World War 2: Empire or Freedom Creation Thread

[Palaiologos2]

And Without the Suez canal, the UK would lose that major supply route.
Germany could also menace India from a position in the Middle East.

The UK would likely not give in at this point, but it would have a diminishing impact,
as America could not provide them with all they need to fight against the Axis...

Things would be very grim indeed for my homeland!

Loosing the Suez canal doesn't mean loosing the supply route. The "long way round" wasn't that long with contemporary ship technology-two weeks at the most.
This debate could go on forever but truth is that the Krauts lost the war on September the 1st, 1939.

 

[CurtSibling]

Taking Egypt/Suez would have crippled British efforts to supply the Balkans. End game.
No invasion of Yugoslavia or Greece...They would be surrounded and forced to submit...

Hitler lost the war as soon as he tried to invade crete as part of some psycho scheme
instead of striking where the obvious vital theatre was in terms of logical strategy...

An attack across North Africa late 1940, against the Weak (at the time) Allied forces
was the greatest chance the Germans had. And the Austrian corporal flung it away...

Anyway, we are discussing the possibilities of mods set in a "what-if" world...

For a victorious Germany, forget the "fatherland" book - !
Use a "Hitler let his generals do the job properly" theme...

 

[Palaiologos2]

Curt i think you are ignoring the obvious....
Germany could never win that war.
Just think about this:
In a hypothetical France vs Germany war, judging from the opponents' industrial, demographic and military capabilities either side could win.
In a hypothetical British Empire vs Germany war either side could win.
In a hypothetical Soviet Union vs Germany war either side could win.
In a hypothetical USA vs Germany war, again either side could win.
In the real France, British Empire, Soviet Union, USA vs Germany war only one side could win. And did win.
At the end of the war Germany had produced 24.000 tanks. Britain 24.000 as well. The Soviet Union 75.000 and the USA 88.000. Do the math.
In the first 3 years of the war the Germans completely outmanouevred and outgeneraled the Allies. Everything that could go wrong for the Allies did and everything that could go well for the Germans did. And they did not even come close to victory. Once the Allies adapted, the fate of the Reich was sealed.
As for the Afrika front focus strategy it is quite frankly nonsense. As said two posts above the Royal Navy controlled the Mediterranean and Gibraltar.
The Royal Navy had about 150 surface ships(carriers too) in 1939 to the Germans 30. Let alone the French and Commonwealth navies. And later the USA...
What could the Kriegsmarine do? How would the divissions in Afrika be supplied? And advancing to Persia? Do you know how's the terrain there? The Indian army next door could hold Persia's mountains indefinitely.
The fact that they even came to the point of considering a victory is a testament to the German warrior's military prowess.

 

[CurtSibling]

Sir, I am aware of the the eventual "materiel" numbers and outputs of the Allied powers.
Once 1941 had passed, and Germany had launched into the USSR, it was game over.

Of course we can agree, it was a mad campaign and destined to fail. Obvious.

But - The germans had a great chance to dominate Europe at the start of the war.
Strategically, they could have crippled the chance for the Allies to buld all those
tanks, and gained the resources to match all that Soviet industrial military output...

Supply would be extorted from friendly or subjugated nations like Turkey or Egypt.
And with the control of the Med, what is to stop Axis convoys from Balkans or Italy?

We could argue about this from our own national perspectives forever, but the bottom
line is that Hitler's blundering choices from May 1940 sealed the fate of any Axis victory.

We'll never know unless we build a time machine and pose as Advisors in the Bunker.

 

[CurtSibling]

@Alsbron:

My apologies (on behalf of myself and Pericles) - We totally hijacked your thread in our WW2 debate!

So - If you need any help with any aspect, just let us know what is your next move on this scenario...

 

[Palaiologos2]

ok ok ok just a last one..

