Why didn't Hitler invade Middle East for resources first before invading Soviet Union?

Question

Why didn't Hitler invade Middle East for resources instead of Soviet Union? Or at least invade Middle East first to secure the resources needed for sustained military operation?

I understand Hitler had long yearned for a showndown with the Bolshevism. But considering the raw material dependency Germany had towards USSR prior to Operation Barbarossa would mean (even more) serious shortage on oil, grain, wood products and various metals -- as expensive as Soviet products may be.

How much resource production did Nazi Germany seize from western USSR? The cost of occupying conquered Soviet territory seems likely greater to me. I seriously doubt, whatever the amount is, it would cover the increased demand from military operations and lost Soviet imports otherwise. Germany may have had a stockpile of materials. But according to the linked Wikipedia article, the stockpile of oil would deplete completely by June 1941 using British estimates which was without Operation Barbarossa and rubber stockpile would expire in two months after the import through USSR is cut off. What appears to me is that Nazi Germany did not have the ability to sustain a war against USSR for more than half a year. If that is indeed true, then the resource shortage is one way to see how the Nazi leadership had no contingency for Operation Barbarossa to last for even more than half a year. It is one thing to hope for a swift victory but it is pure stupidity to expect a swift victory as a certainty.

So why then would Hitler invade USSR prior to resource security which would mean security in arm production which would result in sustained strategic military superiority? Why not invade or puppet Greece, Turkey and then through Turkey invade Middle East, securing the alluminun and other metals and the oil that Germany needed? That would also open up access to British Raj and even Singapore with all the rubber out there. (Can trade with Japan by then.) Nazi Germany did end up invading Greece after all

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — MCW, Jan 14 '20 at 11:39

score 17 · Answer 1 · edited Nov 20 '18 at 21:34

17

It is worth pointing out that Germany would always have been at a huge disadvantage in a war of attrition against the USSR, they have vastly fewer people, smaller industrial base and tactical depth. Even if they had the resource wealth of the whole Middle East and Africa they would have run out of men in a year or two. What mattered more was trying to catch Russia in a decisive and fast attack to force the war to end fast before a war of attrition could begin. That was the goal of Barbarossa.

A similar point is often made about Japan, they imported all their oil from the US at the outbreak of hostilities they had one year's supply stockpiled. About a year later they ran out. The Japanese Admiral Yamamoto famously said they he would run rampant for a year but would they would be defeated.

It is worth remembering that capturing a region does not automatically connect its resources to your factories. Even a successful invasion of the Middle East through Turkey would create a very long and difficult logistics supply line that could be easily attacked from the north along several paths by the Russians in an eventual war or from the south and east by the British who had the dominant surface fleet and easy access to of many of those territories.

Lets examine the routes that Germany could have taken to the Middle East

Amphibious landing - take off from Germany or southern occupied France and land on western coast of the Middle East somewhere between Egypt and Turkey. Not an option: the German fleet was too weak to break out of the North Sea let alone protect a massive landing fleet.

Fight East from North Africa - Rommel and the Afrika Corps did try to fight from Tunisia into Egypt but were defeated by first the British and later the Americans. In this way the Germans did try to invade the Middle East and failed.

Invade from the North from East of the Black Sea - That would mean invading Russia so this path does not let you get to the Middle East without fighting Russia first.

Invade from the north from West of the Black Sea - This means either mounting an amphibious crossing of the Black sea (see the first problem) or an invasion of the Balkans then turkey. This would have been hard and numerous mountains they would cross and long distance would wreak havoc on their supply chain but it is the most feasible. The Brits would also have transferred troops from north Africa to fight there instead. Most of the Middle East was easy to reach and reinforce for the British so why would they have been less defended than North Africa?

