if operation barbarossa had not happened, who would have won in north africa?
>>18676461Logistics in Russia was easier for the Germans than in NA. At least they had horses there.
>>18676578If draught horses could swim, the Germans would have blitzkrieged all the way up the Nile and across the Suez Canal.
>>18676461>if operation barbarossa had not happened, who would have won in north africa?The Germans.They were far more competent then the Brits and with the resources available that would have gone to Barbarossa, they'd have easily rolled through Egypt.
>>18676924That's funny because the only reason Barbarossa happened in the first place (i.e. Germans opened the dreaded second front themselves) was that the Brits were mogging them without lube in the Battle of Britain kek. It wasn't THAT stupid either considering that before Barbarossa even started the Germans were already without Bismarck and - effectively - without Tirpitz either so a crapshoot against Russia was their only (theoretical) chance of survival. (kek)
>>18676924The Germans couldn't supply more than 4 divisions in NA and their supply route was longer than the distance from Berlin to Moscow, and this doesn't even take into account the contested Mediterranean which would cause even more logistics problems
>>18676722Dubs. Just do like the magyar did and fill up pig rectums to float across the sea
>>18677066The British success in the Battle of Britain would not have carried over to Egypt, because the island of Britain is too big to fit through the Strait of Gibraltar. The closest they could have gotten would have been to anchor Britain off the coast of Yemen, but that would still put Egypt outside of Spitfire range.
>>18677102>Germans couldn't supply more than 4 divisions in NANo Barbarossa, so your assertion is ridiculous.
>>18676461Well, that means no Lend-Lease to Russia, meaning the US is further away from involvement. The bongs are in deep trouble now.
would ethopia and iraq still fall?
>>18677226Yes, nazis get the oil, the 8% of jews in the Levant disappear.
>>18677237>the Grand Mufti of jerusalem becomes head of united arab states and gases the jewsBASED
>>18677185they couldn't supply more than 4 divisions because their supply lines were already stretched to their limits in NA, libya only had so many ports they could use, said port could only hold so many supplies, and as the other guy pointed out they had to deal with a contested supply route
>>18677417Again, no Barbarossa, so your assertions are ridiculous.
>>18677433except again it was never the problem of not having enough available troops or resources, the problem was not being able to transport a certain amount of them at any given time, in other words the amount Germany had in NA was never going to change regardless of Barbarrossa, which is also why German command didn't want to do anything beyond just defend Libya since they knew of the logistical bottleneck they will always face
>>18677490>never going to change regardless of Barbarrossa,Again, your assertions are ridiculous.
>>18676461If Barbarossa never happened, Germany would've fallen months earlier anyways, Japan attacks the USA, Russia diverts more resources onto its Western Front and swiftly annexes Poland
>>18677627again, the logistical bottlenecks present for Germany in NA were never going to change regardless of Barbarrossa since again the limit of how many troops and supplies they could send was limited by shit like what the few usable ports in the area could support and how much they could send due to contested waters, it was NEVER a case of they couldn't send more because of the Eastern front, it was always primarily due to what has been stated multiple times, NA was always going to be a small front for Germany since they could only send x amount regardless of what they had available, these logistical bottlenecks aren't even unique to NA or for Germany, why else do you think the allies decided to gamble with shit like market guarded, it was because they also face logistical bottlenecks over how much they could send at a given time, and this was with a far more devloped area without have to deal with contested seas
>>18677644>never going to change regardless of BarbarrossaAgain, your assertions are ridiculous.
>>18677185>No Barbarossa, so your assertion is ridiculous.The average division for Barbarossa needed 10x less supplies proportionally compared to a motorized division that would go to Africa, the Axis used Tripoli which could handle 45k tons on supplies a month, because they lost Benghazi they only had the Tripoli port(later they asked Vichy France for a port in Tunisia) which had to now take in 70k tons of supplies a month for it's 7 divisions in Africa, if the Axis took Benghazi(which in theory could handle 80k tons but in reality 20k tons per month due to British bombing) and Tobruk(which could handle 45k tons per month but was reduced from the battles fought there to around ~24k tons per month) they would be able to realistically get ~90k-100k tons of supplies per month, which would increase their divisions by 3, now for them to be able to win in the Eastern front of North Africa they need to do 2 things(besides taking Tobruk and Benghazi and using them as ports), 1 is to launch an operation to pacify and take Malta which caused an already bad logistics situation to be even worse(a operation was planned but never carried out) and 2 to win the Battle of El-Alamein(the Axis were outnumbered and outgunned both on the ground and air by Monty, the Allies also found out about Axis operational plans for the battle beforehand and this is not even taking into account the strain on the logistics due to how far away they were from their supply hub, if they accomplished this somehow, then maybe they could have took all of Egypt and reached the Suez Canal, however even if they did and also took control over Palestine, Syria, etc.(which they could if Egypt was taken since Alexandria was a giant port) they would still eventually lose due to the Allies invading from the West after Operation Torch, the only difference is that the Axis might not fight their last battles in Tunisia but in Egypt, getting squeezed from Libya in the West and Persia/Palestine/Sinai in the East
>>18677644Spain joining the war, taking Gilbarter and taking Malta would have been a disaster for the British logistically in the Mediterranean.
>>18678053>BenghaziThe British had control of Benghazi only twice prior to November 1942, both time periods of occupation was about a month. By April 4, 1941, they had driven them out and only lost it again in about a month during Dec 1941/Jan 1942.Where are you getting this that they didn't control it?
>>18678053The bongs got humiliated at Tobruk in June 1942, by a few thirsty Germans. 3 years of getting beat like a rented mule everywhere, and now the bongs were about to get drowned in the Suez Canal. The US had to organize a massive supply effort, then an invasion, to keep the bongs alive. And they had better things to do than hold the hand of feeble bong incompetents.
>>18678306And before that the Germans were getting embarassed by the Aussies for 7 months in Tobruk but conveniently you forget that, and after Rommel captured Tobruk he got assraped in El Alamein by Monty and withdrew back to El Agheila and the Brits took Tobruk back without a fight, regardless the Germans would have still lost in Africa regardless, which was the whole point of this discussion>>18678124Do I really need to explain the logistical problem of a port not being firmly in your control and being at risk from being taken and/or bombed? Convoys with supplies are organized weeks in advance, for bigger operations even months in advance, any problem that upsets this delicate planning could severely diminish the amount of supplies you will receive due to the need of rerouting, imagine if Tripoli was being bombed or fought around in 1942? The port wouldn't even be able to handle half of the 70k tons of supplies it was receiving which was already overbearing on the port
>>18678491>Germans would have still lost in AfricaNo, not if the US stays out.
>>18678506>No, not if the US stays out.Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around
>>18678509And the US defeated Germany in NA, bailing out the bongs, who were losing, as they had done everywhere for 3 years.
>>18676461Still would've lost because Britain controlled the Mediterranean.
>>18678654>Britain controlled the Mediterranean.Kek
>>18678518If bongs didn't have a perfectly safe military-industrial complex across the pond then their special peacekeeping operation would have ended Nazi rule in 1934 already. They were magnanimous because they couldn't be touched.The Germans did unprecedented damage in this chimpout but NOT against the bongs.
>>18678761>beggars on rations>not damaged
>>1867877120 to 1 KD ratio tho.
>>18678774Kek
>>18678745They did though. Italy's navy was a joke. Germanys navy was non existent outside of submarines.
>>18678783Yeah, it's funny considering that muh K:D ratio is the ultimate naziboo cope. While being stomped like cockroaches by the British.
>>18678835Yeah, they were weak, and the bongs equally so.
>>18678855>by the BritishKek
>>18678886I am waiting for the next cope:>our guys would have won if the bongs had placed all their army (air force and navy included) in front of our Tiger tanks!!You were fighting the previous war while the industrial civilization have advanced. It seems that the German mythology was already somewhat outdated at that point. No that they would have been able to do better if they tried.(remind me who invented the tanks in first place btw. kek)
>>18678506>No, not if the US stays out.Why would they stay out? The thread is about if Operation Barbarossa never happened, i.e. if the Soviets were not in the war, not the Americans, the erratic vegan tranny still declared war on the US while his soldiers were freezing their asses outside Moscow, if anything he'd be even more likely to declare war on the US without the war in the East, the US was still supplying the British war effort and was only explicitly not in the war, even if Hitler magically wasn't a retard and didn't declare war, who is to say a Lusitania 2.0 wouldn't happen again and Congress would declare war on Germany, if you're just taking out all the major players of WW2 then why not just make the British military not have tanks and planes and make them use flint-based rifles at this point
>>18678964>industrial civilization>bankrupt and losing
>>18679065>why not just make the British military not have tanks and planes and make them use flint-based rifles at this pointWithout the US, they are.
>>18679078>cope>seethe
>>18679095I accept your concession.
>>18679105>and dilate
>>18678964>You were fighting the previous war while the industrial civilization have advancedYou went bankrupt and lost your entire Empire while the Germans became the Economic giant of Western Europe anyway. You lost, island ape, I hope the Pakistanis will please your women more than your pathetic men.