I agree with you,in principle, but point is that they could NEVER had taken control of the mediterranean. They couldn't even take control of Malta for heaven's sake.
How were they to send in the first place 20 divisions to Libya without interference from the RN?
And even if they did, how could they keep them supplied? And even if they did throw all the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine etc to keep the supply route to Libya open, then the commies would invade Germany and it would be the end of the game. I think you are grossly overestimating Germany's strategical capabilites.
You know when operation Barbarossa was launched the Germans used about 300.000 horses and mules for maintaining their supply lines. When the Yanks landed in Africa every single regiment was motorized.

 

[clightning]

Generally agree with Palaiologos2. Yet I don't think Nazi can even win a hypothetical war against Soviet Union or USA alone.
Besides please also remember Nazi once had the resource of almost whole continental Europe at hand, but its productivity is rather poor compare to this industry scale. So Nazi lost not only because it doesn't have enough material, but also because it can't make good use of them, due to its economic policy, racial policy, and corruption. Nazi lost the war when they got elected. "Evil always losses" makes sense, at least this time.
BTW that's why I think it's unfair to call Soviet Union "another fascist power". Soviet has many many problems, but at least its economy plan doesn't include/depend on rob its neighbours.

OK so much for off topic.
Regarding to "oil" terrain, I think its best a "money field". Because "oil" should be some thing effects the whole nation rather than one region, and "money" is the only resource in CIV2 that effects so widely, can be tranported to anywhere with no problem.

 

[CurtSibling]

Soviets/Nazis are to me, both sides of a rotten mirror. Both killed plenty of innocent people, regardless of economic model.

I digress...One thing Pericles (perhaps) misses is that the Allied position in 1940 wasn't as strong as it become in 1941-1943...
Early on, Malta could have been taken, it was merely that Hitler's mad plan was to attack anywhere but the obvious target.

And if Malta had been taken in 1940, along with a successful campaign along North Africa (if the Germans had taken the theatre seriously)
then where exactly would the Allied forces be based in order to stop Axis shipping? My hypothesis is based on the fact that certain Nazi
generals knew what had to be done to snatch a victory, but Hitler's racial insanity plans won out...

And thus what might have been, was never tested, due to one man's hate for Slavs...

Crazy to say, but lucky that the "fuhrer" chose the path he did - It allowed us to win.

.

.

 

[McMonkey]

I don't thinks the following possibilities are inconceivable:

- Germany decides to finish off the British Imperial possessions in North Africa and the Middle East instead of attack Russia. This could be seen as a move to safeguard its southern flank and to gain the Mid East oilfields whilst denying them to Britain.

- Germany needed many more units to invade Russia than it would do to defend its eastern border against the Red Army of 1940/41. This would allow the cream of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to be concentrated in the Mediterranean theatre.

- Malta held out, but only just. If the Luftwaffe had concentrated its full efforts against the islands defences early on and Hitler had authorized a Crete like airborne invasion (bearing in mind Students men wouldn't have been battered by the Crete campaign and would still feel invincible) then the island could have fallen.

- Britain's dominance of the Mediterranean hinged on Gibraltar, Valetta and its bases in Egypt and Cyprus. I have just illustrated how Malta could have been overcome from the Air. Gibraltar was a fortress but if Franco could have been convinced that an Axis victory was assured German and Spanish troops could have attacked the rock. That would just leave Egypt which would be the next target.

- The Africa Corps made it to Libya in RL so why not more troops, especially if Malta fell. I understand supplying them across the vast distances involved would have restricted the size of the Africa Corps but they could have had the pick of the Wehrmacht's best troops and equipment. Without Malta as a thorn in their side the Axis could more easily keep the Africa Corps supplied.

- The Turks very skilfully managed to walk a political tightrope and stay neutral for the majority of the war. However it is not inconceivable they could have been persuaded of forced to co-operate with the Axis to some degree. Whether this be as a base for an attack on Cyprus or the Middle East or as a full partner in any attack. This could have taken the British defenders of Egypt in the rear.

This is as far as I will speculate. Who knows what may have happened from there. I just wanted to illustrate how such a campaign could have developed in the Nazi's favour and some of the obstacles could have been overcome. Thank god it never happened!

 

[CurtSibling]

Totally Agree! What is CIV2 if we cannot explore the possibilities?

