Hitler's strategy

If Hitler chose to concentrate on North Africa and the Middle East right after the fall of France instead of waiting for a year and then attacking Russia frontally, could Germany have changed the outcome of the war? It seems if Germany threw some of its armored divisions in an all-out thrust to take the Egypt, the Suez, and from there go into Turkey and the Arabian peninsula, and from there attack Russia threw the South, having easier access to the oil fields of Asiatic Russia. Britain would have still been isolated, there would have been no need for a Battle of Britain if Hitler adopted this tactic. Britain and Germany could have battled it out in the air and at sea in the Mediterranean, but I don't think it would have cost the resources it did as a direct assault from the air and at sea of Britain and the Atlantic. Could this strategy have worked?

 

Some of his generals favored that route too, and it almost seems like it would have been the better way to go for the resources he had vs. the British, and the fact that the fighting troops in N.A. weren't as well-equipped as the Germans or there in as many numbers, where as the Spitfire and Hurricane were adequate vs. Germany in the air war over Britain, and England definitely dominated the sea around their home based and in the North Atlantic.

 

Hitler didn't really want to go to war with Britain.

He wrote up his master plan explaining what he thought about racial superiority and German expansion at the expense of the jews and slavs. In this world view he admired and envied the British. He did not want to fight them. He followed this master plan, successfully overthrowing the restrictions of Versailles and building an army and air force that comprehensively defeated the leading land power, France and her allies Britain.

The German economy was not really strong enough to wage a long war. As soon as the the battle of France was over the Germans cut back military production. The Germans thought that invading Russia would be a short campaign. "just kick the door in and the rotten structure will collapse."

 

there was nothing to gain from going farther in the middle east. There was no way to get the oil back to Germany with out a fleet and it was not just oil Germany needed. Hitler wanted the food and other resources of Russia as well as the living space. Germany had a difficult time supplying a small army in Africa, how would they supply even more units, plus taking Egypt would require a whole lot of men to defend it against the south and to expand to the east

 

A much better Med strategy for Hitler would have been to tell Musso that if he tried any sort of nonsensical military campaign he'd have him killed! The Italian armed forces and the Italian people were just not up to any sort of war. If Mussolini's disastrous military adventures had been prevented, Germany could have avoided the time and resources squandered trying to, as OP wrote, "save Benito's bacon." Of course all this is hindsight but I think there is a good argument to be made that all the operations in N. Africa, Greece and the Balkans did was drag Germany down by opening up a southern front.

 

if he didn't attack russia, maybe russia would have attacked first. barring that, the war/cold war would have stretched into the 80's, with germany and the allies fighting proxy wars in little countries in africa, asia, and south america.

 

I know Hitler admired the British Empire and didn't want to fight England, but down the road didn't he expect some sort of conflict with the West which is why he had Plan Z for the Navy?

 

How many men would this endeavor require?
What would be the ultimate objective?
How would all this be supplied and defended?
What happens with Turkey?
How do you get what you get the resources back to Germany?

Africa was a side show with no real interest to Germany.
As for Italians they simply didn't want to figh. There was no motivation or sense of urgency in their ranks. How many would be willing to die for the 3rd Reich?

 

Italy felt the pressure to expand one way or another as early as the late 19th century. though reckoned to be among the biggest economies in the world, she was poorer than france and the anglo-saxon economies. she was over-populated. her countryside did not harbor sizable amounts of iron or coal or oil. at the time of mussolini, she just wanted to repeat what the french, dutch, english, belgians, and germans did in africa: to establish colonies where her citizens might opt to emigrate.

 

True enough mac_b, but the Italian military, from top to bottom, had nothing really going for it. Its armies were kicked around by French, Greek and British forces that were totally inferior in numbers. Only a few Italian units could hold their own in a real battle. After the debacle in France, Musso needed to have a sober appreciation of what his forces could and could not do.

 

It could have been a way to take over the British interests directly in Africa and the Middle East, control the passage thru from the Mediterranean, and a way to get at Russia from the South, closer to their important resources. It didn't have to be a sideshow.

 

.

How is Germany going to keep the Army supplied once they leave the coast of the Med? It's not exactly a well-developed interior. The railway infrastructure, where it exists at all is piss-poor, and non-existent in the direction of the attack. Without Turkish help (and there you have both History and Allied diplomatic efforts working against Germany), it's hard to see how any significant German force can remain supplied.

Slogging across the interior of the ME, when is the empowered "Afrika Corps" envisioned to be in a place to strike Northwards, with anything more than a token force? How many troops are remaining in Eastern Europe, securing against potential Soviet aggression? Or do the Soviets suddenly stop making territorial grabs while Germany is "otherwise engaged"?

What if the Soviets pre-emptively grab all of Persia in response to British collapse in Suez?

 

In late 1940, Hitler tried to persuade Franco to join the Axis and regain Gibraltar for Spain - an essential effort to ease the war in the Med. But Franco was cautious, he knew that neither Italy nor Germany could deliver superiority at sea to secure supplies in North Africa. And Hitler could do nothing to change the situation as fast as he wants.

I guess, the Axis simply couldn't supply more troops in Northern Africa and so the alternative strategy would have meant inactivity for the most of the german army and air force.

 

They had around 20 Panzer divisions after the break in action when France fell that weren't in use. If they transported 4 of them to bolster the Italian lines and push the British out of Egypt when they were at their weakest after Dunkirk with only one armored division in North Africa, and take over the Suez and access to the Middle East, there would have been options and opportunities as to what direction of action to take next with possibilities for success.

 

The Axis could even not supply the existing number of troops in NA .

 

There were 10 PzD in june 1940, it took almost a year to double that number .And in june 1941 Britain was stronger in NA than it was in june 1940.