>>18678518>And the US defeated Germany in NA, bailing out the bongs, who were losing, as they had done everywhere for 3 years.The Brits were losing so badly in NA that Rommel had to withdraw 1500 miles from Egypt to Tunisia after getting raped by Monty at El Alamein before a single American boot touched the North African coast, Rommel didn't even take the Americans seriously and called them "Britain's Italians" which is why he tried to encricle them before Monthy's 8th Army arrived, the mere reality that Monty was coming to rape him from Libya made him shit bricks and when he lost all of his tanks against Monty in March 1943 he left his 250k troops to be captured while he went back to France for "sick leave" kek
>>18678855KD ratio is the ultimate cope of militaries who lost wars, the whole strategy in Vietnam by the US was based around KD ratio, Westmoreland was a retard who genuinely thought that would breal the North Vietnamese, look at how that turned out
>>18679081>Without the US, they are.What is Germany without Swedish steel lmao? A bunch of trannies with rifles lol
>>18679133Ok, let's assume the Germans got carried by tiny Sweden. They still became the strongest western economic power after WW2 and surpassed Britain which was still rationing food until 1954. The British had to be carried by the largest industrial giant of the world and still lost their empire despite only fighting the WW2 sideshow. I think the facts are pretty clear, I'm not that much of a German glazer, the Americans and Soviets were decisively superior, but you Brits wouldn't have done shit on your own.
>>18679123>bongs were losing so badly in NA that they were about to get drowned at Suez before the US bailed them outFify
>>18679135Ok now let's get back to the topic of the thread, could Germany have won in NA if Barbarossa didn't happen? Oh that is correct, they couldn't because the US and Britain would be fighting Germany regardless of the Soviets being invaded or not
>>18679140>they were bound to get drowned in the Suez>Germans barely reached Alexandria>Rommelsissy couldn't even win at El Alamein despite trying 2 times and failing against Montychad
>>18679145They would because Britain would have gone bankrupt sooner the moment they are not fighting the sideshow anymore. They may have tactically superior against the Germans, but we saw how mere tactical superiority turned out for the Germans when they faced the USSR.
>>18677066>was that the Brits were mogging them without lube in the Battle of Britain kek.Many RAF officials have said that if germany had continued bombing their airfields instead of cities, Britian would have been without an airforce in a matter of months.
>>18679148>They would because Britain would have gone bankrupt sooner the moment they are not fighting the sideshow anymore.The Germans lost the Battle of Britain and as 20 other posts beforehand said they couldn't facilitate as many troops on NA as in the East against the Soviet Union, so how exactly would they go bankrupt sooner? Nothing would change
>>18679157>Nazitrannies bomb civilians instead of military targets>act surprised when they lose the battleÜbermensch
>>18676461Montgomery is just a better tank commander than Rommel so I doubt the outcome would have been different
would japan do their southern operations against britain, america and netherlands in this scenario? they did it specifically assuming germany would steam roll ussr in a few weeks
>>18679121>bbutt - after our Fuhrer was defeated and we focused on the economy instead of warfare - the area we have been clueless about - we have eventually prevailed!You're welcome.
>>18679199>they did it specifically assuming germany would steam roll ussr in a few weeksno they didn't, in fact one of the reasons they signed a non aggression pact with the USSR was because the Germans did the same, Japs never assumed the German were going to break it
>>18677066Easier for the Germans to get aircraft to N.Africa than for the Brits.>>18677102No Barbarossa means those resources can be used in N.Africa.
>>18679206wrong. this is historical revisionism. uk and us thought ussr could by them enough time. nobody thought ussr would survive in tact in 1941. japan wanted its piece of clay before things wrapped up.
>>18679170>Montgomery is just a betterNothing. Nothing is the answer.
>>18679236>No Barbarossa means those resources can be used in N.Africa.DID YOU READ A SINGLE POST ABOVE YOU, YOU FUCKING CRETIN?
>>18679163>couldn't facilitate as many troops on NA as in the East against the Soviet Union,That is your false assertion, yes. They humiliated the bongs with what they had, a little push and they're gone.
>>18679147>>Germans barely reached AlexandriaPoised to drown the bongs in the Suez, yes. Good thing the US showed up.
>>18679145No, no Lend Lease to USSR, and the US might stay out. And bongs get drowned.
>>18679401>They humiliated the bongs with what they had, a little push and they're gone.>the humiliation in question>>18679409Rommel got gaped by Monty before a single US boot touched North African soil, Rommel was shitting bricks because he knew Monty was coming from the East he genuinely thought he could easily destroy the Americans, his last attack against Monty was a frontal assault where he lost the last of his tanks and ran back to France afterwards kek>>18679412>never even made it to Alexandria>failed 2 times at El Alamein>bongs would get drownedLol, lmao
>makes Rommel's clitty leak at the mere mention of his name
>>18679435Yes, they humiliated the bongs, and prepared to drown them. The US dropped everything to hand the bongs the materiel to keep from getting drowned, then invaded.
>>18679438Kek they literally laughed at him.
>>18679065Why didn't the Germans just use flintlocks? Rifles don't kill anyone in modern war anyways. They could have saved the gun and ammo material to build more artillery and tanks and planes that actually mattered. Were they stupid?
>>18679395And Germans, Master Engineers, couldn't improve the ports or build a railway in North Africa because reasons? Retard.
>>18679578>Were they stupid?No, but the bongs were. The US had to give them all that.
>>18679581Hitler sent minimal forces to NA, just to help out his bud Mussolini. Turns out, it was enough for Rommel to rape the bongs back to Suez.
>>18676461>who would have won in north africa?Britain.Why?1. Germany can only supply 4 divisions in N.Africa because the port of Tripoli could only sustain 45.000 tons per month. Britain on the other hand could field an entire army in N.Africa because the Egyptian ports could support it.2. Rommel in fact needed 80.000 tons per month for his 4 divisions. This was only mitigated by captured British supplies.3. Italian Libya lacked any kind of sophisticated infrastructure. No railroad and one single dirt road. Egypt had railway and multiple large ports.4. This forced Rommel to create a supply-network of trucks running constantly from Tripoli to the Egyptian border, almost 2000 kilometers of trucks. This meant that every supply truck needed a supply truck which in turn needed a supply truck just to haul one supply from port to front, meaning most of Rommels consumption was spent on hauling supplies.5. This supply line was running on a single dirt road, which meant dust clogged engines. It meant flooding. It meant easy prey for RAF. All of this in turn meant that despite all of Rommels frontline victories, he could never fully capitalize on said victories, and his victories meant further catastrophic strain of consumption, something the British were aware of.6. Said supply also has to cross the continental ocean of Mediteranian which increases consumption of supplies plus the use of resources to defend the supply line which has to be extended just to avoid proximity to Malta.7. Even if Rommel by some miracle had won at El Alamein, it wouldnt had made any difference; the UK-US invasion of Morocco and Algeria forced Rommel to immediately U-turn to prevent the allies from capturing the major port of Tunis, giving up all his grounds in Egypt.8. Even if Rommel had by some miracle captured Egypt, the only real strategic purpose of Egypt was to supply Malta, and the only real strategic purpose of Malta was to complicate any capture of Egypt.
>>18679714If Barbarossa never happened Germany could have sent the Eisenbahntruppen to upgrade the ports and build a railway in Libya.They converted 16,000 km of track from 6/22 to 8/8 1941 during Barbarossa. 2,000 km of new railroad over, say, a year seems very doable.
>>18679831Which would mean that Rommels entire war-effort would have to be paused in order to support this major infrastructure overhaul. There is a difference between laying new tracks over old tracks on an already established railway line in a country bordering Germany.And laying tracks on completely barren unpopulated uncultivated desert on a different overseas continent.The main problem is time, since by 1942 it will be too late and Tripoli becomes irrelevant since the fight will be for Tunis, a much much larger port, against the overwhelming UK-US navies.
>>18676461>if operation barbarossa had not happened, who would have won in north africa?The Nazis, obviously. Rommel humiliated the bongs with only a token force, and with no Eastern front to suck resources, he will easily destroy them in NA. As the US wouldn't be sending Lend Lease to the Sovs, there's no guarantee they go to war with the Nazis, as they'd have no Persian Gulf route to protect. And the bongs alone are Singapore-cookedThe only question is, would the Nazis continue on to the Gulf, and make that a source of oil.
>>18679551So why did Rommel retreat from El Alamein to Tunisia and was shitting bricks when he heard Monty was arriving?
