North Africa with no Barbarossa

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Entschuldigung
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 05 Dec 2016 11:02
Location: 'Sydney

Re: North Africa with no Barbarossa

Post by Entschuldigung » 13 Mar 2020 08:03

I often wonder about this in the context that even up until recently, North Africa is rarely treated or included as a 'Front'.

The traditional narrative tends to address North Africa separately, with the focus resting mostly on the European continent from the viewpoint of Germany and its evolving situation strictly looking West and East.

However, as Robert Citino points out succinctly and concisely in 'Death of the Wehrmacht', the pivotal turning point came not coincidentally, but clearly and determinately at the end of 1942 by illustrating and explicating the concurrent twin battles of Stalingrad (Fall Blau) and El Alamein when a fatal culmination resulted in a combination of a lack of available firepower, air cover, intelligence, sufficient logistics and sheer strike power was then hopelessly unable to overcome the then well supplied, well-stocked, and above all - the beginning of the transfer of air and sea superiority to the Allies which would prove unassailable.

The alt. history that intrigues me most is one in which everything possible is thrown to ensure the locking up and control of the Mediterranean from Gibraltar-Malta-Alexandria-Baghdad - much like a map of the Roman Empire at its height.

Then, and only then, with the 'underbelly' of the Axis secure and the British removed from the Middle East could a die be rolled against the Soviet Union in '42. ( A much tougher prospect albeit with greater security, strategic assurance and resources).

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: North Africa with no Barbarossa

Post by Urmel » 13 Mar 2020 12:21

Everything possible isn't very much though, given the logistics.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: North Africa with no Barbarossa

Post by Sheldrake » 13 Mar 2020 21:39

If the Germans were not going to invade the Soviet Union, and provide the sorted out their economic problems to feed Germany, they would have the time to deal with Britain.

Unless Hitler discovered a deep desire to conquer India, the middle east is of limited strategic interest. The middle east had oil, but it needed to be moved by sea dominated by the Royal Navy. The easiest way to deal with Britain is across the channel not the Mediterranean.

Op Sealion might have been possible in 1941 - or even 1942 if Germany had mobilised their economy to the same level as Britain. After the occupation of Britain, it would be easier to mop up the middle east is easier. No need for the Holocaust either. Under this scenario, Europe's Jewish might be deported to Palestine.

Return to “What if”