Winning the battle for Egypt would have meant closing the Suez channel and making the Mediterranean a secure Axis lake.
It was of immense strategic value.
It was of immense strategic value.
- 2
Will northern Africa be as important in the game as it was historically?
- Thread starter DrZoidberg
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I fully agree. In hoi north africa is not importanta for the axis simply and plainly because shiping is not such a big issue and nobody ever runs out of oil.
The Suez Canal, Oil, defending Italy, continuing the war against Great Britain, and another way to strike at the Soviet Union were on the table for Axis expansion. North Africa/Middle East did have value, just not in resources other than some Oil, but not a great amount of it.
- 1
I don't see the Axis getting to Suez without some sort of uprising in Egypt. The logistics were nightmarish and they did extremely well to go as far as they did.
Africa had an high strategic value for germany and italy. The Suez channel was one of them. Sames goes with malta or gibralta for example, they are just some rocks without any strategic resources and yet were very important from an strategic point of view. Besides that one goal was to gain access to saudi-arabian oil. Germany and Italy both desperately needed sources of oil since they didnt had any oil fields themself and were dependent on imports which in an war usualy drain.
I think the Italians and Germans liberating all of Iran is a little far fetched. Operation Countenance ended in September of 1941, after all, and it was essentially an allied puppet state, if not outright occupied. I'm sure some Allied commanders would rather see the oil fields set on fire than supplying the Axis with even a drop of oil.
- 3
Which makes complete sense. Nothing new in the way of resources could be developed in the short time the game represents.
- 1
Still, feels weird having conquered most of Africa and having very little to show for it.
- 1
I was going to suggest to only occupy the parts with useful resources, such as South Africa. I found this page in the wiki:
http://www.hoi3wiki.com/South_Africa_provinces
Over 40 provinces, but only 6 have any MP. There are provinces like Kimberley with a good supply of Metal, but no-one living there. Bizarrely 50% of all MP and IC is located in only one province Polokwane. That has to be an error!
http://www.hoi3wiki.com/South_Africa_provinces
Over 40 provinces, but only 6 have any MP. There are provinces like Kimberley with a good supply of Metal, but no-one living there. Bizarrely 50% of all MP and IC is located in only one province Polokwane. That has to be an error!
- 2
That's more or less how it was historically. The Free French had huge tracts of land when governors of the French colonies rallied to DeGaulle, but that made very little difference to the war effort.
Suez is the big kicker, then probably the oil past it. If you controlled the Suez, you controlled the war theatre. Axis-controlled Suez means the British have to fight with a split army. The Australians and the Indians cannot help fight the Germans, and the British cannot help fight the Japanese. It takes a lot of pressure off the Japanese (theoretically; Battle of Imphal was still a disaster), and it lowers British morale.
Then, the thing with the Middle East was that they weren't very loyal to their Allied overlords. They were primarily puppet states, but they could, and would, have defected on a dime if they'd had seen the Axis winning in Africa. The Allies would not only have to burn the oil, they would have to do it against the unpredictable nature of the Muslim governments they were at the mercy of.
Then, the thing with the Middle East was that they weren't very loyal to their Allied overlords. They were primarily puppet states, but they could, and would, have defected on a dime if they'd had seen the Axis winning in Africa. The Allies would not only have to burn the oil, they would have to do it against the unpredictable nature of the Muslim governments they were at the mercy of.
It's an odd idea that the Arabs in the Middle East would have overthrown the colonial powers who were carefully moving towards independence for Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine, and welcome with open arms fascist dictatorships who had made it plain what their approach to the resources and people of conquered territories was. There would have been no independent Muslim governments in the Middle East under the Third Reich.
- 2
- 2
- 1
I've been wondering how differently the war would've turned out for the Axis had they played the role of liberators rather than conquerors in the Middle East and the Soviet Union. As in, declare the Ukraine and Baltic States sovereign countries (albeit with Nazi-sympathetic puppet rulers) once they were occupied, and treat the populace with the utmost respect (or at least far better than Stalin had treated them) rather than looking down on them. I dare bet there would still be partisans and whatnot, but the general populace might perhaps be more passive, or perhaps more welcoming of the Germans? Remember, there were lots of people who supported the Nazis because they saw anythin, even dictatorship under the Germans, as better than living under Stalin's rule.
