Would've Germany gained the upper hand if they attacked the Middle east instead of the soviet Union? (WW2)

Question

Will it help, how will it help and why it will help.

IF NOT

Will it fail, how would germany get worse, and why will it lead to the same German defeat?

Answer 1

Interesting one.

Invading the middle East via Turkey probably would have brought Russia in, so it would have had to be a north African campaign, and there simply isn't room to deploy armies there on the same scale as in Russia.
Supply becomes interesting: with no need for Murmansk/Archangel convoys convoys, much British shipping and many naval units are freed up. The naval fight in the Mediterranean would have been even more intense.

The 8,000 aircraft that were sent to Russia under Lend Lease and
More than 8,000 tanks (excluding light tanks)
200,000 heavy trucks
200,000 light vehicles (including light armour)
would all be available for the British forces.

And there were resources in Russia that Germany needed.
Not least, it was believed, was food.
"On December 14, 1940, Herbert Backe, the State Secretary ... in the Food and Agriculture Ministry, released a confidential report... Backe further concluded that the longer-term food shortages could only be solved through an attack on the Soviet Union, followed by wholesale confiscations of Russian foodstuffs and livestock.."

A Middle East Strategy would not have solved that.

And at that stage in the war by Axis agreement the Mediterranean had been assigned to Italy's sphere of influence and operation.
It was only Italy's failures in Greece and Egypt which initially drew in German forces to the region.

Answer 2

No, it wouldn't have gained the upper hand. The oil wells of the Middle East and vastly overstretched supply lines weren't a good trade-off for the fertile plains of Ukraine and Russia. What Germany most needed was time to breathe, and because the assualt on Britain was never concluded, Germany had to stay on the offensive against British and Commonwealth forces. Taking the Soviet threat out of the picture looked promising, but it required a massive invasion. Had the Italians better defended their navy against the British and found success in Greece, perhaps the war in the Mediterranean would have been far more successful, freeing German forces and supplies for the Soviet push (and allowing a Spring invasion rather than a Summer one). The best option for Germany, considering the overstretched Afrika corps and stalemate developing with Britain, really appeared to be attacking the Soviet Union.

Answer 3

Yes. By not attacking the the soviet Union and having a large scale two front war. The population of the soviet union was too large for Germany to conquer. The armies in Russia would have been available for the western front. The amount of soldiers needed to control the middle east would be minimal. Iraq and Germany were also allies at that time due to their hatred of Jewish population. If Germany did not attack Russia they would have won .

Answer 4

They did gain control over a large portion of north africa but there supply lines were stretched to thin and the british beat them back to italy and sicily. the war would have gone on for much longer if they wouldnt have attacked russia because russia fielded over 5.5 million men and 50000 tanks against the germans which was as almost as much as the other allies combined although russian tactics and training were terrible at the start of the war. America and Britain would have had a lot of trouble destroying the nazis on there own but would have eventually due to german resources, supply lines, manpower all being stretched to thin. It would have been a battle of attrition but we would eventually have won. As well the nazis had to deal with hundreds of thousands of there front line troops relegated to occupation troops. Remember that the further you invade the weaker you get which is what the german army learned invading russia.
Another thing is though that hitlers occupation troops are not like americans. In france in ww11 if a german soldier got killed by marquis (french resistance, terrorist) german troops would kill 10 innocent people plus. Same thing as russian prisoners, for every german killed they would laughter 100 russians. That didnt last the whole war though.

Answer 5

There was a minor skirmish in North Africa. It was stopped at a place called El Alamein.

The only way for Germany to get to the Middle East was via North Africa, or through the Caucasus and Central Asia, which involved attacking Russia. They tried both of these and failed.

Or they could have attacked Turkey (which was neutral in WW II) from the Balkans.

Answer 6

The middle east was not of much use to them. Had they kept their pact with the Soviet Union, and concentrated on England, they might have kept the U.S. out of the European theater, and forced a peace that would have kept them out of war for a number of years while setting up regimes in the countries they had already invaded. Thankfully the crazy bastards got annihilated.

Answer 7

Germany probably would have won and occupied the Middle East easily. But a totalitarian regime can not survive forever. Within a few years or decades it would have disintegrated anyway, just like it happened to the communist ex-USSR. Any country based on injustice and cruelty sooner or later collapses and disappears.

Answer 8

"So truly it took the allies till 1944 to easily attack a German occupied zone." You mean different than for North Africa and Italy, and the allied bombing of Germany? I additionally did no longer see the Soviets come racing to all of us's help lower back in 1940. They have been particularly chuffed to place the boot into Poland whilst the Germans invaded, and did bugger all for the time of the conflict for France and the conflict of england. D-Day took years of making plans and progression, often with the aid of fact we basically had one risk at it, and did no longer sense obliged to drop our own adult adult males right into a meat grinder for the sake of the Soviets who have been indifferent to Hitler's antics as long because it did no longer impression them. nevertheless, the Soviets have been properly offered for the time of the Baltic and Arctic convoys, and the adult adult males who served in those convoys, besides with the aid of fact the Atlantic convoys are between the main unsung heroes of WW2. "the U.S. replaced into taking nearly all of the Germans." As Hitler had already alluded a decade in the previous WW2, his ambition replaced into to enhance to the east on the price of Russia, and Russian ambivalence on the commencing up of WW2 got here finally at great price to Russia.

Answer 9

What do you mean, exactly. How would gaining the Middle East have effected the outcome. What would the Middle East at that time have offered Germany that would have changed the war?

Answer 10

If japan hadnt bombed pearl harbor and brought the u.s. into the war the allied lines would have fallen in france and hitler would have sent the rest of the troops over to the eastern lines to fight against russia the japanese would have been able to help attack russia from behind and russia would have fallen then hitler could have launched a campaign on the middle east and easily taken it leaving him in control of just about all of europe. he most likely would have then launched an attack on great britain and taken over the allied forces only remaining hope. then he most likely would have headed south into africa and the rest of europe then after he controlled all of europe he would have built a massive army and developed his own nuclear weapons to use on the u.s. and we would have fallen. but thankfully japan screwed up and attacked the u.s. and woke the beast who arrived just in time to reinforce the allied lines in france and thin out hitlers forces.