichy Levant because the Axis did not care. The Iraqis both outnumbered and outgunned the British at RAF Habbaniya, what they lacked was essentially military expertise. Nothing that an expeditionary force of 1-2 divisions couldn't provide.

What the British were able to scrap together (Habforce) could have been destroyed en route in the desert - they barely escaped this fate - because of the lack of air recon.

The British could defeat the various Axis and neutral forces in the theatre because they could face them piecemeal, something a strategy would never allow.

As for the oil: it would make no sense to import the oil back to Germany to the last drop. Why would that help? The Germans could operate their units from local resources instead of transporting it back and forth. The Abadan (the world's biggest), Haifa and Tripoli refineries could process most of the crude in the region to some degree, making all logistical operations on the frontiers easier. Interdictions of the pipelines didn't make much sense because the Germans could easily replace both the pipes and the pumping stations. Moreover, with von Blomberg (who died accidentally) came a miniature avgas refinery for the Iraqi crude; the story of the Tripoli "pocket refinery" (built during a British blockade) is also a testament how feasible it was to refine the crude in ME.

Without an eastern front and with the POL supplies from the SU, as well the increased production of continental Europe, I am sceptical about a fuel shortage in Germany before the window of opportunities would close anyway.

Another question is what we call "the Middle East", because in 1940 the wells and the refinery in Bahrein were also major players in POL production, with an output over 10,000 bpd of refined products, not to mention Saudi Arabia.

As for the Soviet participation, I agree with it in general, but I am sceptical about how it could be done. The Soviet offensive capabilities were not limitless, however, a warm water port with open sea access was and is a long-desired goal of the Soviet Russians. But granting them access to the Persian Gulf would effectively destroy all achievements by the Germans in the ME. Also, it wasn't really the Soviets' goal, they wanted a sea access like modern day Pakistan has. Giving themsea access in the Persian Gulf would be like the Black or the Baltic sea: a double-enclosed sea access with ports easily in range of enemy air power.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."


User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#78

Post by Ironmachine » 28 Oct 2020, 10:20

OldBill wrote:I'm going to throw some ideas here. IOTL Franco's list of what he wanted to join Hitler's war was designed to be large enough to be difficult for Hitler to approve. Giving Vichy French territory to Spain means Vichy is no more, those colonies will declare for DeGaulle, the Navy will sail for N. Africa or the Caribbean, and they join the Allies as Free French. Hitler knows this, Franco knows this. Yet (unless I missed it earlier in the thread) it wasn't addressed.
Well, Franco certainly did have territorial ambitions, so his list of territories was not only designed to trouble Hitler. And yes, of course Franco was well aware that those territories were not under German control and would have imagined that Hitler, if having to choose between Spain and Vichy France, could well choose to forget the issue of Spain's participation. On the other hand, the weaponry and oil and food supplies and the likes which were also an important part of Franco's list, while also difficult for Hitler to approve, they were really needed. Whether the Spaniards knew that Germany could not supply those materials in the quantities needed or not is debatable, but they were a real need .
In any case, Franco was sailing through troubled waters: he needed to ask for as much as possible to make it difficult for Hitler to accept, but not so much that he could be seen as wasting time in negotiations because Hitler could always move his forces into Spain.
OldBill wrote:In the discussion so far, it's been a case of "Hitler forces Spain to join" or "Spain joins willingly", no one has offered the other possibility, Franco tells Hitler "FO", and goes down swinging. Would he win by himself? Of course not. And a fully occupied Spain is going to be worse for Spain in the short term, Franco knows this. But he can opt to go to one of the Spanish Colonies and carry on the war from there. Why would he? Aside from betting long term on the BE, and the possibility of the US and or the SU entering the war, Franco is also aware that whatever Hitler promises, he can also take. Spain would be occupied, regardless of whatever Hitler's had promised.
Well, the only possible destinies of Franco if he did that would have been Western Sahara, the Canaries or Guinea Ecuatorial. Neither of those territories would allow him to do anything else, he would be completely isolated from the war and could do nothing with the forces he had available in those territories. He could not expect a triumphant return to Spain after the war if the Germans win but probably neither if the Allies win, because in that case they could and would have installed a regimen more to their taste in Spain. IMHO, if the situation reached that stage and Hitler is really decided to force Spain's entry in the war, Franco would have declared war on the British. But of course that's just my opinion.
OldBill wrote:What of the Canaries? How strong are the defenses there? There is no great battleship stationed there, no strong naval force comparable to what the MN had at Dakar. IMO the RN and the army will be able to both take and hold the place.
There was no naval force worth of that name, weak air forces (just 24 x CR.32s, with little fuel and spare parts) and weak land forces, more or less the equivalent of a Spanish infantry division (Spanish infantry divisions were quite weak even on paper) distributed among the islands. Coastal artillery was old and weak and there were many invasion points to defend. Moral was not high.
OldBill wrote:Liberia. Was that included in the area to be given to Franco?
AFAIK, Franco had no interest in Liberia and never mentioned it.
OldBill wrote:The last item. What's to keep the US from occupying either the Azores or the Canaries? We are talking about a more aggressive Hitler, and that fact will NOT have escaped the US. Do you believe the US wont react if Hitler seems likely to concur most of North Africa? I do not. I think the US will react strongly, possibly up to a DOW. While too weak to send major forces to the continent, launching an amphibious operation against the Azores or Canaries is within the capabilities of the US (and yes I know how badly it will be done compared to an operation in 1944), nor is a certainty that depending on Salazar or Franco's actions (fighting against the Germans instead of with them) the US or British might not simply be able to occupy the islands without fighting.
Yep, that's possible. However, that's the problem with what-if. We are just giving our opinions, playing with the possible and the probable, and we will never really know what would have happened.
Regards.