(/layman musings)
(/layman musings)
- 2
North Africa? Not that useful in and of itself. (Ask the Italians how that Libyan colonial empire was profiting them).
Malta, Gibraltar, and the Suez? That's very valuable. And you could hypothetically use North African areas to reach the Suez.... if you could stomach the logistics.
But to be perfectly frank, with Malta in British hands, why bother doing anything in North Africa? And if you can seize Malta, then you should be seizing Gibraltar. And if you can do that, you should be closing the Suez without going through all of Egypt. Then who gives a flying fart what Monty has in Cairo? It's going to wither on the vine.
Malta, Gibraltar, and the Suez? That's very valuable. And you could hypothetically use North African areas to reach the Suez.... if you could stomach the logistics.
But to be perfectly frank, with Malta in British hands, why bother doing anything in North Africa? And if you can seize Malta, then you should be seizing Gibraltar. And if you can do that, you should be closing the Suez without going through all of Egypt. Then who gives a flying fart what Monty has in Cairo? It's going to wither on the vine.
- 2
They did that to some extent. Granted my knowledge is mostly from wikipedia since I really don't give much care to this topic, Hitler ended up in a position where he was declaring every potential ally to be "aryan", even if they were not white whatsoever. Muslims were considered Aryan in Nazi doctrine to get Muslims to fight for the Nazis. Decorated Jews from World War I were declared Aryans. The Chinese were considered as much Aryan as the Japanese, who were also considered Aryan. The Native Americans were declared "Aryan" in hopes of starting a native revolution in the United States. The Indian National Army was considered Aryan, and so were were the Siamese. Basically, anyone who was willing to fight by Hitler's side was considered "Aryan", at least for the course of the war (I predict the Nazis would have turned against these "aryans" if they would have won the war)
To avoid getting off topic, there was a goal to actually do what you said, but it was so half assed and insincere that it only made numbers of groups stay loyal to the Allies and Communists, even if they did claim they were only helping their own country. Hitler was in a prime position to get the support of most, of not all, of Europe. Japan should have actually carried through with its "liberation of the East" notion to gain the support of the Chinese they conquered. As bad as the Communists were, they did a better job "liberating" to gain support.
This thread is bordering on topics that are liable to get it closed.
If the Germans had treated the local populous in conquered parts of Russia better then yes, things could have been different and I think things would have been different. Just as if the Japanese could have been a little nicer.
However. There were cultural & political reasons for the actual way things were done that had a very great bearing on why they were done. Without going in to too much detail, German politics & Bushido (you can fill in the blanks for yourselves) which, similarly, had a very important place in the combat capabilities of the troops and, therefore, THAT they could be done. Without the existence of these political & cultural conditions it’s very possible that WWII would have been very different from the beginning, if indeed there was a WWII at all.
IMHO and I’d rather not take the thread further off topic in that direction.
But I would like to point out that Persians ARE Aryan. It wasn’t just Uncle Adolf trying to get them on-side. The people of modern Iran consider themselves to be descended from the same peoples, who simply migrated in a different direction. And for anyone who wants to go there (as anyone who has will tell you) they themselves will be quick to point out to any visitor that Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs.
There were grumblings in the middle east. Germany wouldn’t have had to “liberate” or subjugate the area. Simply cut it off from Britain and considering their fear of the Soviets, they only have on major faction left to trade with. A major faction that they are already both friendly with and, to a greater or lesser extent, actually admire.
Loss of North Africa would be very bad for the Allies.
Loss of Malta would be very bad for the Allies. Mainly because it makes taking North Africa so much easier.
Loss of control of Suez would be a disaster as it means closing the Med’.
