Originally Posted by MontyB

No but again what if there was, would it have made a difference.
The closest to coordination they managed seemed to be that the Germans bailed out the Italians and the Japanese went off on their own tangent and achieved bugger all.

Such a coordination was impossible : German forces could not operate in the Pacific and the Japanese could not operate in the Mediterranean .
A joint German-Japanese attack on the USSR in June 1941,would have been a failure,a failure in Europe and a failure in Asia, because the Soviets were strong enough to stop the Germans and to defeat the Japanese .Several times the defeated the Japanese before 1941 .
For Germany, Italy was more useful than Japan .
The Italian DOW in June 1940 had as result that all convoys going to/coming from East of Suez had to sail via Africa which meant an enormous loss of time and shipping capacity for Britain .
Without this DOW these convoys would have used the Mediterranean .
The same for the US LL convoys going to Iran .

Had they not invaded Russia they would have had the manpower to capture Egypt, the Suez Canal, and probably, with help from the Italian Navy, the Persian Gulf oil fields. While it would have been a huge risk ignoring the US, w/o Pearl Harbor the US might have stayed out indefinitely. Is opinion of some that if Roosevelt wanted a War with Japan the film shot onboard during the Panay Incident could have done it if released. But then again the US seemed to be backing Japan into a corner with the oil sanctions.

Originally Posted by George

Had they not invaded Russia they would have had the manpower to capture Egypt, the Suez Canal, and probably, with help from the Italian Navy, the Persian Gulf oil fields. While it would have been a huge risk ignoring the US, w/o Pearl Harbor the US might have stayed out indefinitely. Is opinion of some that if Roosevelt wanted a War with Japan the film shot onboard during the Panay Incident could have done it if released. But then again the US seemed to be backing Japan into a corner with the oil sanctions.

The Germans never wanted Egypt though, they were only there to bail out the Italians.

Asia and Africa were going to be a never ending campaign for the Germans that they simply did not have the manpower, material or logistics to conquer, as it was moving away from its support meanwhile Britain was falling back on major supply bases of South Africa, India, Australia and NZ.

This is why I wondered whether Japan not attacking the US but rather isolating it in the Pacific and instead eliminating British possessions in the Pacific until the US could have been dealt with by a combined axis force.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The Germans never wanted Egypt though, they were only there to bail out the Italians.

Asia and Africa were going to be a never ending campaign for the Germans that they simply did not have the manpower, material or logistics to conquer, as it was moving away from its support meanwhile Britain was falling back on major supply bases of South Africa, India, Australia and NZ.

This is why I wondered whether Japan not attacking the US but rather isolating it in the Pacific and instead eliminating British possessions in the Pacific until the US could have been dealt with by a combined axis force.

Germany couldn't even invade the UK, unless Gibraltar fell & the Italian fleet could go to Atlantic France to move the Germans. Japan had decent navy strength but would probably take the combined German/Italian Navies attacking the other coast at the same time.

Originally Posted by George

Germany couldn't even invade the UK, unless Gibraltar fell & the Italian fleet could go to Atlantic France to move the Germans. Japan had decent navy strength but would probably take the combined German/Italian Navies attacking the other coast at the same time.

That scenario kind of plays into my argument because it makes India the prime target for the Japanese, take out India and you remove Britain's link to the Pacific which makes North Africa a much easier target for the Germans.

Given that both India and South Africa had large anti-British factions it is possible that both countries would have dropped out of the war entirely

Japan did make a play for India. So, if they took India and Germans took the Suez Canal, Arabian Peninsula & the middle east oil fields they also would have direct contact for exchange of technology & raw materials.The Japanese did send subs into the Indian Ocean to disrupt British supplys to the Western Desert at German request. That was later than Operation C.

Originally Posted by George

Japan did make a play for India. So, if they took India and Germans took the Suez Canal, Arabian Peninsula & the middle east oil fields they also would have direct contact for exchange of technology & raw materials.The Japanese did send subs into the Indian Ocean to disrupt British supplys to the Western Desert at German request. That was later than Operation C.

The ME oil was not important for Britain: 90 % of British oil during WWII came from the Americas : US and Latin America .
It was also unimportant for Japan as the ME was too far away from Japan .
The same for Germany .
The Suez Canal was not used from May 1940 to May 1943 for transports to and from Britain .Thus the capture of the Suez Canal would not hurt Britain and not aid Germany .

Originally Posted by George

Had they not invaded Russia they would have had the manpower to capture Egypt, the Suez Canal, and probably, with help from the Italian Navy, the Persian Gulf oil fields. While it would have been a huge risk ignoring the US, w/o Pearl Harbor the US might have stayed out indefinitely. Is opinion of some that if Roosevelt wanted a War with Japan the film shot onboard during the Panay Incident could have done it if released. But then again the US seemed to be backing Japan into a corner with the oil sanctions.

It is an old claim that no Barbarossa would make the capture of the ME possible . But this claim is wrong : due to logistics and distance ,a stronger operational Africa Corps would be impossible .
Suez Canal-Tehran : 1800 km Germany would need a big army to go from Tripoli to the Canal and from the Canal to Tehran ,and they would need a lot of oil .
US oil production in 1937 :173 million tons
Iraq in 1938 :4,3 million
Iran in 1938 :10,3 million

They came close to getting Egypt with what they had. Obviously the 1st thing Italy should have done was capture Malta, failure to do so was a catastrophic strategic failure that resulted in severe losses to her merchant fleet. Keep in mind we had Japan capturing India, so ME not far at all & the canal provides direct contact between the Axis.

Originally Posted by George

They came close to getting Egypt with what they had. Obviously the 1st thing Italy should have done was capture Malta, failure to do so was a catastrophic strategic failure that resulted in severe losses to her merchant fleet. Keep in mind we had Japan capturing India, so ME not far at all & the canal provides direct contact between the Axis.

NO : the capture of Malta would not help the Axis : the Italian merchant navy lost 15 % ( not all by Malta )of the goods they transported to NA .But, more goods would not have helped Rommel,because the problem was not the crossing of the Mediterranean ,but the transport of the goods from the ports to the front .
And for Japan : if it had captured India ( impossible ) ,where would its navy obtain the fuel to sail from Calcutta to the Canal ,a canal that would have been blocked by Britain ( it happened in 1967 and in 1973 )?