OldBill
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 04 Mar 2012, 10:19

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#79

Post by OldBill » 28 Oct 2020, 11:17

Ironmachine wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 10:20
OldBill wrote:I'm going to throw some ideas here. IOTL Franco's list of what he wanted to join Hitler's war was designed to be large enough to be difficult for Hitler to approve. Giving Vichy French territory to Spain means Vichy is no more, those colonies will declare for DeGaulle, the Navy will sail for N. Africa or the Caribbean, and they join the Allies as Free French. Hitler knows this, Franco knows this. Yet (unless I missed it earlier in the thread) it wasn't addressed.
Well, Franco certainly did have territorial ambitions, so his list of territories was not only designed to trouble Hitler. And yes, of course Franco was well aware that those territories were not under German control and would have imagined that Hitler, if having to choose between Spain and Vichy France, could well choose to forget the issue of Spain's participation. On the other hand, the weaponry and oil and food supplies and the likes which were also an important part of Franco's list, while also difficult for Hitler to approve, they were really needed. Whether the Spaniards knew that Germany could not supply those materials in the quantities needed or not is debatable, but they were a real need .
In any case, Franco was sailing through troubled waters: he needed to ask for as much as possible to make it difficult for Hitler to accept, but not so much that he could be seen as wasting time in negotiations because Hitler could always move his forces into Spain.
OldBill wrote:In the discussion so far, it's been a case of "Hitler forces Spain to join" or "Spain joins willingly", no one has offered the other possibility, Franco tells Hitler "FO", and goes down swinging. Would he win by himself? Of course not. And a fully occupied Spain is going to be worse for Spain in the short term, Franco knows this. But he can opt to go to one of the Spanish Colonies and carry on the war from there. Why would he? Aside from betting long term on the BE, and the possibility of the US and or the SU entering the war, Franco is also aware that whatever Hitler promises, he can also take. Spain would be occupied, regardless of whatever Hitler's had promised.
Well, the only possible destinies of Franco if he did that would have been Western Sahara, the Canaries or Guinea Ecuatorial. Neither of those territories would allow him to do anything else, he would be completely isolated from the war and could do nothing with the forces he had available in those territories. He could not expect a triumphant return to Spain after the war if the Germans win but probably neither if the Allies win, because in that case they could and would have installed a regimen more to their taste in Spain. IMHO, if the situation reached that stage and Hitler is really decided to force Spain's entry in the war, Franco would have declared war on the British. But of course that's just my opinion.
OldBill wrote:What of the Canaries? How strong are the defenses there? There is no great battleship stationed there, no strong naval force comparable to what the MN had at Dakar. IMO the RN and the army will be able to both take and hold the place.
There was no naval force worth of that name, weak air forces (just 24 x CR.32s, with little fuel and spare parts) and weak land forces, more or less the equivalent of a Spanish infantry division (Spanish infantry divisions were quite weak even on paper) distributed among the islands. Coastal artillery was old and weak and there were many invasion points to defend. Moral was not high.
OldBill wrote:Liberia. Was that included in the area to be given to Franco?
AFAIK, Franco had no interest in Liberia and never mentioned it.
OldBill wrote:The last item. What's to keep the US from occupying either the Azores or the Canaries? We are talking about a more aggressive Hitler, and that fact will NOT have escaped the US. Do you believe the US wont react if Hitler seems likely to concur most of North Africa? I do not. I think the US will react strongly, possibly up to a DOW. While too weak to send major forces to the continent, launching an amphibious operation against the Azores or Canaries is within the capabilities of the US (and yes I know how badly it will be done compared to an operation in 1944), nor is a certainty that depending on Salazar or Franco's actions (fighting against the Germans instead of with them) the US or British might not simply be able to occupy the islands without fighting.
Yep, that's possible. However, that's the problem with what-if. We are just giving our opinions, playing with the possible and the probable, and we will never really know what would have happened.
Regards.
Thanks Ironmachine.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#80