I'm in agreement with SM on this though, although I take a slightly different view, from a slightly different direction. With Suez in Axis hands, Gibraltar becomes a nuisance with little strategic importance. Maybe a spring-board for another invasion of North Africa (good luck with that if you’ve been kicked-out once). A base for raiding operations in the Med’ (under a pervasive Axis air umbrella, good luck with that too). A blockade point preventing the Italian fleet easy access to the Atlantic. Yeah, but that’s about it.
With the Med’ as an Axis controlled pond, Gibraltar should quickly become untenable anyway. You don’t have to capture it, just bomb it to bits. No, you wouldn't have been able to wipe-out the garrison on The Rock. Not easily anyway, they had too many deep caves and too many supplies, but the RN would be negligent to park a SAG or CTF under the Axis air umbrella when Gib’ can’t, realistically, be either supported or adequately defend itself from a concerted aerial bombardment. (Gibraltar isn't the same kind of prospect as New York)
Whilst I don’t believe that Franco would ever have joined the Axis, the Med’ being an Axis pond puts a different level of pressure on both him and İnönü in Turkey.
IMHO of course
If the Germans had treated the local populous in conquered parts of Russia better then yes, things could have been different and I think things would have been different. Just as if the Japanese could have been a little nicer.
However. There were cultural & political reasons for the actual way things were done that had a very great bearing on why they were done. Without going in to too much detail, German politics & Bushido (you can fill in the blanks for yourselves) which, similarly, had a very important place in the combat capabilities of the troops and, therefore, THAT they could be done. Without the existence of these political & cultural conditions it’s very possible that WWII would have been very different from the beginning, if indeed there was a WWII at all.
IMHO and I’d rather not take the thread further off topic in that direction.
But I would like to point out that Persians ARE Aryan. It wasn’t just Uncle Adolf trying to get them on-side. The people of modern Iran consider themselves to be descended from the same peoples, who simply migrated in a different direction. And for anyone who wants to go there (as anyone who has will tell you) they themselves will be quick to point out to any visitor that Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs.
There were grumblings in the middle east. Germany wouldn’t have had to “liberate” or subjugate the area. Simply cut it off from Britain and considering their fear of the Soviets, they only have on major faction left to trade with. A major faction that they are already both friendly with and, to a greater or lesser extent, actually admire.
Loss of North Africa would be very bad for the Allies.
Loss of Malta would be very bad for the Allies. Mainly because it makes taking North Africa so much easier.
Loss of control of Suez would be a disaster as it means closing the Med’.
I'm in agreement with SM on this though, although I take a slightly different view, from a slightly different direction. With Suez in Axis hands, Gibraltar becomes a nuisance with little strategic importance. Maybe a spring-board for another invasion of North Africa (good luck with that if you’ve been kicked-out once). A base for raiding operations in the Med’ (under a pervasive Axis air umbrella, good luck with that too). A blockade point preventing the Italian fleet easy access to the Atlantic. Yeah, but that’s about it.
With the Med’ as an Axis controlled pond, Gibraltar should quickly become untenable anyway. You don’t have to capture it, just bomb it to bits. No, you wouldn't have been able to wipe-out the garrison on The Rock. Not easily anyway, they had too many deep caves and too many supplies, but the RN would be negligent to park a SAG or CTF under the Axis air umbrella when Gib’ can’t, realistically, be either supported or adequately defend itself from a concerted aerial bombardment. (Gibraltar isn't the same kind of prospect as New York)
Whilst I don’t believe that Franco would ever have joined the Axis, the Med’ being an Axis pond puts a different level of pressure on both him and İnönü in Turkey.
IMHO of course
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
My 2 cents (or 2 paise!)
This topic has been explored thrice so far in different threads and all of them were closed for one reason or another.
Generally boils down to this-
1. How can Italy possibly save its East African Army if they are not withdrawn before DOW? 99% chance that they will become POW if not saved before the War.
2. Tripoli to Suez is over 2000 km and there are hardly any Railways, (there are some British Rails in the Cairo-Alexandri-Suez triangle, but not further west), how to transport and what is the cost of transport, what is the return on the investment (ROI) for expending all those trucks and millions of tons of oil for transportation? This is a very complex question, there aren't easy answers.