edited Nov 20 '18 at 21:34

mike65535

113
1
1
8

answered Jul 27 '16 at 23:31

sdrawkcabdear

517
2
8

1

Best answer so far. But a few things. 1) Fight East from North Africa option and analysis is anachronistic. 2) Empire of Iran among others was not a colony of Japan. Iran was in fact invaded by Soviet and UK in 1941 to prevent access to its oil fields by Germany. 3) The statement on the success of Barbarossa is dubious. I am not aware of any wide academic consensus on the state and/or success of Germany military operation during Barbarossa. David Stahel (search his lecture on Youtube) provides detailed information that states otherwise. (He seems reputable to me because the large amount of – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:38
points he described in details that I have learned from other (secondary) sources. He also briefly mentions what his primary sources are.) Rapid advance of (isolated) panzer groups and encirclement and annihilation of large quantity (but small in portion) of Soviet troops created the impression of success. But was it real strategic success? Regardless, your 80% figure is rather misleading. 80% of what? – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:40
1

typo. meant colony of UK – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:45
As well, regarding option amphibious landing, why would German require a massive fleet as oppose to small fleet but operating continuously over time? If Germany and Italy had the capacity to protect their convoy shipping to North Africa in Mediterranean, why not to Middle East? Is there any sources that point to heavy defense in Middle East? Because if not, a large formation is not required for amphibious invasion. Only the subsequent occupation requires continuous supply and additional troops. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:49
Italy- tripoli mostly under axis air cover range, lack of British bases, convoys over much longer route to the levant radical different prospect. combat divisions need something like 200-300 tons of supplies per day. you need pretty continuous supply be an effective fighting force or anything after a few days of no supplies/ the royal navy had a resaonbal dominance of the italain navy. any axis invasion by sea would be intensely problematic of surviving the voyage, even without allied code breaker – pugsville Jul 28 '16 at 06:24
@Argyll questions 1) what do you mean it is anachronistic how can I fix it? 2) I know Iran was not a UK colony but Egypt Iraq and Palestine were 3) fair point it also doesn't add much to the argument I will cut the Barbarossa section – sdrawkcabdear Jul 28 '16 at 17:36
@sdrawkcabdear 1) US was not a participant in the campaign prior to Barbarossa. So there the unlimited resources from US is not yet in the equation. The "beaten back" is the anachronistic part. As for Rommel's offensive, I think you are referring to his drive almost immediately after landing in Triopoli early 1941 (I am not too into the African campaign so I am not sure of the details). What did Rommel have though? One panzer division plus a motorized rifle division? That can be doubled or tripled. How much do you think would be required to break into Egypt? – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 17:51
The question is subsequent drive into further Middle East and the supply required. You and pugsville are ruling out traversing the eastern part of Mediterranean and confine Axis sea line shipping to between Sicily and Tripoli. So supply is needed through that and then from Tripoli into Middle East. Many things are required to make it happen. What arrangements are needed and how long it would take are the questions. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 17:53
Iraq was not under control of UK either. Iraq might've been even pro-Axis. Syria and Lebanon were under control of Vichy French. So Middle East was far from being controlled by UK. (I am not sure about Saudi. But most of Saudi territory would be desert or away from main roads to East. Saudi was also not a major oil producer. So Saudi was rather irrelevant.)

Argyll

Jul 28 '16 at 17:55

@Argyll I fixed the anachronism, what are you saying? Are you why I think the Germans can't cross the med anywhere besides Sicily? Are you agreeing that the supply problem would have been nasty? Are you asking me to estimate how hard it would be to supply Rommel with enough troops and supplies to win? – sdrawkcabdear Jul 28 '16 at 17:58

I would be very interested in your estimate in how hard it would be to supply Rommel with enough troops and supplies suppose the campaign objective from Nazi leadership was to drive into Middle East. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:03

@sdrawkcabdear: Btw, did Rommel actually try to enter Egypt and got beaten by the British? (Nazi leadership did not but Rommel didn't fully listen to them to begin with -- something that German military structure seems to allow.) – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:12

1

rommel was operating at the very limit of his logistical capability, larger forces than what had historically are very very hard to supply, it;s the port capacity needed to rebuild up, but once the British withdrew to Egypt, 90% of the tucks load getting to the front was consumed in fuel getting there . h needed a more advanced port, or a railway/ Rommel was pretty much dead in the water exhausted at the end of his logistical limits.his force size was calcurated by the german staffers what his logistics could support.rommel was poor strategically. – pugsville Jul 28 '16 at 23:55