>>18679581>And Germans, Master Engineers, couldn't improve the ports or build a railway in North Africa because reasons? Retard.Yes, please try to build an entirely new port or upgrade the 3 existing ones(2 of which were bombed to the point 75% and 50% of their max handling capacity was diminished) while fighting near said ports and while they're in range for bombing by the British on a short notice, same goes for the railways, ironically the Italians were in charge of upgrading the ports but they spent more time build ports in fucking Albania
>>18679543The Bongs raped Rommel's entire tank army and left him with 50 tanks out of 550, why can't you simply accept the Nazis can't win in Africa unless you literally remove 2 of the biggest players in the war and make the Brits basically have no military? The fucking thread scenario is about removing the Soviets ONLY, the retard Hitler would still declare war on the US, making them involved and just repeating our own history
>>18679950>Rommel humiliated the bongs with only a token forceRommel had the maximum amount of forces he was able to muster, which was 4 of his own divisions and 3 Italians, he got defeated at El Alamein and lost 90% of his tanks there, he then retreated 2000 miles while barely putting a fight
>>18679950>We were running away from the British for the whole two years!!Now that we have established what you mean by "humiliating the British" and who was the boss in this fight please tell us more about German plans of terraforming Africa and transcending the Mediterranean Sea.
It is remarkable the lengths that some "humans" will go to suck montgomery's cock
>>18680294Why didn't the Germans just invent mulberry harbors and beach landing craft so port capacity isn't a problem? Were they retarded?
>>18680500NA was not significant to the Germans at all and they only sent forces there because of Italy's failures there against the British.
>>18676461>if operation barbarossa had not happenedBunch of illiterates in this thread.
>>18680506In fact Rommel should have been sacked for insubordination the moment he took the fight to Benghazi. His orders were clear not to advance outside of Tripoli, and they were limited for a reason. The amount of resources he squandered for Germany just to supply 4 division to advance thousands of kilometers in open desert is unfathomable, and for a frontline with no real strategic purpose for Germany.
>>18680500Because Germany has never had any industry to support amphibious landing operations, meaning they never had any equiptment to support amphibious landing operations, because they never even had the resources to support amphibious landing operations, and even if they did, they still never had any experience or training to support amphibious landing. In fact, they couldnt have any of this, because Germany had not even ever had a doctrine to support amphibious landing. Ever.So no, Germany could never brew up something from scratch that would even remotely look anything resembling pic rel.
>>18680727>Pic rel
>>18679121>emotionally charged troglodyte injecting his bizarre modern day cuck fetish into a ww2 discussion back to /pol/ with 'ye
>>18680290There was a Barbarossa then, and the Americans were involved. Alone, the bongs continue their previous 3 years of defeat.
>>18680294The Germans would be in Cairo soon, so no need.
>>18680309Again, Barbarossa and American involvement change everything. Alone, it's Singapore II.
>>18680314>Rommel had the maximum amount of forces Hitler would give him, small numbers, but plenty enough to humiliate the bongsFify
>>18680322>what you mean by "humiliating the British"I mean humiliating them at Tobruk, with a few thirsty Germans, 3 years into the war, forcing the US to bail the bongs out.
Why are wehraboos so historically illiterate? >but if X didn't happen then germany totally would've won If my auntie was a man she'd be my uncle.
>>18680500Why bother? They raped the bongs at Tobruk, just rinse and repeat, same as everywhere else the past 3 years.
>>18679165>trannies bombed/genocided his ape race for five yearsL O L
>>18680692The oil is the purpose. Rommel knew how incompetent the bongs were. Guderian knew, too, and forced matters in France that the higher ups didn't like, and they worked spectacularly. Hitler wanted to kill Stalin though, and let the bongs off the hook, again.
>>18681040>The oil is the purpose.There was no oil in N.Africa at the time.Unless you're talking about the oil in the Middle East. On a different continent.If that's what you're refering to then you have even more problems than what Rommel already faced.1. Rommel had to advance 2000 km from Tripoli to Egypt, something he barely could do, and what caused the logistical nightmare that was N.Africa. From Egypt to Mesopotamia is another 2000 km of desert.2. Capturing Egypt would create more frontlines, to the British holdings in the south and to the east. Germany needs to double manpower, double their supply demand just to protect the flanks, as well as double supply to support another 2000km advance into Middle east.3. If we play with the idea that Rommel can capture Mesopotamia. The immediate problem becomes A: What stops Britain from destroying the oilfields before that happens / B: How is Germany going to extract the oil, refine it and ship it to Germany, two continents away / C: How is Germany going to protect the oilfields or the 2000km flank.4. How is Rommel going to achieve all this before 1942 (since he couldnt IRL with all realistic restrictions despite overwhelming victories) when the UK-US navy lands in the west to capture Tunis.5. How is Rommel going to defeat the 8th Army to capture Egypt to begin with since this wasnt realistically possible even IRL because the 8th army will always be 4x times larger than Rommels corps
>>18681075Did Rommels army even have the intention of threatening the Suez or was it more a display of good faith to protect the front of an ally
>>18681089Rommels orders were to reinforce the Italian lines around Tripoli and leave the burden of offensive operations on the British, which made sense because the Libyan-Egyptian border was almost nothing but desert and thus a logistical nightmare for anyone attempting offensive operations on the opposite side.Rommel then decided to defy his orders and instead go on the offensive, which created a logistical nightmare for the German army instead, whom had to funnel 10x more resources into a single division in North Africa than what a division otherwise would consume.The only reason Rommel wasnt sacked for insubordination was because Hitler liked his aggressive 'attitude' (since Hitler often got bored and frustrated with his generals talking about what was realistically possible). The goal for Rommel was the Suez Canal, but like I said before, there is an irony to it since the whole purpose of the Suez Canal is to supply Malta, and the whole purpose of Malta is to complicate any capture of the Suez Canal. For Germany it had no real strategic value. For Britain it was mostly a matter of prestige since Churchill was severely under threat of being replaced (the house held a vote of no confidence against Churchill on July 2 1942, something he narrowly survived).
>>18681113So the German high command just wanted to entrench themselves and let the Allies burn manpower and materiel to gain a political victory, rather than a strategic once?
>>18681118>and let the Allies burn manpower and materielYes. Offensive operations in N.Africa is a double edged sword that hurts the attacker more than the defender.> to gain a political victory, rather than a strategic once?Capturing Libya was strategic for Britain.Capturing Libya, thereby Italy losing its last overseas holding, means it's very likely that Mussolini gets ousted and Italy exits the war.It would otherwise mean that Italy is vulnerable for attacks and Britain finds a new entry to the continent ("Soft Underbelly Strategy").
>>18679065>if anything he'd be even more likely to declare war on the US without the war in the EastNot necessarily. The war declaration happened when everything was looking pretty good for the Germans in Russia. So they thought they were about to win. If there was no deceleration Hitler might've been more apprehensive since he'd have to deal with the uncertainty of invading.
>>18681032So we agree all Nazis are trannies? How much estrogen do you take xisa?
>>18681000>>18681003>>18681010>>18681012>>18681027See >>18679435
>>18681075There is no reason to entertain the moron, Nazitrannies never could have won in Africa, can't you see he literally wants to take both the Soviets AND Americans out for his shitty fanfiction scenario?
>>18681158>The war declaration happened when everything was looking pretty good for the Germans in Russia. lol no it was the opposite.The war declaration happened when things were going from bad to worse.Barbarossas failure was catastrophic because it meant a long war that Germany may not win.The war declaration was out of desperation to turn things around. The status quo was killing Germany. If they declared war then they could potentially reverse the outcome in the Atlantic since it gave them greater freedom to fight the convoys.
>>18681075You're making long, rambling posts that have no value.
>>18681205You want me to read your long, rambling nonsense again? I didn't bother much with it the 1st time.
>>18676461>if operation barbarossa had not happened, who would have won in north africa?The Nazis, and that would open up an opportunity for them to collaborate with the Japanese Empire, the bongs having been destroyed in both NA and Singapore, and having fled from the Indian Ocean as per historical. That was the prime impetus for the US to bail out the bongs in NA, as the ongoing bong failures everywhere were now compounding themselves.
>>18681396Imagine that the Germans managed to send majority of their armed forces to Africa. What do you think would happen in Europe?
>>18681418With no Barbarossa? They'd be fine. Same deployments everywhere else, or maybe less, as action picked up in NA.
>>18681209Its not just chuds that make this argument.The Rommel myth is pretty strong among normies as well.People just never bothered to even read the wikipedia article on the desert campaign.Rommel could only field 4 division in North Africa because the port of Tripoli could only sustain 45.000 tons per month, which was below minimum for said divisions, and his advance towards Egypt created a logistical nightmare since it was supplied solely by a chain of supply trucks. Each supply truck required its own supply truck, with that supply truck requiring its own supply truck in order to complete the chain. This meant that the majority of fuel was spent on simply reaching the front, and the dirt road caused losses of its own due to dust and floods.His little adventure in North Africa costed Germany more than any other front in porportion. Any DAK division had 10 times the consumption rate of a German division in Russia. Rommel should have been sacked for insubordination, not praised. His adventure also lacked any real strategic direction because the Seuz Canal ultimately meant nothing except Churchills career, which would honestly probably have been an improvement since Churchill was a terrible war leader and the only reason Rommel was successful to begin with was because Churchill knowingly lost all heavy equiptment in Greece when he should have used it to let O'Connor capture Tripoli already in 1941, thereby closing the North African front there and then.