The 3 ports of relevance were Tripoli, Benghasi and Tobruk as also the vast Alexandria Port (but this port may be destroyed by the SAS if Axis is about to capture it)
For eg: over 75000 trucks were lost by the Italo-German armies (granted a sizeable number were captured British trucks in Europe and Africa and some were French, Yugoslav and other 'plunder trucks') still, the German army was woefully short of trucks on the "Decisive Front- Russia" and these should have gone there. That is some 10% of total trucks produced.
In addition over 2500 Tanks and 8000 Aircraft and 6000 guns (inc. AA, AT etc). Again granted, most of these were Italian, still a big loss.
Again 5% of total tanks produced and nearly 7-8% of the total planes produced.
Over and above, in East Africa- 600000 to 800000 Italians and natives were captured/killed/wounded. In North Africa Axis losses topped 500000 (inc. Final captured ones), hardly small losses by any standard. The Total losses are over 12% of total Axis European casualties (not small).
To put into perspective, total German losses pre-Russia (inc. Wounded) were less than 100000. The total losses of Planes were less than 3000 and total loss of tanks less than 1000.
3. Those Oil pipelines could be sabotaged by British Intelligence/SAS even if on the verge of capture; the Russians did this in the Caucasus ensuring mutual loss, the Brits would be compensated by American oil (for which the USA will charge a good profit and interest, but that is another matter); Complex machinery to repair these Oil wells need to be transported from Germany over neutral Turkey or via SEA (very dangerous).
4. This also means the RAF and RN have to be destroyed or stopped from entering the MED, a tough call.
5. Once the Americans enter, this situation will unravel even faster.
This topic has been explored thrice so far in different threads and all of them were closed for one reason or another.
Generally boils down to this-
1. How can Italy possibly save its East African Army if they are not withdrawn before DOW? 99% chance that they will become POW if not saved before the War.
2. Tripoli to Suez is over 2000 km and there are hardly any Railways, (there are some British Rails in the Cairo-Alexandri-Suez triangle, but not further west), how to transport and what is the cost of transport, what is the return on the investment (ROI) for expending all those trucks and millions of tons of oil for transportation? This is a very complex question, there aren't easy answers.
The 3 ports of relevance were Tripoli, Benghasi and Tobruk as also the vast Alexandria Port (but this port may be destroyed by the SAS if Axis is about to capture it)
For eg: over 75000 trucks were lost by the Italo-German armies (granted a sizeable number were captured British trucks in Europe and Africa and some were French, Yugoslav and other 'plunder trucks') still, the German army was woefully short of trucks on the "Decisive Front- Russia" and these should have gone there. That is some 10% of total trucks produced.
In addition over 2500 Tanks and 8000 Aircraft and 6000 guns (inc. AA, AT etc). Again granted, most of these were Italian, still a big loss.
Again 5% of total tanks produced and nearly 7-8% of the total planes produced.
Over and above, in East Africa- 600000 to 800000 Italians and natives were captured/killed/wounded. In North Africa Axis losses topped 500000 (inc. Final captured ones), hardly small losses by any standard. The Total losses are over 12% of total Axis European casualties (not small).
To put into perspective, total German losses pre-Russia (inc. Wounded) were less than 100000. The total losses of Planes were less than 3000 and total loss of tanks less than 1000.
3. Those Oil pipelines could be sabotaged by British Intelligence/SAS even if on the verge of capture; the Russians did this in the Caucasus ensuring mutual loss, the Brits would be compensated by American oil (for which the USA will charge a good profit and interest, but that is another matter); Complex machinery to repair these Oil wells need to be transported from Germany over neutral Turkey or via SEA (very dangerous).
4. This also means the RAF and RN have to be destroyed or stopped from entering the MED, a tough call.
5. Once the Americans enter, this situation will unravel even faster.
- 2
- 1
The Reich didnt have colonial ambitions, different to the UK and France. In fact, Churchill first aim for the post war world was trying to save as much as the British Empire as possible.
- 2