And remember that the Germans had no viable amphibious capacity at all. Even the plans for the invasion of Britain (a vastly shorter distance) would have relied on towed river barges ferrying the bulk of the troops and equipment across the English Channel, after the Luftwaffe and cross channel artillery barrages had weakened up a few harbour towns and taken them with parachute troops (which is basically how they took Crete, minus the barges, they used cargo ships instead there). – jwenting Sep 28 '16 at 11:16

Sorry for my (very) belated response. Some of the comments can be incorporated into the answer. @pugsville: Do you have the reference for logistics limit vs Rommel's force size? That is an interesting insight. Not just for my question but interesting in general. – Argyll Jan 02 '20 at 23:44

Since we are not getting newer answers, with the edits -- I think we should include pugsville's point (and the reference), I can accept the answer and close the question. @sdrawkcabdear: would you like to do it? With your permission, I can help out. – Argyll Jan 02 '20 at 23:45

@Argyll sure that sounds good – sdrawkcabdear Sep 13 '20 at 03:51

Sorry but I must highlight that: "Fight East from North Africa" contains blunders: Axis fought from LIbya to Egypt, then into TUnisia duriong the retreating part. British first beat in the East, then in the West the fight was not only American but involved British and French forces as well. The target was Egypt, the way to Middle East was never planned – totalMongot Mar 04 '22 at 20:13

Adrian Todorov · Answer 2 · 2016-07-28T11:58:19.927

9

Because he wasn't a good strategic thinker and was more of an impulsive, borderline crazy, person(i even read a theory that associated his different behaviours with the use of different drugs, and frankly, it even made a little sense).

In Nazi Germany, most decisions were taken by Hitler, based on his own perceptions of reality and facts, and he rarely listened to his advisors or generals(unless they could appeal to his maniacal/ideological/political/personal side and influence it, like Goring did), regardless of their experience and prowess. He dismissed generals on a whim because they failed in a battle where a more observant person would see they made a briliant defence.

There were multiple renowned, experienced people, like:

Erich Raeder, Grossadmiral and in charge of the Kriegsmarine, the German Navy
Erwin Rommel, at the time a renowned General and a (relatively) close friend of Hitler(he got his first command, the 7th Panzer Division, due to his proximity to Hitler, and was hated for it, until he proved himself to be a great Panzer commander in the Invasion of France), who was given command of the Deutsches Afrikakorps, the German war effort in North Africa

Who advocated for a strong push in North Africa, listing the following positive sides of such a campaign:

control of Egypt, which would permit to close the Suez cannal to British shipping thus severely limiting their naval capabilities in the Mediterranean(bear in mind that at the time most of British supplies for this theater came from around Africa and through Suez due to the dangers of Italian and German commerce raiding) and their communications with India
the easy possibility to occupy the vast oil rich lands in the Middle East which were under weak colonial rule(the Levant, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia), had some German friendliness(there was even a pro-German coup d'état in Iraq, and iranians were considered to be part of the Aryan race) so realtively easy to occupy
in the future war with the Soviet Union, the presence of an extra front - the Caucasus region, full of Muslims[so potentially unhappy with Soviet rule] borders Iran[then known as Persia], and containing most of the Soviet oil, so extremely critical to the Soviet war effort, and, Germany had a good mountain corps, so fighting in the mountains in the Northern Caucasus woudln't have been such an obstacle to them

And the funny thing is, Rommel, with his measely 2 divisions and the almost good-for-nothing Italians, was pretty close to defeating the British in Egypt.

Just imagine what could have happened had he had the firepower and ressources he wanted.

Basically, any logical mind would say that it's worth it, but Hitler isn't known to be very logical. Yes, he was extremely intelligent, had good people skills and etc. but he did make a plethora of bad geopolitical and strategic decisions.