>>18681456This thread's about Barbarossa never happening though, so presumably Hitler's still planning on beating the UK first.The Mulberry harbor, not including all the beach supply landings, could supply 6,750 tons a DAY just a month after D-Day. Let's say the Germans are still dogshit at amphibious operations (even though in this hypothetical they are probably planning for Sealion so they're actually researching stuff like overseas supply) so the German model is 5 times worse. 6,750 * 30 / 5 = 40,500 which would nearly DOUBLE the supply they had irl.Are you saying the entire German engineering corps (who aren't doing anything anyways because no Barbarossa) couldn't repair Tripoli or build another something good enough to make even 1/5th of a mulberry harbor?
>>18681447And what would Stalin do. To unarmed Europe.
>>18681475>This thread's about Barbarossa never happening though,Yes I know.And the point is that Barbarossa happening/not happening is ultimately irrelevant because the logstical bottleneck simply makes fielding more troops or more mechanized equiptment in N.Africa impossible. I dont know why this is so hard to understand. I literally explained why in the most basic way. > Let's say the Germans are still dogshit at amphibious operationsThey cant be, because they dont even have a doctrine for amphibious operations. It simply does not exist.>even though in this hypothetical No it's not hypothetical, it's a fact. Germany has never had any school of amphibious operations. Let alone any industry for it.>planning for SealionThey really werent planning for Sealion because no one thought it was a good idea, not even Hitler.The plan was to use river barges, which would have been impossible and the Germans knew that. You cannot create a beachead with river barges> so the German model is 5 times worseIt wouldnt be 5 times worse. It wouldnt exist>Are you saying the entire German engineering corps couldn't repair Tripoli or build another something good enough to make even 1/5th of a mulberry harbor?Could they expand the port or build a new port? MaybeBut this means 2 very critical problems:1. The port wasnt the only bottleneck, it was the entire Libyan infrastructure, which would also need to be completely overhauled and built almost from scratch.2. This project would halt all of Rommels offensive capabilties since shipping would be dedicated to this endeavor, and it would take a very long time, years. Which is a major problem because the allies are going to react to this decision and not just sit passively and wait for it to happen. Rommel was only successful because he capitalized on the fact that the 8th army had been stripped of all its heavy equiptment and much of its manpower to Greece, and he was able to constantly press the British from recovering
>>18681506>It wouldnt be 5 times worse. It wouldnt existIt did exist, Krupp designed a landing jetty could be built in a single day. The prototype was installed on Alderney and lasted until 1978.
>>18681525There is a difference between building something in direct proximity to your industrial base, and something on a different continent.Get it through your head that in order for Germany for pull off something like Mulberry, they would need naval doctrines and industry and equiptment and material that looks like this >>18680728, and they would never have that. And it's even more problematic for the fact that it's intended for a different continent, seperated by the not-so-industrial Italy that's going to act as the link, and to be completed over highly contested water between said continents.
>>18681378>wehraboo won't accept the reality that is put in front of himEvery single time
No, troll, I don't wehraboo.
>>18681484Who knows what Stalin would do? He's got a treaty with the Nazis, and was a stickler on those even if Hitler wasn't.
>>18681525Yes, and on the Med gentle duck pond, it'd work perfectly.
>>18681506>I dont know why this is so hard to understand.Because he refuses to read what you say because you disagree with his fanfiction, he thought he would be told that the Germans are gods in human skin and would basically conquer the world if it weren't for Barbarossa while the reality was that they couldn't supply their own units adequately which is the primary factor in winning wars as any good commander and general will tell you
>>18681561>Who knows what Stalin would do? He's got a treaty with the Nazis, and was a stickler on those even if Hitler wasn't.While the theory that he would attack Germany in 1944 when he was ready for war seems a bit outlandish, him attacking a weakened Germany is definitely something he would do as he's only ever attacked enemies he perceived as weaker like Finland, Poland, Baltics, etc.
>>18681573Germany is no weaker than in 1941, for sure. Stalin took years to simply recover chunks of Russia, this with massive US aid. Is he initiating a war without aid? He's already got the slav 1/2 of Poland, and the Baltics. That's the defensive buffer Russia has always wanted historically, and Stalin has it. Why attack?
>>18681581>Why attack?Well I'm not the one who claims he would attack, that's what Nazi revisionists say, I merely stated IF Germany was weakened, it is not out of the realm of possibility for him to attack to gain even more of Europe
>>18681569Well regardless of what he believes, arguments can be made for Germany to 'win' the war, but the answer is not through N.Africa. In fact if someone is going to argue a 'Germany wins' scenario, one of the steps is to realise the disaster that was N.Africa, and to scrap the N.African front completely, not to double down on it.If I were to argue his position, my first point would be to convince Italy to remain neutral, as it would greatly improve Germanys strategic situation and isolate the war to North-western Europe.
>>18681581>Why attack?NTA but did Stalin view the German-Soviet war as an inevitability like the Germans did?
>>18681543You're right, it is physically impossible for Germany to build even a single pier or build any road bigger than a dirt track. No, they couldn't build a single narrow-gauge railroad from Tripoli to Toburk, it would be too much work, even though the British could built the Western Desert Railway from Egypt to Tobruk, a standard-gauge railway at 2 miles / day.No, even the Germans capture Tobruk, the railroad engineers diverted from Barbarossa aren't allowed to repair or upgrade the the Tobruk-el Alamein railroad or send a single additional supply ship with a single additional locomotive over, it would immediately cripple Rommel instead of easing his supply issues. No, the Germans aren't allowed to upgrade the Benghazi-Barce railroad either even though all the railway engineers are all twiddling their thumbs doing nothing due to not invading Russia.
>>18681596>standard-gauge railway at 2 miles / day.Even using this metric, the distance from Tobruk to Tripoli is ~750 miles, so it would still take them a year at the bare minimum, which is too long and Tobruk would again be located 400 miles from Alexandria, which is another 200 days at least, and this is with the Brits being passive, which is not realistic>>18681589But would the UK really come to the negotiating table even if Italy and the African front never got involved? The war just be Germany trying to starve Britain out via submarine warfare, I'm guessing that's where you're going with this
>>18681596I'm more interested in discussing what was realistically possible than some fantasy.You dont seem to understand that Britain was on a completely different ball game than Germany when it came to overseas operations.UK built 15 aircraft carriers during ww2. Germany tried to build one, and it was never finished because they ran out of funds and material.Britains entire doctrine, its entire military, is tailored towards overseas operations, its entire empire had its infrastructure tailored to this end. Germanys entire doctrine was to fight around its immediate proximity, something they excelled at. Not to fight overseas.Britain was never going to defeat Germany on the continent, and Germany was never going to defeat Britain outside the continent.You have this infantile thinking that just because the allies, with their overwhelming advantage, could pull something off, such as Overlord, Germany should be able to do the same. Not a single historian would ever even entertain the idea. Maybe you can try to convince some jeet AI to you fantasy but I seriously doubt it. I dont think you're a very smart person because you seem to think things can happen on the push of a button without considering the X amount of factots of implications to every scenario that you present. You seem to think Germany can just ship entire infrastructure overseas, in 10x times larger distance than the allies had over the channel, over contested waters, with undeveloped countries acting like links, that this will be finished in record time, and that the allies will be passive to any changes.
>>18681615>The war just be Germany trying to starve Britain out via submarine warfare, I'm guessing that's where you're going with thisIn retrospecive, the blockade of Britain was also a failure since 90% of British shipping made it across without even encountering any German U-boats, and the Atlantic cannot be won for as long as the US was belligerent.No what I am going with this is that Germany isolate the war rather than expanding it to save itself from the logistical and resource-demanding nightmare that was IRL.Britain faced serious financial problems in 1941 and were essentially bankrupt by 1943. Churchill faced a vote of no confidence on July 2 1942 which he narrowly survived.I guess what I am putting my money at if I was to take his argument position, is for Germany to simply tire the British resolve in a war that seems to be going nowhere for either of them. To paraphrase; Britain is the equivalent of a whale, and Germany is the equivalent of an elephant. The two of them fighting is simply a match that cannot happen and will eventually be called off by their managers.The problem with Italys entry, is that it gave Britain a frontline to work on, and a window to win the war, the so-called "soft underbelly strategy".All of this also relies on USA and USSR being neutral for a longer period of time until Britain and Germany tire each others out. Something which is very unlikely since it demands that USA stops being USA, and the nazies stops being nazies (i.e no Barbarossa).But oh well.
>>18681615Sure, a Tripoli-Tobruk railroad is also probably useless and too slow, but the Germans DID capture Tobruk and DID ship 8 German locomotives and 30 small Italian engines onto the Tobruk-El Alamein railroad from June to August 1942 even while German rolling stock was eating shit in Russia.>>18681617You seem to think the Germans would simply do NOTHING with all the resources they would have spent on Barbarossa. Wait, you're right, German engineers suck, just look at the absolute state of the Bundesbahn today. It is in fact impossible to improve Rommel's supply situation even slightly. Even if 99% of the German army stays near the Soviet border anyways they couldn't spare a single extra supply ship, nope.>>18681639The answer to OP's question could be the Germans could ship a few more divisions over, maybe reach Egypt only to find every port bombed out and then get double-teamed by Operation Torch but no, Rommel simply could not go a single mile further.
