Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: IMG_7667.jpg (241KB, 1295x1424px) Image search:
[Google]
241KB, 1295x1424px
>1940 after France's surrender
>Hitler sends army to bolster Italian invasion of Egypt via Libya while Britain is still reeling from defeat
>occupies Vichy French Syria and Algeria as a temporary measure
>uses airborne troop to capture Gibraltar (Franco wouldn't have been able to stop him)
>uses army in Syria to bolster nationalist uprising in Iraq, place friendly pro-axis Arab governments in Middle East
>seizes Suez Canal and cripples British access to mediterranean allowing safer German and Italian roaming in Mediterranean
>uses Italian merchant fleet under submarine escort to carry Iraq oil back to Europe
>since he holds Gibraltar and suez, British ability to harass oil transports is limited
>persuades Turkey to guarantee free access to overland oil deliveries in exchange for military technology
>open's up southern front against Stalin, further delaying a possible Russian attack in 41/42
Would it have worked? Would it have been a better idea than Operation Barbarossa? Would it have stabilised German resource supplies in the short term at least?
>>
>>2759002
>Would it have worked?
No, in fact, pretty much none of the component steps would have worked. Sending troops to North Africa can't press the English to Suez, you don't have the supply infrastructure to sustain an offensive there. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf
Using airborne troops to seize Gibraltar won't work, because your JU-52s can't reach it from any of your bases.
You don't have any troops in Syria worth mentioning, and again can't supply them through the med with the British contesting the waters.
Iraq itself would be occupied by the British in 1941.
There is no way Turkey will be running guns for you and leave themselves open to invasion by the USSR, they wer also quite friendly with the French at the time, and not at all happy with you beating them up.
>Would it have stabilised German resource supplies in the short term at least?
Definitely not, since the Middle East wasn't a huge producer of oil at the time, and there's absolutely nothing else there worth anything.
>>
>>2759002
Are we assuming there's no Barbarossa in June 1941?
>>
>>2759024
Yes
>>
>>2759022
Biggest oil producers in 1940:
USA 182.657 Mt
USSR 29.700 Mt
Venezuela 27.443 Mt
Iran 10.426 Mt
Indonesia 7.939 Mt
Mexico 6.721 Mt
Romania 5.764 Mt
Colombia 3.636 Mt
Iraq 3.438 Mt
Argentina 2.871 Mt
Trinidad 2.844 Mt
Peru 1.776 Mt
Burma 1.088 Mt
Canada 1.082 Mt
Egypt 0.929 Mt
Not much in the Middle East, yeah. Also displays why Japan targeted the DEI.
>>
>>2759182
Iran Iraq and Egypt would together amount to 15, about 50% of Russia
>>
>>2759182
I'm not actually doubting you, those figures look about right, but where did you get them from? I'd be interested in that and other oil related information if you've got it handy.
>>
>>2759205
http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf
>>
>>2759216
Coolness, thanks!
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1