 

[McMonkey]

Also bear in mind that Britain had few friends in 1940. All of its continental allies had been occupied by the Nazis. Many in the US were against getting involved in another European war and their armed forces and industry were not prepared for war. Russia was hostile towards Britain, its army was in a state after its fiasco in Finland and Stalin's purges of many of the top officers. Also up until Barbarossa they were happily supplying Germany with raw materials used to support the German war effort in an attempt to keep Hitler on side. In the east Japan was no longer a friend of Britain as it had been in the early 20th century. Finally two of the three (Spain and Turkey) major European nations not under Nazi control could conceivably have been enticed or coerced into supporting the Axis and were in strategically important areas to strike a major blow against Britain. The third (Sweden) was in no position to support Britain and instead had to supply Germany with Iron Ore (one of the major reasons for the Norwegian campaign!).

This is not to argue that the Axis could have defeated the USA, USSR or both, but it does show they could have won the war against Britain, at least in the middle east. Could the US then be convinced that there was no hope for victory in Europe and continue its isolationist policy? Would an isolated Russia without western assistance and surrounded on all sides by hostile armies have still won? What if?

 

[Alsbron]

I'll just repost my last response because the discussion took off here. I would love to hear what you guys have to say about the "oil" terrain type.

Two things: Firstly, thanks so much for the feedback and discussion so far. Work is coming along but it is very slow because this is such a busy time for me. My LSAT is in June and I'm balancing getting ready for that, school, student organizations and a busy tine for my family. I'm aiming for Mid-Late June to get the scenario out.

Secondly, what do you think of making an "oil" terrain type to simulate the incredible importance of this resource? What terrain type is the easiest to replace in your opinion? I was thinking about just making all my tundra terrain into glacier and using that slot to place oil. If I do this, what should I do with the natural oil in the game? Most importantly, is there a particular graphic of oil terrain that is really good? I'm having trouble finding one that catches my eye.

 

[Alsbron]

To add to the discussion further, those that suggest an Axis victory against Britain in late 1940 was impossible are overlooking the natural land route the Nazis had through Turkey. Although not perfect terrain for the blitz, I believe the Nazis could have very easily defeated the Turkish army in two and a half months at the slowest. The victory would have been much quicker if Turkish forces opted to retreat and join the British. This second operation in the Middle East combined with an invasion of Malta and an offensive in North Africa would have pushed the British back into Saudi Arabia and Iraq. By April 1941 the British forces in these areas would have been soundly defeated as well.

The Nazis don't need Persia and they don't have to fight in the mountains. By this point they would have a quick gateway (through Turkey) to the Baku oilfields. Who knows what would have happened then. I think there was a real chance in the opening days of any German invasion of Russia the Red Army and Soviet government could have just crumbled. This would be more likely if the Nazis were able to quickly secure the Baku region and couple this with victories in the Ukraine and Belorussia. At that point the Nazis have secured their goals, and I think there's a huge chance at this point the British sue for peace. How the Russian theatre grinds to an uneasy peace is another matter.

 

[Palaiologos2]

BTW that's why I think it's unfair to call Soviet Union "another fascist power". Soviet has many many problems, but at least its economy plan doesn't include/depend on rob its neighbours.

Ahem...
The Soviets/Bolsheviks since day one(ever since they consolidated their power in Russia-that means before the end of the civil war) attempted to regain the old tzarist borders. In the early 1920s they invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Just because they lost all of these campaigns that doesn't make their actions more noble.
In the 1930s when Stalin took over he tried again-this time succesfully-to conquer(thats the more fitting word) these countries.

Germany on the other hand had at least a valid reason for annexing nearby Czechia, Austria and western Poland. There were Germans living there and these were historical lands belonging to the German "ethnos"(nation). And more over its economy was not based on robbing neighbors for gods sake. It had a corporatic socialism of sorts. Don't confuse the exploitation of occupied countries in wartime with the actual economic system.

As for the Turks, while skillfull diplomats, their army was in tatters in the 40s. It had remained essentially unchanged since the Asia Minor campaign of 1919-22. If the krauts ever decided to tackle them it would be a walk in the park.