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Oct 2020, 13:15

Peter89 wrote:To sum it up, the British were only able to destroy the Iraqi rebellion and capture the Vichy Levant because the Axis did not care. The Iraqis both outnumbered and outgunned the British at RAF Habbaniya, what they lacked was essentially military expertise. Nothing that an expeditionary force of 1-2 divisions couldn't provide.

The Germans could operate their units from local resources instead of transporting it back and forth. The Abadan (the world's biggest), Haifa and Tripoli refineries could process most of the crude in the region to some degree
Some infeasible aspects of this scheme:
  • Having enough Ju-52's to support significant combat operations at these ranges.
  • Ju-52's flying past Cyprus (from Rhodes) or Palestine (from Libya/Egypt) safely.
  • If sea LoC envisioned after taking Levant, somehow evading the RN in Eastern Med.
  • The British leaving Abadan/Haifa intact or the possibility of airlifting replacement machinery. The British allowing oil to reach Tripoli.
  • The British not being able to defeat 1-2 divisions that have no viable LoC, even if only after a months-long Axis occupation of Iraq.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#81

Post by Terry Duncan » 28 Oct 2020, 15:41

This matter of bribing Franco with more land that Spain can garrison or even afford to run is interesting as none of the land is actually valuable for exploitation even if the RN can be stopped from blockading it. The other issue that has not been mentioned so far is that this offer is very, very similar to the Zimmerman offer to Mexico in WWII. It is offering land that is not owned and cannot be taken by force in order to gain an alliance with a nation that will be destroyed by the war it is asked to commit itself to.

What is the US going to say when this offer becomes known? They were not happy at the Italian attitude when it declared war on France, or when Japan took French Indo-China because the French couldnt prevent it, so seeing this brazen attempt to start a new 'Continental System' such as Napoleon tried is unlikely to go down well at all. Hitler made a commitment to Roosevelt that he had no intention to annex a lot of nations, so giving away other nations territories to third party nations is unlikely to be seen in the spirit of such a commitment. I cannot see this proposal being acceptable to Spain under any circumstances, and quite possibly not to the US either.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#82

Post by Peter89 » 28 Oct 2020, 19:44

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 13:15
Peter89 wrote:To sum it up, the British were only able to destroy the Iraqi rebellion and capture the Vichy Levant because the Axis did not care. The Iraqis both outnumbered and outgunned the British at RAF Habbaniya, what they lacked was essentially military expertise. Nothing that an expeditionary force of 1-2 divisions couldn't provide.