>>18681688>You seem to think the Germans would simply do NOTHING with all the resources they would have spent on Barbarossa.Yes. Why is this so hard to believe? Like you seem to get frustrated by the mere idea that Germany just cant teleport things, that there are some actual limitations.> Even if 99% of the German army stays near the Soviet border anywaysFirst of all this gives Britain a huge advantage since Britain can maintain a relatively small mobilized army (hell even the 8th Army was only 50% British, the rest were British allies) while Germany has to keep the entire wehrmacht mobilized simply for the sake of checking the Soviet military from trying anything funny. This alone puts Britain in an extreme advantage to simply sit out the war and let the clock tick.An economy bleeds at record pace from a mobilized army, a major reason why the USSR was forced to immediately demobilize post-1945 in order to avoid a social and economic collapse that nearly happened in 1947. It's a major reason why Ukraine is facing economic and social problems.>It is in fact impossible to improve Rommel's supply situation even slightly.Well DAK was already completely motorized, no horses used for that logistical chain, only trucks, trucks that could have done a far better service somewhere else.And DAK could only be as mechanized as it was within the logistical supply bottleneck.Not to mention, DAK was prioritized to recieve the best tanks, hence why N.Africa was the frontline to see the first use of Tiger tanks.So what exactly should Rommels recieve?>they couldn't spare a single extra supply ship, nope.What extra supply ship? How many supply ships that were used in Barbarossa can be redirected to N.Africa? And how are they even going to enter the Mediterianian?
>>18681688>The answer to OP's question could be the Germans could ship a few more divisions overWhich they cant, for reasons already explained.>maybe reach Egypt How about we stick to what happened. And Egypt was never even close of being actually in danger of falling, despite what British post-war propaganda says in order to dramaticize their war effort.>maybe reach Egypt only to find every port bombed out Most likely yes. >and then get double-teamed by Operation TorchPretty much yes, whch makes any advance into Egypt completely pointless since Rommel has to U-turn and abandon everything in order to defend Tunis.Kinda what happened IRL.>Rommel simply could not go a single mile furtherThe problem is that every time he goes a mile further, it makes the front more problematic for Germany to manage.
>>18681588And the answer is in the post you responded to.
>>18681590Maybe, murderous dictators gon' murder. But the point is that absent Barbarossa, the Nazis wipe out the bongs in NA.
>>18681639>Britain faced serious financial problems in 1941Uh, they came to the White House begging and bankrupt in December 1940, and the U-boats hadn't really started destroying bong shipping, which they couldn't replace.
Well, obviously these ridiculous assertions are not being made by engineers. Yes, the Nazis can ship goods to NA. Lots of them. And troops. And many of the Barbarossa vehicles. Let's see your engineering project list and CV, if you're claiming otherwise. The task isn't even complex. And done on a calm duck pond, too. Not to mention, we're talking about the bong military here. They've just spent 3 years being humiliated everywhere, this is just the latest where. That's why the US was forced to bail them out. They couldn't be trusted, at all. Not even against Rommel and a few thirsty Germans, who had just raped them at Tobruk, taking 25,000 prisoners. Huh?!?However, Htler preferred to go war with Stalin.
>>18681723>>18681743>Yes. Why is this so hard to believe? There would be a bunch of extra trucks and trains that didn't break down in Russia. There would be all the spare rails spent repairing the Russian railroads that could be used in Libya. There would be extra air cover to spare over the Mediterranean to protect Axis convoys. The oil reserve wouldn't be used dry supplying Barbarossa.>trucks that could have done a far better service somewhere else.Where? The non-existent Russian front? For the invasion that didn't happen?>So what exactly should Rommels recieve?Maybe some trucks so all the supplies weren't stuck at the ports, for one. Before you complain about "where oil" and "where trucks" there often was extra oil stuck in Benghazi and all the spare trucks were sent to Russia irl.>What extra supply ship? The Axis weren't bottlenecked by lack of ships. They could send more if they expanded port capacity and overland transport, which they could have with all the spare army engineers NOT busy converting track in Russia.>Which they cant, for reasons already explained.You believe it would take many years to improve the supply capacity, and completely disregard any evidence that Germany could and did build things quickly.>How about we stick to what happenedThe point of this thread is a counterfactual, what didn't happen. North Africa was an unprioritized backwater front, but without Barbarossa it would be the only active land front in the war. >>18681823LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the Axis to build anything. Not a single investment in logistics. Every single army engineer got laid off after Barbarossa was canceled.
>>18681904>extra trucks>spare rails >extra air cover >oil reserve And again, none of this matters. It doesnt matter if you have a million extra trucks and a million extra aircrafts.The infrastructure was already running at max capacity, it couldnt support more.>The non-existent Russian front? Far more essential than N.Africa front which absolutely lacked any real strategic purpose.>Maybe some trucks so all the supplies weren't stuck at the portsMore trucks which means more consumption which means more supply demand from a port already operating at full capacity. Do you not understand the problem yet?>Before you complain about "where oil" and "where trucks"Nope that's not even the crux of the debate>The Axis weren't bottlenecked by lack of ships.So why did you even mention the idea of sending extra ships.>They could send more if they expanded port capacity and overland transport,A complete infrastrucutre overhaul on an opposite continent with meager equiptments for such an operation, under contested waters, while also maintaining offensive operations, with ports already running at maximum capacity, against an enemy that will absolutely adapt to any major strategic change, with a narrow time window before Tripoli become irrelevant since Tunis will be the main focus.>which they could have with all the spare army engineers Manpower was never the issue in this debate.The issue is that you pretend Germany has the capacity to perform a US-UK Overlord-esque operational capability across 10x greater distance with 10x times less equiptment with 10x times worse conditions but under the same time frame.>You believe it would take many years to improve the supply capacityI believe it wouldnt be possible at all.And my opinion is shared by 99% of all historians in the world.You're the one making stuff up.I'm literally giving you the fantasy benefit of it being remotely possible, as to which yes it would take years to complete.
>>18681904>completely disregard any evidence that Germany could and did build things quickly.No, none of that are evidence.You're arguing that just because Germany pulled something off in their backyard, they could now do the same thing under a hundred times more difficult conditions by virtually every factor.It was this exact logic which made them fail in Russia > "We had no logistical issues against France, ergo we will have no logistical issues in the Caucasus". Wrong.>The point of this thread is a counterfactual, what didn't happen.That doesnt mean you can give Germany resources they did not have, material they did not have, equiptment they did not have, and ignore time and space completely. Theory still needs to be grounded in reality.>disregard any evidence that Germany could and did build things quickly.There is no evidence that Germany could build something quickly on a different continent. Hence why it never happened.>without Barbarossa it would be the only active land front in the war.Not really an argument because it doesnt change the reality of the situation. Unless you terraform Libya and wave your magic wand to transform the entire Libyan infrastructure, along with the entire Italian infrastructure etc.> Every single army engineer got laid off Again, the problem isnt manpower.
>>18681942>>18681949>The infrastructure was already running at max capacity, it couldnt support more.It could. Supplies were piling up in Tripoli while there was a shortage on the front line in Benghazi in April-May 1941. 10,000 tons of fuel were stuck in Tobruk in August 1942. With a extra trucks they could have move the supplies out. >Far more essential than N.Africa front which absolutely lacked any real strategic purpose.No Barbarossa was the entire point of this thread.>resources they did not have, material they did not have, equiptment they did not haveA big reason they didn't upgrade the railroads irl was there Italy only had 60 km of spare track and all the rest got sent to Russia. Convoys didn't want to sail to Benghazi / Tobruk because it used more fuel. Without Barbarossa, they would have these supplies.>And my opinion is shared by 99% of all historians in the world.All the historians talk about how the logistics were fucked in real life, with Barbarossa. Not about how it is physically impossible to build a port or a railroad or have some spare trucks.>Hence why it never happened.It never happened because, again, all their resources was used on Barbarossa.
>>18682004>It could. No because you still ignore the fact that the port was already operating at full capacityYou also ignore the fact that more trucks means more consumption since every supply truck needed its own supply truck whom in turn also needed its own supply truck. Every time you add something, you have to add all the other factors as well.More trucks = more consumption = more supplies = more port overloadAnd for what? to support Rommels 4 divisions, possibly 5 if we play with the idea that more tons could reach the front. It's still not going to enable an army-sized German presence in N.Africa, which is what's required to contest the British 8th Army, an army you deliberatly choose to ignore as a factor because you assume the British remains passive to these major strategic changes in German behaviour, that the British doesnt increase their own logistical capcity and increase their military presence aligned with Germanys efforts. Why do you never factor this?>No Barbarossa was the entire point of this threadJust because you remove Barbarossa doesnt mean that you have to double down on Rommels drive to nowhere, arguably the worst frontline of the entire war for Germany, as it squandered unfathomable amount of resources for an extremely strategically questionable pursuit>big reason they didn't upgrade the railroads irl was there Italy only had 60 km of spare track and all the rest got sent to Russia.No the big reason why it didnt happen was because the infrastructure was already strained by enabling the entire front. Rommel would have to pause his entire war if infrastructure and supply capacity was re-directed to building projects. Rommel opposed any invasion of Malta specifically because such an operation would put his entire frontline on pause.The only reason Rommel was successful was because he didnt pause but constantly pursued the British. You cant have both.It's not physically possible. You invest in either.
