Peter89 wrote:The thread seems to be derailed to a completely offtopic nonsense. If Germany captured oil fields in the Middle East, they would not let Japan to ship away that oil, which was an idiocy anyway, given the Japanese never controlled the Indian Ocean.
Apparently, the idea was conquering the whole Mediterranean as a way of gaining assets in a long war. Attacking the USSR was risky. Fighting Brittain in the air and in the see was inconclusive, costing much losses. Defeating the Royal Navy was possible if closing the Mediterranean by using the best arm the germans had: the overwhelming superiority of the Wehrmacht.
As the germans invaded Greece they got a new chance to defeat the British. Even risky aerial operations like Norway and Crete were successful. If the Germans invaded Spain, they would have got another chance to defeat the British. If reaching Middle East through Turkey... more British defeats coming.
Instead, the Rommel´s campaign in Libya was risky due to the problem of the supplies across the Mediterranean (Royal Navy and RAF again).
You must fight where you have advantages on your side.
If you are in the Middle East to defeat the British again and to close the Mediterranean, then you have the chance of capturing over 15 millions tons of oil annually which would change totally the economic situation of the Nazi Europe (you get also manpower and some other gains)...
What I added about maybe selling the Persian Gulf oil to Japan is another chance, but in September 1940 it didn´t happen yet the oil embargo -but it was thinkable to happen. Anyway, the Royal Navy would blockade the area.
Anyway, part of the idea was avoiding war against the USSR but coercing the Russians, particularly by controlling Turkey (and also, maybe, threatening the soviet muslim territories of Caucasus and Central Asia).
So, for me the interesting thing is how Stalin would have reacted if the Germans force the turks to let them pour all over the Middle East through Turkey.
-Declaring the war against the Axis?
-Not declaring war against the Axis, but invading Persia and Iraq... avoiding the Germans to seize the oilfields that they need?
-If invading Persia, accepting the chance of a local and limited war against Germany (something like the Mongolian clashes against Japan)?
-Doing nothing and wait...
About the United Kingdom, the problem is that it was a democratic country, with a powerful public opinion, and so many defeats in a row and seeing the idleness of the neutralist -if not isolationist- USA could have finally exhausted the will of keep fighting