The Germans could operate their units from local resources instead of transporting it back and forth. The Abadan (the world's biggest), Haifa and Tripoli refineries could process most of the crude in the region to some degree
Some infeasible aspects of this scheme:
  • Having enough Ju-52's to support significant combat operations at these ranges.
  • Ju-52's flying past Cyprus (from Rhodes) or Palestine (from Libya/Egypt) safely.
  • If sea LoC envisioned after taking Levant, somehow evading the RN in Eastern Med.
  • The British leaving Abadan/Haifa intact or the possibility of airlifting replacement machinery. The British allowing oil to reach Tripoli.
  • The British not being able to defeat 1-2 divisions that have no viable LoC, even if only after a months-long Axis occupation of Iraq.
- the Ju-52s (and other transport aircraft btw) don't have to maintain units there (their numbers were well above for the ferry task)
- it wasn't a problem in history and it wouldn't be a problem in any case, the RAF units in the area were equipped with obsolete planes, and they couldn't be reinforced substantially in the given timeframe
- that's the core of the misunderstanding here, the Levant doesn't have to be taken, it was in Axis hands already. It had to be kept, with local depots of food, weapons, ammunition, oil, etc. These matêriel were well beyond the needs of defeating the British troops there, but with the exception of heavy equipment, everything was there or could be airlifted there (=trained soldiers and officiers).
- the British had to defeat more than 1-2 divisions in the ME
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#83

Post by Gooner1 » 29 Oct 2020, 12:18

Peter89 wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 19:44
- that's the core of the misunderstanding here, the Levant doesn't have to be taken, it was in Axis hands already. It had to be kept, with local depots of food, weapons, ammunition, oil, etc. These matêriel were well beyond the needs of defeating the British troops there, but with the exception of heavy equipment, everything was there or could be airlifted there (=trained soldiers and officiers).
- the British had to defeat more than 1-2 divisions in the ME
Lebanon and Syria were in Vichy French hands only until 14th July 1941. The British defeating the equivalent of 4 French divisions in taking it.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#84

Post by Peter89 » 29 Oct 2020, 13:39

Gooner1 wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 12:18
Peter89 wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 19:44
- that's the core of the misunderstanding here, the Levant doesn't have to be taken, it was in Axis hands already. It had to be kept, with local depots of food, weapons, ammunition, oil, etc. These matêriel were well beyond the needs of defeating the British troops there, but with the exception of heavy equipment, everything was there or could be airlifted there (=trained soldiers and officiers).
- the British had to defeat more than 1-2 divisions in the ME
Lebanon and Syria were in Vichy French hands only until 14th July 1941. The British defeating the equivalent of 4 French divisions in taking it.
I'd rather say the equivalent of 2 divisions (7 regular and 11 colonial battalions), but yes.

Furthermore, the Iraqis had about 4 divisions, the Iranians had 16 divisions (although light ones, in reality they equalled like 9, and not all of them faced the British), plus Italian East Africa had about 10 divisions, although it's always hard to translate the combat worth of the colonial troops and the subdivisional units into "divisions".

The British defeated about 20 "divisions" in the theatre with far fewer of their own, often using the same forces.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#85

Post by glenn239 » 29 Oct 2020, 22:28

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 03:57
I disagree on the directional impact of the SU on LW production. If un-Barbarossa'd RKKA with 600 divisions is sitting on Germany's border, the Heer gets more production than it would if the SU has been beaten: It needs only ~40 mediocre divisions for occupation but needs >150 to watch the border if the SU is un-Barbarossa'd.
Germany does not require 150 divisions to watch the Russians because 150 divisions can't stop the Red Army anyways. Germany can do just fine with maybe 40 divisions in the East and rely on political tactics to keep the Soviets onside.