>>18682004>Not about how it is physically impossible to build a port or a railroad or have some spare trucks.A great number of historians has written on the desert war and their conclusions are all the same = The infrastrucutre created a bottleneck that couldnt be resolved because of the existing the pre-conditions at the onset of hostiltiies.So yes, they've already trashed your entire premise, which is to magically send more when more couldnt be sent.So yes, virtually every single historian who has written on this topic disagrees with you. The only one who thinks otherwise, is you.>It never happened because, again, all their resources was used on Barbarossa.According to you, and no one else.
>>18682029>>18682036>Just because you remove Barbarossa doesnt mean that you have to double down on Rommels drive to nowhere, Well OP asked about North Africa. If Germany drags the UK to the table with Battle of Britain Part 2 / another U-Boat campaign or if Germany just starves to death under the blockade or gets nuked a couple dozen times, that really isn't winning in North Africa, is it.>According to you, and no one else.van Creveld's "Supplying War":>In January 1942, Rommel ... demanded another 8,000 trucks for his supply columns. This was out of the question, since at the time all four German armoured groups operating in Russia could muster only 14,000 lorries between them>Rommel’s supplies, as we have seen, depended less on Malta than on the capacity of the Libyan ports and the distances to be covered inside Africa. While the former problem could perhaps have been solved, the latter was bound to remain because there were not enough vehicles available to bring DAK up to establishment.>there was little motor transport available to bridge themLand transport, that is, a truck shortage, was the problem. The reason there was a truck shortage was, of course, Barbarossa. Only 135,000 of the 600,000 trucks used at the start of Barbarossa were out of service by November 1941.
>>18682004>Not about how it is physically impossible to build a port or a railroad or have some spare trucks.It's not impossible, it's just not realistically feasible, others have already said this, but it would take far too long to upgrade the ports and build all the roads/railways from scratch, the Italians did a similar thing in Albania, building infrastructure and upgrading ports, it took them 2 years and 10s of thousands of laborers and military engineers to do this, and this was during peacetime(and I'm not even counting the 14 years they spent building infrastructure in Albania already before 1939), yet despite this the Albanian ports were still handling more supplies than they comfortably could have during the invasion of Greece, your scenario requires even more workers, and they have to work during wartime
>>18682075oops, typoI meant only 135,000 trucks were OPERATIONAL, the rest were out of service
>>18682075>>Rommel’s supplies, as we have seen, depended less on Malta than on the capacity of the Libyan ports and the distances to be covered inside Africa. While the former problem could perhaps have been solved, the latter was bound to remain because there were not enough vehicles available to bring DAK up to establishment.Did you even read your own source? It literally states the "distances" and "port capacities" would remain unsolved, and the "not enough vehicles" is euphemism for "not enough supplies"
>>18676461Given that the Kriegsmarine got crippled by the invasion of Norway and the only relevant Axis sea power in the Mediterranean was from the Italians, AND the Axis still couldn't subdue Malta, I'm guessing the British would still win in North Africa
>>18677433>no Barbarossa magically leads to the creation of new harbors and a surface fleet somehow I mean maybe after years of building up those resources, maybe
>>18679831That still entails having to ship all that building material (and the supplies to feed and keep the workers alive) across the sea.
>>18682075>that really isn't winning in North Africa, is it.The premise shouldnt be to "win in North Africa" since that front is a dead end to begin with.A better use of resources would have been to simply defend Tripoli as intended and leave the burden of offensive across the logistical nightmare desert to the British.Or even better, to use all that resource and material and men to defend Italian mainland, which would have made allied landing virtually impossible without an Overlord-esque planning, preparation and execution.And no the answer isnt a BoB 2.0.I couldnt tell you what the answer is, but it is not to double down on the arguably the worst German front of the war.A stale war would be better, since Britain was effectively bankrupting itself since it was conducting bombing raids that resulted in far greater losses than the damage it produced, and an increasingly bankrupt treasury to maintain the Atlantic supply chain. Perhaps the British would simply admit futility to a conflict that seemingly leading nowhere except lives lost and debt rising, but this also depends on Hitler being more modest in his terms. Like I said before, Churchill was under heavy criticism and nearly ousted by the parlament in 1942 because the war wasnt really going anywhere with mounting costs and lives lost.>Land transport, that is, a truck shortage, was the problem. No because like I already asked you in the previous post: Even if we play with the idea of more trucks, it may only better supply Rommels already existing 4 divisions, and at best you could add another mechanized division, it still isnt enough to contest against an entire army.And you still ignore the entire aspect of changes within Britain to adapt to this overwhelming German strategic U-turn. You just assume that the British will do nothing to respond to this German maximization.
>>18682081It states "While the former problem could perhaps have been solved". The former problem, port capacity could have been solved.>and the "not enough vehicles" is euphemism for "not enough supplies"Stop making shit up now. There were enough supplies in, they were just stuck at the ports and couldn't reach the front in time. This is a point van Creveld makes several times.>>18682076Surely German engineers could do better, at a priority front with no partisans...>>18682090Shipping wasn't a big issue if Italian navy actually had fuel. Italian shipping losses were "light" even as late as october 1942.>>18682096>I couldnt tell you what the answer isLet's say Rommel was successfully tardwrangled and the Axis waited around Tripoli from 1941-1942. Now they actually do have the time to improve the ports and build up a railroad, at least up to Sirte, the front line 300 miles east of Tripoli (the front line was that far to protect Tripoli from air raids). Great, that's halfway to Benghazi already. And of course, the British would be building a railroad from Benghazi and improving the ports too. This would make an Axis offensive to Alexandria in 1942 even easier.>changes within Britain What changes could the British do that they hadn't already done? I guess they would have more lend-lease because no Barbarossa.
>>18682130>What changes could the British do that they hadn't already done?Why is the premise of your entire logic that Germany could do so much more and the allies could do little to none?If anything it would be easier to spin your argument around. Instead of "how can Germany win", we can instead argue from the premise "how can the allies win even hardr than they did", and effectively course-correct everything and apply your exact logic that you've been using in this thread, but to the allies instead, and I bet you wouldnt be as enthusiastic about that debate as you have been so far about everything Germany could potentially do because you say so.I could just as easily use your exact argument method by saying that since the allies actually constructed a provisional port in 1944, then what stops Britain from doing it in 1940 and field not only one army in Egypt, but three, and build a second railway, and squeeze the entire royal navy into the Mediteranian, and instead of building 15 aircraft carriers Britain instead builds 500.000 aircrafts, all deployed in Egypt.Suddenly your make-believe fantasy doesnt become so entertaining anymore, since the entire premise of your logic is that Germany gets and recieves all kind of changes while the allies just kinda stay where they are, all for this to be able to work.
>>18682130>Surely German engineers could do better, at a priority front with no partisans...They had no partisans, but they had the Brits in the sky harassing them, they build past a certain point and the railways and roads get bombed to dust, how will you solve that? Let me guess, by bringing more stuff to Africa kek?
>>18682130>There were enough supplies in, they were just stuck at the ports and couldn't reach the front in time.There was enough supplies...for 4 divisions, stuck in a port...which could handle only 60% of the supply tonnage that was arriving in it, the supplies were barely reaching the front...because there was 0 infrastructure in Libya, and ad nauseam, your entire premise relies solely on the fact that the Brits would just stand by and do nothing while the Germans try to build roads/railways and upgrade the ports, can you not see how retarded this is?
>>18682139>>18682155>>18682157see >>18676461>if operation barbarossa had not happenedThat's why the Axis could do more in this scenario.There were enough supplies for 10 divisions (3 German, 7 Italian) in February - May 1942, 900 miles from Tripoli. But it turns out I'm arguing against an illiterate retard who can't even read simple English and thinks "not enough vehicles" to transport the supplies is euphemism for "not enough supplies"
>>18682130>Surely German engineers could do better,I'm guessing you aren't European, cause looking at the state of Deutsche Bahn compared to Italotreno nowadays uuhh...
>>18682164>There were enough supplies for 10 divisions (3 German, 7 Italian) in February - May 1942, 900 miles from Tripoli.You're just trolling at this point, 100+ posts have told you the exact number of supplies needed and that were available and you still ignore them for your own fanfiction, and where in God's name did you get 3+7, do you even know whose and how many divisions fought in NA? Please find a better board to troll
>>18682130>Shipping wasn't a big issue if Italian navy actually had fuel.>had fuelThis thread already started with the premise of "no Barbarossa", a campaign which was in part launched explicitly because the Axis desperately needed resources like fuel.