As for the "madman's" choices; While its easy for us to judge with the advantage of hindsight keep in mind that the general staff didn't consider Barbarossa a risk. They actually expected to win having terribly underestimated the commies. The Russians would crumble and the Brits loosing all continental support would accept defeat. As for the land route to Turkey while it is a very valid argument strategically it is not so pollitically. Turkey had declared herself strickly neutral. Contrary to popular oppinion Hitler was not on a world conquering spree-they didn't even want the war to escalate. Any country that the nazis took over they were justified for it. Poland and Czechia, were all in possesion of German lands and ethnic Germans. Yugoslavia had betrayed them and as for Greece well somebody had to save the Italians. Denmark, Austria, Holland etc were part of the Greater Germanic nation. What would be the justification to attack Turkey? While it seems a joke that the "evil axis warmongers" would be sensitive about such "trivialities", they apparently were.

And a last thing; Curt please don't confuse party propaganda for the masses with actuall political decissions; Barbarossa had nothing to do with hating the Slavs. The Soviet union was a major enemy; They were planning to invade the Reich in no later than 1945.
The Aryan races list during the war was expanded to include French, Croats(slavs!!!), Greeks, Bosniaks, etc. depending on which race the Reich wanted to cultivate friendly relations with.

 

[Alsbron]

If Hitler truly felt he wanted to knock out the British by launching two offensives - one in Turkey and the other in Africa, he wouldn't have thought twice about Turkey being neutral. Look no further than the Benelux trio during the invasion of France. To Hitler, the Turks would have been the means to an end.

Although I am perfectly glad the thread is generating discussion and giving me ideas while in the early stages of developing the scenario, I'd also love some feedback on the questions I posed in my earlier posts regarding the "oil" terrain type. Thanks.

 

[Palaiologos2]

Yes oil terrain is fine. Make it give a great commerce bonus. Don't know about the extent of your map, but if its in europe use the most useless terrain type i.e jungle or glacier. As for the gfx there are plenty of oil refinery gfxs arround. Red front and other scenarios have used them.

 

[CurtSibling]

Did someone mention oil terrain? -

 

[Alsbron]

Oh yeah! Those will work. Thank you sir.

 

[McMonkey]

As for the land route to Turkey while it is a very valid argument strategically it is not so pollitically. Turkey had declared herself strickly neutral. Contrary to popular oppinion Hitler was not on a world conquering spree-they didn't even want the war to escalate. Any country that the nazis took over they were justified for it. Poland and Czechia, were all in possesion of German lands and ethnic Germans. Yugoslavia had betrayed them and as for Greece well somebody had to save the Italians. Denmark, Austria, Holland etc were part of the Greater Germanic nation. What would be the justification to attack Turkey? While it seems a joke that the "evil axis warmongers" would be sensitive about such "trivialities", they apparently were.

I completely disagree with your point that Germany had to have a justification for a war with Turkey. If it had suited them they would have invaded without a second thought to justifying their actions as they had already done many times before.

Germany didn't invade Greece (and as a bi-product Yugoslavia) to help Mussolini out of a humiliating reverse. They invaded to deny Greece as a base for the British to launch a campaign into the Balkans. Such a campaign would have threatened the German's ally Romania and its oilfields at Ploesti (be it by land or just by bombing). A British presence on the Balkans would also have menaced the southern flank of the German armies advance into Russia.

It was the British who needed a justification to draw Greece into the war and Italy's attack gave them that. In a twist of fate the Italian invasion of Greece saved them (temporarily) in North Africa and led to the Africa Corps involvement. The British troops sent to Greece were taken from the western desert at a time when the Italians were in full retreat and General O'Connor's troops were in an excellent position to push on to Tripoli and finish off the war in North Africa before the Germans could support the Italians there. In hindsight Britain would have been better off leaving Greece and Yugoslavia to their fate and gaining a victory major in Libya rather than weakening a successful front only to send a week force to another hopeless one.

