The German campaign of conquering Britain - Page 47




 
--
 
September 20th, 2008  
Papashah41
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
We have had the North African discussion pop up before and while on paper it looks enticing I am not convinced it would have been as devastating to Britain as many think and I am not even certain that it was possible or even a good idea on behalf of Germany.

A North African/Middle Eastern front would have been a vast resource drain for Germany, it is a huge mass of land predominantly under the control of a European power (Main Britain and France) there would have been no way of consolidating the front line, defeat Egypt and you have you still face the British in the Sudan, push them out of the Sudan and you face them in Ethiopia etc. and all the while Germany's supply get longer and British supply lines get shorter.

On top of this even with the loss of the Mediterranean you still havent cut supplies to Britain you have just extended them by forcing them around South Africa which was a reasonably safe route as Britain controlled much of the west African coast line anyway.

Last but not least German logistical services were notoriously poor I do not believe for an instant that they could have managed such a campaign, it is my opinion that Rommel should have followed orders and stayed within Tripoli and they should have concentrated of capturing Malta which would have made the Mediterranean a German lake by default.
MontyB, you make some good and interesting points. I don't know if i'd describe the Nazi logistical service as poor though. They may have been a little paranoid about the amount of material going to the bottom of the Mediterranean. That they continued to use Enigma seems truly amazing to me. But back to the subject at hand.

If Hitler had decided to go the North Africa route instead of butting heads with Stalin, the amount of forces available would have been awesome. Do you really believe he may not have been able to do it? If he used a quarter of his forces he could have taken North Africa in ten days to two weeks, tops. That the British were in Sudan and Ethiopia and Kenya, the two Rhodesia's, and South Africa, so what. Each of those countries would have been hard pressed just to survive let alone march into the German part of Africa.

The raw materials from such a move would be staggering. Oil for Hundreds of years to come. Rubber and tin as well as teak and exotic foodstuffs are just a fraction of what could be got. With the Suez they would also have a direct link up with their Axis partners the Japanese in Singapore and beyond.
September 20th, 2008  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papashah41
MontyB, you make some good and interesting points. I don't know if i'd describe the Nazi logistical service as poor though. They may have been a little paranoid about the amount of material going to the bottom of the Mediterranean. That they continued to use Enigma seems truly amazing to me. But back to the subject at hand.

If Hitler had decided to go the North Africa route instead of butting heads with Stalin, the amount of forces available would have been awesome. Do you really believe he may not have been able to do it? If he used a quarter of his forces he could have taken North Africa in ten days to two weeks, tops. That the British were in Sudan and Ethiopia and Kenya, the two Rhodesia's, and South Africa, so what. Each of those countries would have been hard pressed just to survive let alone march into the German part of Africa.

The raw materials from such a move would be staggering. Oil for Hundreds of years to come. Rubber and tin as well as teak and exotic foodstuffs are just a fraction of what could be got. With the Suez they would also have a direct link up with their Axis partners the Japanese in Singapore and beyond.

I think you are under estimating the resource bases of India and South Africa and there ability to supply manpower and material to the allied cause.

I am not convinced that Germany could have amassed the same army for a North African campaign that it did for the Russian campaign after all even with the French Mediterranean and Italian fleets at its disposal it would have still struggled to control the Royal Navy and supply a much larger force in North Africa (it had enough trouble supplying the Afrika Korps as it was) mean while the Allies would have been supplied from both South Africa and India while receiving its oil directly from the Middle Eastern fields.
September 21st, 2008  
Papashah41
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I think you are under estimating the resource bases of India and South Africa and there ability to supply manpower and material to the allied cause.

I am not convinced that Germany could have amassed the same army for a North African campaign that it did for the Russian campaign after all even with the French Mediterranean and Italian fleets at its disposal it would have still struggled to control the Royal Navy and supply a much larger force in North Africa (it had enough trouble supplying the Afrika Korps as it was) mean while the Allies would have been supplied from both South Africa and India while receiving its oil directly from the Middle Eastern fields.
I'm certainly not underestimating India. But with a German North Africa, which would inevitably lead to chasing the British out of Palestine and eventually Iran, India's position is quite different from what really happened. The anti-British sentiment in India was for better use of terms, Huge. Of the Indians in North Africa, those who were not killed were chased out. If Linlithgow decides to imprison Ghandi and the other Congress leaders he could very well cause a storm of protest not so easily played down. But again this is all Surmise.

How are the British in India going to get these raw materials to Britain if the Germans have the Suez and a re-vamped Navy. The French fleet, The Italian Fleet and the Kriegsmarine should be able to stop Atlantic convoys sailing North up the Atlantic African coast. But again we Surmise.
--
October 18th, 2008  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Indian Congress backed Britain to the full during WW2 and their troops made a significant contribution to the Allied cause during WW2. There was a Volunteer Army of Indians of 8 million men the largest ever volunteer army ever raised to fight on the side of Britain and know doubt even more would have joined if required. The Indian role in WW2 is often over looked and understated.
 


Similar Topics
"Tommy's Dictionary Of The Trenches" WWI
Germany the guardian of peace
The Navy Won The Batle Of Britain
Funny Fact
Allies and neutrals in WW2