Logistics were going to be difficult for such a theatre, but they were going to be easier to manage than those in the North African desert on its own(with Suez and Alexandria under German control, the only western British bases were Cyprus and Malta, much easier to subdue), due to a lesser British presence and shorter shipping lanes(Taranto->Tobruk is longer and closer to a British base[Malta] than Pirea->Haifa or Varna->Trabzon).

Edited as per the comments to better link the two parts of the response and add more detail.

edited Jul 28 '16 at 11:58

answered Jul 27 '16 at 09:19

Adrian Todorov

647
3
8

but 1but British shipping do not go through the cannal, 2 how do you get the oil back and 3/ how many divines do you think could be supported through turkey to the Caucasus mot enough. logistics matter. – pugsville Jul 27 '16 at 09:58
1

@pugsville of course logistics matter. Supply through the Balkans and Turkey(which i didn't speak about, but in a scenario where Germany controlled the Balkans and the Middle East, either directly or through Allies, Turkey would have been isolated and would have had no choice but to comply with German demands, like let us have access through you for supplies and movement of troops) was going to be much better than supply through shipping in the Mediterranean with hostile British in it in control of Suez. – Adrian Todorov Jul 27 '16 at 10:30
turkish co-opertaion or not the railways was very poor, using the Caucasus region as a font against the soviet union, requires the troops to supplied, the logistical infrastructure was very poor (railways) that only a small force could be supported, thus the Caucasus region could not support a signifiant force – pugsville Jul 27 '16 at 10:34
@pugsville Railways, altough poor, aren't the only choice. Shipping throught the Black sea to Trabzon, and then the distance overland to Northen Turkey/Northern Iran isn't huge, and in the case of congestion of routes, there are plenty of ports in the Levant that can be used as alternative inputs to be transferred overland, as well as Batumi as soon as it was captured. Not to mention that if Germany had control over the Middle East, they would have immediately started to improve the infrastructure, railways included. Again, much easier to supply than Northern Africa on its own. – Adrian Todorov Jul 27 '16 at 10:41
building railways a years long project,shipping could only supply a narrow coastal plain, communications and transport laterally in the Caucasus extremely difficult, the there is the lack of shipping, and capacity. Ports in the levant could only been done by gaining control of Vichy colonies, tearing up the treaty with Vichy France would have consequences, turkey could fight, Yugoslavia and Greece did and turkey would be a much harder nut to crack. treason to any all is a vast distance there are no railways, and supply by truck problemtic – pugsville Jul 27 '16 at 10:43
Disagree with this answer's assessment. Hitler was in fact a keen strategic thinker and logical in how he pursued his own ends. Just because he was a tyrant doesn't mean he was dumb. He brought his political party to absolute power in a short amount of time, skillfully expanded his position in Europe before war, and for a moment owned Europe and had only one enemy left who couldn't touch him (Britain). However, after 1941 the train began to run off the rails. – Smith Jul 27 '16 at 14:07
1

I also disagree with the answer's reasons for North Africa. North Africa itself has no resources to speak of and General Rommel knew that it was a pointless theater. The Middle East was not a major oil producer during this period in time. The Caucasus region was, and was the major target for the summer 1942 offensive. – Smith Jul 27 '16 at 14:09
@Smith Hitler was intelligent, but lacked basic strategic thinking. Just check his plans for the invasion of France. However, he attributed Manstein's plan to himself and, from what i've read, later on he had the assumption he was a great strategic thinker, even though he was evidently not, which can be seen with his choices regarding North Africa and Russia(like his push for Stalingrad while sufficiently ignoring the North Caucasus, thus dooming the campaign, even though it would have been evident to anyone how much damage would its loss inflict on the Soviet war effort). – Adrian Todorov Jul 27 '16 at 14:24
@pugsville: Logistics certainly matter. Construction of rudimentary railway systems is not yearS long though. Infrastructure in the then modernizing Turkey was certainly no worse than Belarus. For invasion to Middle East first (Middle East/Turkey was after Russia in Nazi high command's minds), it's almost better if Turkey isn't co-operative so that Germany can invade outright. Nazi Germany would need to build a whole supply chain and move troops through Turkey. There is no sovereignty to speak of for Turkey in that case. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 02:56
1

