Was Hitler right to attack the USSR in 1941?

Plan 2.

June 1940 - Hitler concludes that the invasion of Britain is not possible and instead decides he will attack Russia in 1941.


July 1940 - Joint Axis attack takes Malta.
Hitler persuades Mussolini to allow German troops to be sent to Libya.
In return Mussolini shall get Egypt and Sudan for his Empire.
Mussolini also agrees to conduct no offensives in the Balkans.

Aug 1940 - Axis invasion of Egypt begins.

Dec 1940 - All of Egypt has fallen to the Axis.
Franco joins the Axis.

Jan 1940 - Gibraltar falls.
British abandon the Mediterranean.
Axis invades Palestine and Sudan.

Feb 1941 - Cyprus and Malta occupied.
Palestine taken.
Turkey and Greece enter the war.

Mar 1941 - Sudan it taken.
Revolt in Iraq.
Axis enter Iraq.
Turks invade Iraq.

Apr 1941 - Iraq falls to the Axis.
Iran joins the Axis.
War in Iran.

May 1941 - Invasion of the USSR.

 

What would be impossible?
Paltestine would be in Axis hands, Turkey is on the Iraq border, Vichy Syria would allow German troops through.

 

Another option Plan 3 if you like would be this.

Plan 3.

June 1940 - Hitler decides against any invasion of Britain.

Oct 1940 - Hitler talks Mussolini out of the invasion of Greece.

Jan 1940 - Malta taken by the Axis.

Feb 1940 - Rommel arrives in Africa he is limited to just his light division without it being made up to a Panzer division or without an extra Panzer division being sent later in the year.
His orders are just to hold Libya.
He will however receive some extra Italian that were wasted in Greece in OTL.

May 15th 1941 - Axis invasion of the USSR.
Germany starts with extra 9 divisions 3 of which are Panzer divisions.
The Germans also use airborne troops.

 

It would be almost impossible to support any sizable invasion force through the road less and blistering hot Iraqi deserts. Not to mention the quite easily dependable terrain in west Persia. Attacking them is a non starter.

 

The Syria/Iraq border in the North is Green.
A move on Mosul wouldn’t be that tough and nor a move down the Euphrates valley from Syria.
From either it is plain sailing down to Baghdad.
Persia is very defendable but if it goes to the Axis then the British would be in a hostile country trying to hold on.
South West Persia would fall however which is where the British supplies would be coming ashore.

 

From the coast of Syria to Mosul :750 km (bird's-eye view):no PD or MD can cover that distance (after 100 km,a lot of the tanks would be immobilised ),with no roads,no fuel,no water ...

 

the distance Tripoli-Suezcanal =2000 km,no roads,railways,water,harbours :the supply problems would be insoluble

 

From memory:during the Cuba crisis an armoured division was moved from Camp Rucker (Alabama )to southern Florida,by railway .
If-probably I am wrong,some attentive veteran will correct me.

 

I seem to remember Poland to Moscow being a lot further.
Even Libya/Egypt was further.

 

They are several harbours between the two and a road.
Hence how the British and Germans managed to traverse it several times each in the war.

 

And the Nazis never made any of those trips either did they! Or at least not "get there and stay".

 

They made them but got defeated when they got there by greater military force.
Which isn’t likely to be the case in the Middle East and N Africa in this scenario.

 

Why not, what is so different about this scene? Or have you changed the opponents without my noticing? Are the British still there? The ANZACS? The Indians? They are still going to run out of everything before they get any further than they did historically. Too little control of deep water ports, too little shipping, too little fuel, too little food.

 

Alot has changed it seems without you noticing..
For example Germany is not at war with the USSR, Germany has deployed two extra panzer divisions, The British have lost several ports and the Germans gained them and Turkey has entered the war.

 

Dont tell me, India and Pakistan enter the war next. I wonder what side they will decide to join in this scenario.

 

Then it appears you have devolved this into a "what-if" and for some unknown reason to myself. Turkey cannot be in the war unless it is alternative history, and they are unlikely to join the Germans in any case.

They still have a rather bad taste in their mouth from the last time the partnered up with them. Remember that little fiasco? WW1 where they lost more territory than the Germans and fought their neighbors the Greeks into the twenties? They aren't in any mood to join in any more military adventures and have actually sort of "snuggled" up to their long time enemies the Russians (USSR) for economic gain.

Where do the Nazis get the other two Panzer division? Where do they get the material to build them, and where do they get the fuel to run them? They have run their credit with the Soviets completely out and that is one of the reasons they had to invade the SU in 1941. They couldn't purchase (even on credit) the raw material, food, and oil they needed for their existing war machine.

This looks more and more like a "what-if" and one in which you arbitrarily pluck bennies out of the air to make your scene work out. Don't buy it, won't discuss it any longer.

 

I don't see Gibraltar falling in one month.

 

Indeed and it looks like he has a rather flawed idea of what "plan" means as well.

 

I dont either it would be much less.

 

Er from the ones they used to invade the USSR in 1941.