>>18682164No Barbarossa means an incredible relieve of burden for the allies to supply the Soviets.It also relieves the allies for the obligation to provide constant pressure on Germany since they have no 'collpasing Red Army' to constantly consider, which means allies can take a entirely different approach to the war.But you never factored this. Not even once.It means:1. No lend-lease to the Soviets and instead directed to Britain / kept by Britain in 1941, giving Britain heavy resource advantage. All those tens of thousands of British tanks, planes, guns etc that were sent to the USSR would be invested in Egypt.2. No rapid demand for bombing campaign to relieve the eastern front; Britain can focus less on heavy bombers and instead invest in frontlines that are more urgently required to defend, such as Egypt, especially with the obvious German investment in Libya. This means thousands of fighter planes no longer necessary as escorts, and all the heavy bomber production can be directed to three times as many fighter plane productions that can reinforce Egypt.3. This means huge amount of stockpile of fuel and ammunition, building of airfields, expanding ports and infrastrucutre, deployment of equiptment that otherwise was directed elsewhwere in IRL.4. No build-up for Overlord no longer necessary since its no longer necessary to "open up a second front". Instead all that material is spent on Egypt and eventually Algeria and Tunisia to trap everything Germany has funneled into Africa.5. Since Lend-Lease to the Soviets is completely scrapped, and the need for a second front less critical, US will come down hard on North Africa with everything they got, and likely even earlier than IRL 1942, an even more problematic time-window Germany to build up Libya.6. All those shipping and escort used for the Arctic convoy could be used in the Mediteranian, greatly shifting the balance for Cunningham.I could go on but 2000 word limit.
>>18682177>I could go on but 2000 word limit.He will just say the Germans can build roads and railways and port and yaddayadda you will be repeating yourself until bump limit because he refuses to accept that Rommel loses anyways unless you remove the US(which he literally did for his fanfiction)
>>18682182All things considered, no Barbarossa is actually a nightmare scenario for Germany because no eastern front means no urgnecy for a western front, meaning more cautious approach to end the war, meaning Manhattan Project is put to its actual intended use until the Germans decides that Hitler needs to go.
>>18682172I already made that joke earlier...>>18682173>From mid-February to May, the voluminous correspondence between Panzerarmee Afrika and OKH is for the most part free from complaints about the logistic situation.75 This is remarkable, for while reinforcements had raised Rommel’s strength to ten divisions (three German, seven Italian) and, accordingly, increased his requirements to 100,000 tons,76 he was in fact receiving an average of only 60,000 tons during each of these four months.77 This was rather less than what a considerably smaller Panzerarmee had received during the difficult period of June-October 1941, and yet it enabled Rommel, first to take the offensive, and then to prepare another and even more spectacular one. You cite 99% of historians but haven't read a single one.>>18682174The weren't desperately low on oil in 1941. Germans wouldn't be wasting all their fuel driving tanks around in mud, and could still import from USSR. They didn't even run out irl until 1944 when their logistics were bombed to bits in the spring and Hungarian and Romanian refineries were captured. So yes, I reckon the Germans could have afforded sending some fuel to the Italian Navy to support the only active land combat front.>>18682177>>18682182Pearl Harbor was December 1941. The US would still need a few months to prepare, which is why I put the timeline to 1942. No Barbarossa could also mean the US goes Japan first because there's no USSR to save. General George Marshall and Admiral Ernest King strongly opposed Operation Torch irl. Now everything ends with Germany turning into a mushroom field but that's no fun.
>>18682211>The US would still need a few months to prepare, which is why I put the timeline to 1942.Why is this even an argument? Your entire premise is that everything followis the IRL timeline except for no Barbarossa, which means DAK cannot be sent any earlier than 1941 anyway, and since your entire argument is to basically abandon all offensive operation in Libya and instead dedicate all shipping and resources to do a complete overhaul of Libyan infrastructure, it does create an extremely narrow time window for any actual offensive operations across the desert on Egypt, before the US-UK invasion on Tunis, which essentially even you recognize as a big fat game-over for the campaign on the Suez. Do you even realise how much that must happen under so little time?>No Barbarossa could also mean the US goes Japan first because there's no USSR to save.So now you're trying to downplay your own argument that everythinf directed on Barbarossa would be directed on the British overseas empire, and that this would be a crushing blow, but in the same breath you say USA has no reason to invest in the Tunisian campaign like they did IRL even though you've literally fantasized about investing alll Germany got into this isolated geographical pocket.Why wouldnt the US just proceed like normal if its all-in for Egypt, or even more likely, invest even greater in the Tunisian campaign just to trap everything Germany has and potentially ending the war there and then by cutting off and creating a greater loss than what was lost as Stalingrad times 4.
Germany wouldn't commit more than 2 panzer divisions as in the OTL, Barbarossa or not. They can't risk having a significant force across the Med when there is an ever present threat of a US/UK landing and the Soviet attack. Even if such a force doesn't get cut off and stuck in Africa, it would take months to bring them back. IRL it took several months to transport the 1 Panzer division and 1 light panzer division to Africa.
>>18682211GroBdutchland will do the needful to the dastardly britishers in Egypt and liberate Bharat to form der pan-Aryaische hyperunion just like in hoy4, saar!
>>samefagOf course you were a troll. kys. 99% of historians support you but you don't post a single one.For anyone else reading, the Vichy French ports and railroads were completely unused by the Axis during the Western Desert campaign irl. Without barbarossa Germany could have bribed France enough to park some divisions in Tunisia, blocking Operation Torch without interfering with the supply to Libya.>>18682234Rommel only wanted 3 more mechanized divisions in his memoirs. (But of course that's Rommel just gigacoping.) Everyone is forgetting about just how massive the war in Russia was, that Germany wouldn't spare just some extra material to North Africa even if they still had to watch the Soviet border.
>>18682262>Without barbarossa Germany could have bribed France enough to park some divisions in Tunisia,Lol no since respecting the French empires integrity was a fundemental condition for peace. If Germany doesnt respect it, then there is a real chance that France never even sign any armistice with Germany in 1940, which is actually pretty catastrophic for Germany.>Everyone is forgetting about just how massive the war in Russia wasNo one is forgetting that.It's just not relevant to the N.African front.And you're too stupid to understand why even tho it's been explained a hundred times already.>that Germany wouldn't spare just some extra material to North AfricaAnd yet N.Africa was prioritized by recieving fully motorized logistics while Barbarossa was carrierd with horses, and that N.Africa was prioritized for the best equiptment, hence why Tiger tanks first real action was there.
>>18682269>Lol no since respecting the French empires integrity was a fundemental condition for peace. Darlan agreed to Hitler's request to use Toulon and Bizerta as a transit ports in May 1941.>It's just not relevant to the N.African front.>And yet N.Africa was prioritized by recieving fully motorized logistics while Barbarossa was carrierd with horsesOMG did you know german logistics used le...... horses????Of course I'm debating a pop history redditspacer. A moron. Where's your 99% of historians? You still don't have a single source btw.You're too stupid to understand Barbarossa made Germany lose 4/5ths of their trucks in just a few months and just how fucked the German motor pool was so they had none to spare to supply North Africa with. And if you knew a single thing about the North African campaign you would know General Ritter von Thoma visited in October 1940 and reported that any north african campaign HAD to be motorized. Horses simply wouldn't work.
>>18682195not a wehraboo, but "no Barbarossa" was probably the only sliver of a chance for Germans. They wouldnt be too far behind from Manhattan Project. US still wouldn't be able to deliver a nuke onto Berlin even if they could. Germany on the other chance could've rushed their nuke and used that say on Soviet Union or to leverage ceasefire with the allies. Soviet Union without the destruction of everything west of Moscow would have become even a more serious threat than it was post WW2, meaning Germany also could have leveraged some kind of not alliance, but a treaty against mutual threat or so. Possibilities are endless with the main fact being that it would not be as definitive of a 0% chance of survival scenario as attacking Soviet Union head on is
>>18682285Even if Rommel gets his trucks, gets steady supplies and wins at El Alamein, the Germans still lose in North Africa because the Americans come from the West and the British are still in the Middle East, so the only thing that would change is the location of the last battles provided Rommel doesn't move West to hold the Americans, regardless of what he does, he will inevitably get squeezed in by the Anglo-American forces who would still have superior logistics to Germans in Africa, and there is no feasible way for Germany to ever have such efficient logistics as the Americans did, so no Germany would still lose even if Barbarossa didn't happen and America would still be forced into the European war by Hitler
>>18682566Yes, the US would put down the Nazis, as the bongs had proven incapable. We know this historically.
>>18682177>No lend-lease to the Soviets and instead directed to Britain /The bongs were already the biggest recipient of LL, and still losing everywhere.
>>18682177>All those shipping and escort used for the Arctic convoyWhich was nothing, and which the US abandoned after the cowardly bongs abandoned convoy PQ-17, about the same time Rommel was raping the bongs at Tobruk.
>>18682155>Brits in the skyKek, no, sorry, bongs were feeble there too.