If Germany builds 80,000 aircraft in 1944 and the Soviets build 50,000, the Japanese 30,000 and the Italians 8,000, then that would be 168,000 aircraft built by the Axis, which would exceed Allied 1944 aircraft production. The other factor is oil production. If the Germans seek alliance with the Soviets then the SU oil production will increase from 33 million tons in 1940 instead of falling off with the invasion. Then, factor in the possibility of Iranian and Iraqi production under Soviet control.
Furthermore, Germany benefitted immensely from Soviet forced labor, would have benefitted more had it beat SU, and benefits not at all in your ATL.
It's about aircraft production and oil. The Soviets are able to build more aircraft without a German invasion, and the Germans can export their synthetic oil technology to allow the Soviets to ramp up their own oil production to the scale that can supply the Axis.
Your ATL seems to assume that German training programs collapse as in OTL but that again assumes the successful oil campaign that relies on total aerial dominance. Seems circular.
The Allies do not need aerial dominance to knock out Germany's oil industry. They can do it with air parity and increasing accuracy of bombing even through massive losses to LW defenses. The LW simply did not have the ability to stop them with 1940's air warfare technology. They can shoot down tens of thousands of planes, but hundreds of thousands will complete their bombing missions, and do so with increasingly pinpoint accuracy.
Glenn239 wrote: My other thread gives good evidence of exactly this rupture opening had Germany beaten the SU
I don't think that happens. If Germany beats the Soviet Union then the US can make peace with Japan if necessary by throwing China under the bus. This will open up the TSRR to allow the Americans to bolster Stalin's rump position east of the Urals. The US can then transfer its Pacific forces to the Atlantic and pick off Scandinavia and North Africa in preparation for an air campaign from 1944 onwards. Washington will not make peace with Germany once at war with Germany.
‘‘adopt the strategic defensive in the European Theater of War and to
conduct the strategic offensive in the Japanese theater.’’
So the only difference between what I just wrote and what the US military brass concluded was that they would beat Japan first before turning to Europe.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#86

Post by Andy H » 07 Nov 2020, 22:57

Peter89 wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 19:44
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 13:15
Peter89 wrote:To sum it up, the British were only able to destroy the Iraqi rebellion and capture the Vichy Levant because the Axis did not care. The Iraqis both outnumbered and outgunned the British at RAF Habbaniya, what they lacked was essentially military expertise. Nothing that an expeditionary force of 1-2 divisions couldn't provide.

The Germans could operate their units from local resources instead of transporting it back and forth. The Abadan (the world's biggest), Haifa and Tripoli refineries could process most of the crude in the region to some degree
Some infeasible aspects of this scheme:
  • Having enough Ju-52's to support significant combat operations at these ranges.
  • Ju-52's flying past Cyprus (from Rhodes) or Palestine (from Libya/Egypt) safely.
  • If sea LoC envisioned after taking Levant, somehow evading the RN in Eastern Med.
  • The British leaving Abadan/Haifa intact or the possibility of airlifting replacement machinery. The British allowing oil to reach Tripoli.
  • The British not being able to defeat 1-2 divisions that have no viable LoC, even if only after a months-long Axis occupation of Iraq.
- the Ju-52s (and other transport aircraft btw) don't have to maintain units there (their numbers were well above for the ferry task)
- it wasn't a problem in history and it wouldn't be a problem in any case, the RAF units in the area were equipped with obsolete planes, and they couldn't be reinforced substantially in the given timeframe
- that's the core of the misunderstanding here, the Levant doesn't have to be taken, it was in Axis hands already. It had to be kept, with local depots of food, weapons, ammunition, oil, etc. These matêriel were well beyond the needs of defeating the British troops there, but with the exception of heavy equipment, everything was there or could be airlifted there (=trained soldiers and officiers).
- the British had to defeat more than 1-2 divisions in the ME
Hi Peter89

Your post is pure daydream opinion.
As others have mentioned, the logistics to supply 'just 1-2 division' is onerous, especially given the reality of the time.
There is no effective way for Germany to transport let alone sustain a single division into the Levant or further east.