@AdrianTodorov: I don't think there is a universal definition for "strategic thinking". But there is easy evidence on Hitler being keenly aware of the resource situation Germany was facing -- and this would be strategic thinking, for example. Abstract grand strategic thinking can't go very far without detailed knowledge on the individual steps required to achieve the final goal. For example, had him or his staff rationally thought through the attrition situation that they were bound to face, he should've order German engineering effort on military equipment (tanks) towards robustness and – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:02
replaceability of parts, which would have helped preserve Germany's precious panzer force. To decide that such an element of replaceability as a way to cope with war of attrition is strategic. But to know that war of attrition is to come and replaceability can help is NOT strategic. The epiphany would come from operational knowledge. There are many strategic problems German manufactured for themselves alongside a great number of innovations at a strategic level that just have nothing to do with Hitler. Hitler was a great politician. That is all we know. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:07
I am not sure how useful it is to attempt to evaluate whether Hitler was a "strategic thinker" - he sure was - and subsequently how good of a strategic thinker he was. Hitler was naive to think the war with Soviet Union would end within a few months -- regardless of what his generals tell him. But would you describe this shortcoming as lack of strategic thinking? – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:09
I think he was just misinformed. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:15
As for the answer, the conjectures about Hitler's personality seems related but how it connects to my question appears unclear. Are you suggesting Hitler couldn't think rationally?
As for the second half about Raeder and Rommel, I fail to see the relevance.
– Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:30
it's not just hitler it's the whole Nazi Germany decision making structure. the analysis of information. it was a poor strategic decision making structure , it was full 'yes men'. – pugsville Jul 28 '16 at 03:54
@Argyll there isn't a universal definition for "strategic thinking", but there are some evident parts - everyone can agree that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a poor strategic choice. As for Hitler, he probably had plenty of knowledge on everything happening, but as the war went on, he became more and more distant from reality(in '45 he thought Steiner's army can encircle and crush the Russians before Berlin, and then he'd win,altough Steiner's army was on paper only). The biggest thing that might suggest he was not a good strategician is that he rarely listened to his advisors. – Adrian Todorov Jul 28 '16 at 11:48
@Argyll i've updated my answer to make some parts clearer. – Adrian Todorov Jul 28 '16 at 11:59
@pugsville: good point – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:08
@AdrianTodorov: nice edits. It's interesting how often time the most compelling answer to a history question is that a participant wasn't making the most rational decision. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:09
"Because he wasn't a good strategic thinker"... how long does it take to become a private 1ste class/lance corporal? About 4-6 weeks. How long does it take to become a general? At least 20 years. I don't think corporals make good strategic thinkers. – Jos Nov 14 '17 at 01:30

score 7 · Answer 3 · answered Jul 27 '16 at 03:38

7

1/ Hitler wanted to invade the soviet union and he was not a think things through throughly and take his time sort of guy,he lacked patience

2/he underestimated the difficulties in invading the soviet union and he believed the whole rotten structure would collapse.

3/Nazi Germany, it's Government, the army were run by 'yes men' no one was really going to bring Hitler up short with cold hard facts.

4/ it would not have worked. why? Logistics. It's a very long way to the Oil, it's very hard to get to and get it back somewhere useful. there was not enough naval resources to do it by sea, the royal navy from a vast number of suitable bases would easily interdict any such attempt. the railways did not exists and it would take years to build the railways. only a very very small force could be supplied entirely by road and not that far, the germans were incapable of projecting a large military force into the middle east and logistically supplying it.

answered Jul 27 '16 at 03:38

pugsville

2,156
17
14

the entire red army was not deployed on the border, nor was sizing the red army as prisoners a goal. almost all the 3 million prisoners taken in the first 6 months died from starvation, the assumption was it would be a short war,only after in 1942 were Russian pows used as labour. i – pugsville Jul 27 '16 at 10:32
1

