German strategy: Middle East vs Russia

[marcelo_malara]

Hi guys. Look at this theories:

1-In the Rommel Papers he (Rommel) criticizes Hitler strategy of attacking Russia, proposing instead that a stronger Afrika Korps should have attacked Egypt, this opening Alexandria port to Italian ships that would logistically support the AK. The AK should then go on to Irak and Iran, denying access to the oil to UK and opening the possibility of a South attack to Russia´s Caucasian oil fields.

2-In "The German generals talk" (Liddell Hart), Rundstedt in conversation with the author says that Rommel was a fine tactician but a bad strategist, implicitly (or explicitly, I do not remember) disregarding point 1.

3-J F C Fuller, in the Second World War,, proposes something alike to Rommel.

Question:

-has anyone read some serious analysis on the feasibility of logistically supporting tank forces in Iran and Irak from Alexandria?

[RF]

Thinking logically the best access and supply route from Europe to Iran/Iraq is across the Bosphorus through Turkey, which would also put Wehrmacht panzer divisions on Turkey and Irans border with Russia without having to go via Africa and Palestine.

Now Turkey was neutral in WW2 - but in 1941 wide open to German infiltration and control, Turkey could have been brought into the Axis in much the same way as Bulgaria was.

[marcelo_malara]

Thinking logically the best access and supply route from Europe to Iran/Iraq is across the Bosphorus through Turkey, which would also put Wehrmacht panzer divisions on Turkey and Irans border with Russia without having to go via Africa and Palestine.

Now Turkey was neutral in WW2 - but in 1941 wide open to German infiltration and control, Turkey could have been brought into the Axis in much the same way as Bulgaria was.

Hi!

Yes, that´s another possibility yet! But I would say that it should go in this way:

1-Afrika Korps conquers Egypt.

2-Without a port in the Eastern Med the situation of the RN would be untenable and she would evacuate to Gibraltar.

3-The Germans would block Suez canal.

4-The Italian navy would sail unopposed to the Black Sea.

5-There tankers could load fuel from Romanian fields and unload, for example, in Rostov. Eventually the RM should eliminate the Russian Navy.

In this way the German supply lines would be vastly improved, and the tanks wouldn´t need the long route thru North Africa, Near East and Iran to reach the Caucasian oil fields, instead acting in concentrated form as a more powerful Heersguppe Sud.

[marcelo_malara]

Duplicate.

[marcelo_malara]

I made a measurement with google maps, there are 2 000 km from Alexandria to Caucasus thru modern day Irak. I really do not understand that Rommel thought that this could be possible. Not only the long travel for the tracked vehicles but maintaining the logistics this far.

[wadinga]

Hi Marcelo,

Agreed, once you have achieved 4 in your list above and secured fuel for an escorting Italian Fleet there is no need to travel overland. "Rommel of the Afrika Corps" would never have existed if he had needed to drive all the way to Libya from southern Europe. (No ADAC breakdown coverage) Land generals only think about land routes. He obviously forgot it was the Italian merchant sailors and the Luftwaffe who made possible his successes in North Africa, despite the RN and RAF's best efforts.

3? It is more likely the RN would block the Suez Canal if it had to abandon Alexandria, after all the Italians want their East African conquests back.

Whether Turkey would be amenable to such Axis ambitions is another matter. Franco, for instance, owed them everything, yet he would not actually invite them into his country to close off the Straits of Gibraltar.

Churchill perceptively said of the neutrals, "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last."

Bulgaria initially was a neutral but was on the land path to the attack on Greece in 1941, and maybe therefore didn't have much of a choice, and was promised land gains if it joined the Tripartite. Turkey in Asia could not be pressured as easily as Bulgaria, but was menaced by two crocodiles, Hitler and Stalin, as well having an agreement with the Allies.

In October 1939 President İnönü signed a tripartite mutual assistance treaty with Britain and France

I believe the Turks were very happy (and relieved) when one crocodile attacked the other.

Interesting debate but hypothetical.

All the best

wadinga

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Marcelo,

Agreed, once you have achieved 4 in your list above and secured fuel for an escorting Italian Fleet there is no need to travel overland. "Rommel of the Afrika Corps" would never have existed if he had needed to drive all the way to Libya from southern Europe. (No ADAC breakdown coverage) Land generals only think about land routes. He obviously forgot it was the Italian merchant sailors and the Luftwaffe who made possible his successes in North Africa, despite the RN and RAF's best efforts.

3? It is more likely the RN would block the Suez Canal if it had to abandon Alexandria, after all the Italians want their East African conquests back.

Whether Turkey would be amenable to such Axis ambitions is another matter. Franco, for instance, owed them everything, yet he would not actually invite them into his country to close off the Straits of Gibraltar.

Churchill perceptively said of the neutrals, "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last."

Bulgaria initially was a neutral but was on the land path to the attack on Greece in 1941, and maybe therefore didn't have much of a choice, and was promised land gains if it joined the Tripartite. Turkey in Asia could not be pressured as easily as Bulgaria, but was menaced by two crocodiles, Hitler and Stalin, as well having an agreement with the Allies.

In October 1939 President İnönü signed a tripartite mutual assistance treaty with Britain and France

I believe the Turks were very happy (and relieved) when one crocodile attacked the other.

Interesting debate but hypothetical.

All the best

wadinga

Hi Wadinga.

In the end I see that Hitler went to Africa without a clear strategical objective. I do not think that denying Persian oil to the Allies was achievable, as that needed the AK reaching Persia via the long land route, with impossible logistics. The farthest I think they could reach was Suez canal, which he almost did. Then what he was thinking to do with Egypt conquered would be nice to learn.

The possibility for the Italian navy to sail to the Black Sea is the only advantage to be gain. I doubt that Turkey would or could oppose the transit of the warships thru the Bosphorus, I doubt more of the Italian navy embarking in operations in the Black Sea, Liddell Hart in "The Germans generals talk" says that the Italian Navy was contrary to Mussolini´s plans, and that she avoided collaborating with him.

Regards