I think that if Hitler had got it into his head that victory could be gained by an attack on the Middle East through Turkey he would have gone ahead and done it. Turkey's armed forces would have fought bravely if forced to but without an sizeable air force or modern tanks it would have been swept aside by the Blitzkrieg as Yugoslavia was. I personally think that if the Turks had been put under such pressure they would have been forced to allow the Germans to cross their territory for an attack on the Levant and the Middle East rather than see their cities razed to the ground by Luftwaffe bombs.

Also, Turkey's neutrality was kept by skillful diplomacy by İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu and Numan Menemencioğlu. They managed to walk the tightrope between Hitler and Churchill, but if events had gone seriously against them (IE Hitler wanted to pass through) their diplomacy would have counted for naught. These great men were doing what was best for Turkey and if that meant they had no choice left but to pick a side then I have no doubt they would have done so. How could Turkey gain by martyring itself for the benefit of Britain?

 

[Palaiologos2]

Germany didn't invade Greece (and as a bi-product Yugoslavia) to help Mussolini out of a humiliating reverse. They invaded to deny Greece as a base for the British to launch a campaign into the Balkans. Such a campaign would have threatened the German's ally Romania and its oilfields at Ploesti (be it by land or just by bombing). A British presence on the Balkans would also have menaced the southern flank of the German armies advance into Russia.

It was the British who needed a justification to draw Greece into the war and Italy's attack gave them that. In a twist of fate the Italian invasion of Greece saved them (temporarily) in North Africa and led to the Africa Corps involvement. The British troops sent to Greece were taken from the western desert at a time when the Italians were in full retreat and General O'Connor's troops were in an excellent position to push on to Tripoli and finish off the war in North Africa before the Germans could support the Italians there. In hindsight Britain would have been better off leaving Greece and Yugoslavia to their fate and gaining a victory major in Libya rather than weakening a successful front only to send a week force to another hopeless one.

Well i too agree with you on this one. I never said that there were no gains of German intervention in Greece; BUT had it not been for the Italian invasion the Germans wouldn't have bothered; As you said the Italian invasion gave the British the chance to get their aeroplanes to Greece and threaten the Rommanian oil fields- The Greek PM of the time, Metaxas, fully understood the dangers and staunchly denied "offers" of English support for the Graico-Italian war(considering it a seperate event fro the World War). The momment he mysteriously died though British forces landed in Athens, provoking a German reaction.
In Metaxas own words(IIRC); "We can't accept help from the British-they are offering a single division; enough to provoke the Germans but not enough to defend us from them"

To the British's credit though they stayed with the Greeks to the very end.

I completely disagree with your point that Germany had to have a justification for a war with Turkey. If it had suited them they would have invaded without a second thought to justifying their actions as they had already done many times before.

I think that if Hitler had got it into his head that victory could be gained by an attack on the Middle East through Turkey he would have gone ahead and done it. Turkey's armed forces would have fought bravely if forced to but without an sizeable air force or modern tanks it would have been swept aside by the Blitzkrieg as Yugoslavia was. I personally think that if the Turks had been put under such pressure they would have been forced to allow the Germans to cross their territory for an attack on the Levant and the Middle East rather than see their cities razed to the ground by Luftwaffe bombs.

Also, Turkey's neutrality was kept by skillful diplomacy by İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu and Numan Menemencioğlu. They managed to walk the tightrope between Hitler and Churchill, but if events had gone seriously against them (IE Hitler wanted to pass through) their diplomacy would have counted for naught. These great men were doing what was best for Turkey and if that meant they had no choice left but to pick a side then I have no doubt they would have done so. How could Turkey gain by martyring itself for the benefit of Britain?

I get the impression from you and Curt that you are somewhat influenced by post war propaganda; That the whole affair was "two evil Empires(Germany&Japan) trying to take over the world". I won't even get into trying to dispute this absurd belief. Don't get the wrong idea here-i'm not trying to demean anybody.

In anycase the Turks were overplaying a weak hand-they were militarily non-existant at the time. Their largely infantry army was still armed with WWI weapons. Neutrality suited them since they had nothing to gain from either side. In the eventuality of an invasion while they would have tried to fight back, the whole affair would be over rather quickly.