Regards

Andy H

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#87

Post by Peter89 » 08 Nov 2020, 20:40

Andy H wrote:
07 Nov 2020, 22:57

Hi Peter89

Your post is pure daydream opinion.
As others have mentioned, the logistics to supply 'just 1-2 division' is onerous, especially given the reality of the time.
There is no effective way for Germany to transport let alone sustain a single division into the Levant or further east.

Regards

Andy H
With all due respect Andy, the resources spent on Operation Merkur were well beyond what a ferry operation needed to reach Iraq.
Over 500 Ju-52s would participate in the assault. Each of these aircraft could transport one squad of 12 Fallschirmjäger. They flew in three-aircraft flights (Ketten), with each flight transporting one platoon. An entire company required twelve aircraft, equivalent to one Staffel [squadron]; a squadron would transport these paratroopers plus four weapons canisters. A battalion required one Gruppe [group] of Ju-52s, equivalent to fifty-three aircraft after adding the Stabstaffel [headquarters company] requirement for an additional five. A Fallschirmjäger regiment required one Geschwader [wing] of 220 aircraft; the entire 7th Flieger division required more than 900 aircraft total to move in a single wave.
source: KRETA ALS BEISPIEL: GERMAN AIRLIFT DURING THE BATTLE OF CRETE p.44

So about 220 Ju-52s could transport a regiment of Fallschirmjägers in a single wave, including their extra weaponry. The whole 7th FD could be transported in about 2 waves of the available Ju-52s.

As for fuel requirements: each day of planned Operation Merkur sorties required three quarters of a million gallons of aviation gasoline for the transport fleet alone - enough for three sorties by three wings of Ju-52s.
[...] Each attack wave required approximately 208,030 gallons of fuel for the 500 Ju-52s; this equates to 3,926 53-gallon barrels per sortie, for transport aircraft only. These numbers do not factor in the requirements of VIII Fliegerkorps bombers and fighters supporting the assault. The estimated requirement exceeded a million gallons per day.
source: KRETA ALS BEISPIEL: GERMAN AIRLIFT DURING THE BATTLE OF CRETE p.38-39.

So the 500 Ju-52s PLUS the assigned air forces' fuel consumption was calculated at 3785m3 / day - about 3000 t / day.
The 2839 m3 / day fuel for Ju-52 equals a full tank of 900 Ju-52s, enough to move the whole 7th FD. Per day. Given the long range flights to Syria and Iraq, it was hardly the case they would consume more.

As for airports: the island of Rhodos had 3 airports in April / May 1941 (Kattavia, Kalathos and Maritsa, plus the Mandraki port used for seaplane operations).
Kattavia: 915 meters concrete runway
Kalathos: 1510 meters concrete runway
Maritsa: 1370 meters concrete runway

source: Luftwaffe Airfields 1935-45 Greece, Crete and the Dodecanese by Henry L. deZeng IV

The Ju-52s, He-111s and Me-110s were arriving from three directions, enabling to handle the inflow of at least a regiment per day.

http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/images/2020/ ... 13Iraq.jpg

source: Iraq 1941: The battles for Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah and Baghdad by Robert Lyman p. 6

As for possible interdiction - virtually no combat losses occured for the ferry flights. Obviously, a larger operation could gain more attention from the RAF, but the only squadrons available for redeployment were:
- No.80 Squadron (Aqir) http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/80_wwII.html
- No.250 Squadron (Aqir) http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/250_wwII.html
- No.213 Squadron (HMS Furious) http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/213_wwII.html
- No.261 Squadron (Takali) http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/272_wwII.html

It is also likely that in case the British would attack the German transports in Vichy territory, the Vichy Air force would retiliate. By then, they developed a tendency to shoot back - and they enjoyed a numerical superiority, too.

As for supply. The Germans agreed with the French to release three quarters of their stocks and transferred to Iraq via Turkey:
- 15,500 rifles with 6 million rounds of ammunition
- 200 machine guns with 900 belts of ammunition
- 4 75mm field guns with 10,000 shells
- 8 155mm field guns with 6000 shells
- 354 machine pistols
- 30,000 grenades
- 32 trucks
source: Iraq 1941: The battles for Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah and Baghdad by Robert Lyman p. 64

By any estimation, these shipments alone would be enough to sustain the German efforts during the crucial weeks of fighting. (Not as if the Iraqis didn't have any war equipment.)