>>18682139>the allies could do little to none?The bongs couldn't, proven so. The US and Germany could.
>>18682096>You just assume that the British will do nothing to respond to this German maximizationNo assumption, that's what they did, which is why they got humiliated everywhere for the prior 3 years.
>>18682637I have told you already ITT that the British had magnanimously let the Germans build the strongest army on the continent (stronger than their own even) because they were impervious to any German efforts anyway. And yes, that was also because they WERE in close relations with the US. (the same US which was watching German "defensive" (kek) armament efforts without batting an eye either). IF they were not then the Germans would not be allowed to build their army in the fist place, duh.moron
>>18682088Again, the non-engineer provides input.
>>18682675>bongs had "let"Kek, they let themselves get raped everywhere, for 3 years.
>>18682637So you agree that the Germans still lose in Africa even with no Barbarossa? Great, at least you concede that there is no way for the Germans to win
>>18682692>if the war was fought on an entirely different continent and with totally different branches of armed forces than it actually was AND diplomacy (the part of statecraft we've had no idea about) wasn't yet invented then our boys would have won!! (Also, this other mustache man we always insist that was constantly looking for a chance to backstab us actually wasn't)wow. That's quite tall conditions of victory though.
>>18682637>as the bongs had proven incapable.See vidrel >>18679435
>>18682696The US would win everywhere, as we know historically, just as we know the bongs lost everywhere.
>>18682699Some kind of weird flex here, but nonsensical.
>>18682702Nobody's bothering with your obsessions now, lad.
>>18682678>Again, the non-engineer provides input.You don't need to be an engineer to know that ports take a long time to build and upgrade, you also forget that the Italians were responsible for almost the entire supply chain of the Axis forces in Africa, the Germany navy offered to take over port operations but the Italians refused, also see >>18682076 since you keep coping about "muh engineers"
>>18682705Ok, now repeat after me>Germany would still lose in North Africa even if Operation Barbarossa never happened
>>18682715>Nobody's bothering with your obsessions now, lad.Erwin "the logistic services would somehow have to ‘adapt themselves’ to the tactical situation." Rommel was a retard who lost to a genuine autist who was a better general than him in almost all regards and pushed him back to Tunisia, unlike the fanfiction of him you conjured up in your mind
>>18682705>The US would win everywhere, as we know historicallyThat's not what the nazis believed in though. The plan was for them to conquer Eurasia and then to bomb America into submission (kek)btw>as we know historicallyHistorically your basedboys got their asses handed to them yet here you are.
>>18682726>You don't need to be an engineerYes, you do. Now shut up. Your assertions are ridiculous.
>>18682727Repeat after me. The bongs lost everywhere, and were losing in NA, forcing the US to bail them out.
>>18682735Again, Rommel humiliated the bongs, with a few thirsty Germans, forcing the US to bail out the bongs.
>>18683895>That's not what the nazis believedWho cares, we're talking facts, not belief. >Historically your basedboys got their asses handed to them Explain this ramble.
>>18684448>Explain this ramble.It's called reality, something you hate because it makes you seethe
>>18684448>I don't even understand what you are saying.I know. I can explain it to you (which I did) but I can't understand it for you.
>>18684458No, still no explanation for your ramble.
>>18684461No. Still no explanation.
>>18684458Check the Scoreboard on who won The Cold War. I ain't seeing a USSR flag anywhere
>>18678509nope. Formal declarations of war are irrelevant when US strategic doctrine is about specifically going to war while not formally declaring war because its the only to actually wage war in the hellish bureaucracy that runs America.There were over 15,000 strikes and 30,000 casualties in a "conflict" that isnt even close to being declared a formal war.For Germany and the US, the US was captured German outposts, holding Germans as POWs and turning them over to the British, attacking German vessels, and shipping weapons to Germany's enemies.If Germany hadnt declared war nothing would have changed.The United States never declared war on Vietnam, a conflict that saw about a third of the losses the US sustained in WWII.Given how the United States has behaved, we can say via the precedent which followed - there isnt actually any evidence the US wouldnt send a million man army to Europe if there was no formal declaration of war.The US was always going to invade North Africa and Europe, regardless of formalities.
>>18679128>the whole strategy in Vietnam by the US was based around KD ratio,except it wasnt, it was based around not inflicting the necessary casualties to win.The US wanted to kill specifically NVA infiltrators, a high KDR was a byproduct, not the goal.a high KDR goal would have solved the war, no man, no problem.
>>18679123What was Rommel doing in Egypt, 1500 miles from "safe" Axis territory?
>>18679133>What is Germany without Swedish steel lmao?still the largest steel producer in Europe.
>>18684512>there isnt actually any evidence the US wouldnt send a million man army to Europe if there was no formal declaration of war.This statement is ridiculous, as not even the warmonger FDR would do that . The US would have to declare war for that. Hitler did what FDR wanted. >The US was always going to invade North Africa If the bongs got raped, which they did, yes.
>>18681020>lefties pretending their lack of abstract cognition is "historical realism"
>>18681506>They cant be, because they dont even have a doctrine for amphibious operations.Neither did the United States you moron.Britain had something worse than an Amphibious doctrine, a BAD amphibious """""""doctrine"""""".>river bargesno, the plan was to use the ships that took the Channel Islands, River Barges were going to be mobilized to increase logistical capacity, they were not going to hit Britain's beaches under fire in open air river craft.I feel like you didnt know that Germany DID launch amphibious operations and DID take islands in the English channel.
>>18684526>This statement is ridiculous, as not even the warmonger FDR would do that??? neither Truman nor Johnson were warmongers like FDR and they both escalated US involvement to a colossal degree in international wars without declaring war.>The US would have to declare war for thatso why didnt they?Why didnt they declare war regarding Vietnam?Oh right because US strategic doctrine is about walking the line of US direct action and the bureacracy.
>>18684458>colors on a map changed>who cares 1/3 of my racial bloodlines were wiped out, the map became more red and I got to rape kids xddddwhy are orcs like this?
>>18684558>Ackchually we have won it! Giving away half of our Lebensraum was the plan all along and the Fuhrer flew to Argentina out of joy!melty time
>>18684557>Truman nor Johnson were warmongers like FDR and they both escalated US involvement to a colossal degree in international wars without declaring war.Both were warmongering, like FDR. The US had troops deployed in Korea, being attacked, and the CinC has constitutional powers to counter that. Truman bent those, but they existed. LBJ had Tonkin Gulf legislation in hand. Both of them had Congress' with them, and don't get too hung up on "declaration" not being used. FDR attacking another country is another matter, particularly in 1939-41. He'd have to get Congress, as Truman and LBJ did. All 3 are lying, warmongering scumbags. But the common threads are clear.
>>18684516Wtf are you talking about? Westmoreland and McNamara made the strategy and it relied specifically on the amount of dead their forces inflicted upon the enemy, they thought they could kill more of the communist forces than they could replace with their BIRTH RATES, the problem was that you can't kill enemy troops you can't see, it's why Westmoreland got replaced by Abrams after Tet, because he was hunting rabbits in a jungle for 4 years instead of adapting to the reality on the ground
>>18684512The US was obviously sympathetic to the Allied cause but shipping weapons and defending their convoys didn't make it a belligerent. NATO is currently supplying Ukraine with war materiel but it isn't in the state of war with Russia.The fact is that the artist believed that after the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor the USA is done and he declared war on it as he wanted his share of spoils of the New World kek.
>>18678120Everytime Spain tried to take Gibraltar it failed, horrifically. Franco would be certainly couped after suffering such a humiliating defeat.
>>18687590>Franco would be certainly couped after suffering such a humiliating defeat.And then leftist traitors can flood Spain with Morrocan subhumans even sooner, how splendid
>>18687590>every one time 200 years ago
>>18685899You restated what I said. They weren’t actually going for numbers. Numbers would have seen them invade the north and destroy them wholesale.>birth ratesThey were overcoming their birth rates. The problem is it wasn’t a war of birth rates lol. It was a war of Asians among Asians.If they killed every Asian they met they’d have won.
>>18684571>having a melty and projecting it onto otherslolConcession accepted, orc.
>>18688761Is concession in the room with us now?
>>18688892Yes??? Your concession is in the thread right here. You had a meltdown over the simple fact that Germany is wealthier than Judeo-Slavs, less dysgenic than Judeo-Slavs, and has a higher HDI than judeo-Slavs.Why does the mere existence of Germany’s superiority in history cause such a visceral reaction among the mentally ill?
>>18688956>Germans are superior>Germans let their wives fuck black and brown men while being replacedLol, lmao, you're owned by Anglo-Jewish Gods btw
>>18688965>uhh um uhh bbc
>>18688956>We gave away half of our Lebensraum to maintain the higher development of a reminder of a country which is closer to the British center of the civilization and to replace our Aryan stock with Slavic and Turkic one!!Noice. Some big Aryan brains must have been behind the scheme; similar to yours I reckon.
>>18688956>Judeo-SlavsActually it's Germano-Jews, the Jews who migrated to Poland did so expressly to avoid assimilation.