To get a decent amount of POL would be complicated, but the Tripoli crude stocks amounted 200,000t, and the refinery - even though a low-capacity, hodgepodge one - was up and running. see: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article ... 19218.html

Let's assume the Iraqis and the Vichy French can't spare any food. A standard ration weighted 1.5kg per soldier.
see: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/HB-6.html

Given the fact that the Habforce didn't have water, food or fuel over a week ( see: Iraq 1941: The battles for Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah and Baghdad by Robert Lyman ), and the quality of water they drank during the dash through the desert was terrible, the time would work for any determined German deployment, and it's hardly likely they'd run out of supplies before the Habforce would.

Could you please tell me, in what sense it is a daydreaming?
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#88

Post by Futurist » 09 Nov 2020, 03:13

Peter89 wrote:
21 Oct 2020, 19:04
- To invade Turkey without the SU made no sense: and to invade it with the SU is essentially unleash them (they'd want the Straits thus the whole Turkey).
Tsarist Russia wanted the Straits but not all of Anatolia during World War I.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#89

Post by Futurist » 09 Nov 2020, 03:15

Terry Duncan wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 15:41
This matter of bribing Franco with more land that Spain can garrison or even afford to run is interesting as none of the land is actually valuable for exploitation even if the RN can be stopped from blockading it. The other issue that has not been mentioned so far is that this offer is very, very similar to the Zimmerman offer to Mexico in WWII. It is offering land that is not owned and cannot be taken by force in order to gain an alliance with a nation that will be destroyed by the war it is asked to commit itself to.

What is the US going to say when this offer becomes known? They were not happy at the Italian attitude when it declared war on France, or when Japan took French Indo-China because the French couldnt prevent it, so seeing this brazen attempt to start a new 'Continental System' such as Napoleon tried is unlikely to go down well at all. Hitler made a commitment to Roosevelt that he had no intention to annex a lot of nations, so giving away other nations territories to third party nations is unlikely to be seen in the spirit of such a commitment. I cannot see this proposal being acceptable to Spain under any circumstances, and quite possibly not to the US either.
When was this commitment to FDR made on Hitler's part?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Hitler invades all the neutral countries instead of Russia

#90

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 10 Nov 2020, 05:31

Futurist wrote:
09 Nov 2020, 03:15
Terry Duncan wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 15:41
This matter of bribing Franco with more land that Spain can garrison or even afford to run is interesting as none of the land is actually valuable for exploitation even if the RN can be stopped from blockading it. The other issue that has not been mentioned so far is that this offer is very, very similar to the Zimmerman offer to Mexico in WWII. It is offering land that is not owned and cannot be taken by force in order to gain an alliance with a nation that will be destroyed by the war it is asked to commit itself to.

What is the US going to say when this offer becomes known? They were not happy at the Italian attitude when it declared war on France, or when Japan took French Indo-China because the French couldnt prevent it, so seeing this brazen attempt to start a new 'Continental System' such as Napoleon tried is unlikely to go down well at all. Hitler made a commitment to Roosevelt that he had no intention to annex a lot of nations, so giving away other nations territories to third party nations is unlikely to be seen in the spirit of such a commitment. I cannot see this proposal being acceptable to Spain under any circumstances, and quite possibly not to the US either.
When was this commitment to FDR made on Hitler's part?
Pre 1939. At several points the US communicated concern about the occupation of the Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, & the Czech crisis. Then there were the speeches from Hitler & other nazi leaders about a 'Greater Reich', & similar remarks in 'Mein Kampf; & other assorted propaganda. Roosevelt & US diplomats sought clarification of the future expansionist policies of the German government. Nothing unusual there. Everyone was trying to figure that one out. & Hitler & Ribbentrop made multiple assurances there were no future territorial demands. After the abrogation of the Munich agreement and occupation of Bohemia with dissolution of the Czech government no one really believed any further assurances of the German government.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”