Your point number 4 is the most important part of this answer. Germany was not a maritime nation. The transport route from ME to Germany was going to be maritime. – KorvinStarmast Jul 27 '16 at 18:56
2

Also, the plains of Western Russia are ideal terrain for a highly mobile blitzkrieg attack. The mountains of Turkey are very much not. – Gort the Robot Jul 28 '16 at 02:15
1

Regarding 4th point, Middle East back then was not a major oil producer (don't have link atm) but did produce oil. But it is not only the oil. I listed some resources that Germany would have been able to grab along the way to Sinai and/or British Raj. If Hitler had chosen to go to Middle East first war with Soviet Union later, until the war, he wouldn't have been short of oil due to Soviet imports. If you are worry about distance, don't worry about it. Long distance trade was common back then. For example, some Soviet imports were brought in all the way from Far East on land. That is far. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:20
@StevenBurnap: You may be right about the Bulkan mountains which Germany would also have to pass through. But Blitzkrieg matters little with the level of military readiness of Turkey/Middle Eastern states. Also Western Russia is far from "ideal" with total lack of infrastructure and local resources for supply. Blitzkrieg is not only about infiltration by cross country driving of tanks. It is also about the truck columns of infantry and supplies that follow. In Barbarossa, the trucks didn't quite follow due to the bad roads and difficult terrain off road. And then there is the rain season. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 03:25
1

western Russia had a highly developed railroad network many times greater capacity than the turkish which was tiny an incomplete. rusisan border Moscow 1000 km tripoli - cario 2000km, Istanbul - mosel 1800km, Istanbul - basrah 2,700 km, beruit - basra 1,400 km, roads worse than russia, and more punishing on trucks – pugsville Jul 28 '16 at 05:49

score 5 · Answer 4 · answered Aug 02 '16 at 20:39

Simplified answer.

Before WWII Hitler wanted the United Kingdom as an ally, so he didn't like the idea of taking british colonies. In fact, he respected french colonies.
The purpose of attacking the Soviet Union was to take territory for colonization, not only resources. Actually, the need of resources came later, when they were scarce due to war.
Only the defeat of Italy in Africa and Greece moved german troops to those places. Without these interventions Germany wouldn't have had troops neither in the Balcans or Africa.

Summary: Hitler's original plan never included Middle East. The course of war might forced him to change his plans, but the basic ideas was always Russia.

score 3 · Answer 5 · answered Jul 28 '16 at 20:48

Churchill mentioned in his "World War II" that British were very concerned that Germans could invade Syria and move eastward to get to oil rich regions, perhaps as far as Iran. Because of that British kept substantial forces there that were idle while the war right around the corner in North Africa were going back-and-forth like a pendulum. British even kept an entire division in Cyprus to prevent Germans from invading it much as they invaded Crete and making Cyprus one of the stepping stones toward Syria.

These concerned have never materialized. Churchill mentioned several possible reasons. One reason was the German Pyrrhic victory in Crete, where their best parachute division got mauled to such extent that it couldn't be used again with the same vigor; Churchill speculates that if not for Crete Goering division could have been dropped directly on Damascus where British didn't have sufficient troops for any kind of defense.

Another reason was British naval control over Eastern Mediterranean, which already almost led to capture of a German mountain division that got scattered on its way to invade Crete by sea, which caused Germans to rely solely on Goering parachute division for that purpose. With the naval invasion proven impossible against British Mediterranean navy and parachute invasion resources spent almost completely on Crete and strong British army presence all along Levant coast from Cyprus to Egypt Germans just didn't have enough resource to strike though toward Middle Eastern oil production.

Finally, Churchill mentions German shift of focus toward Russia as the third reason why the invasion why the German invasion of Levant never materialized. Perhaps Hitler was more confident in his army getting to the oil of Caucasus than in his marines getting to the oil of the Middle East.

Good point about the military opposition the Allies would provide! — Argyll, Sep 29 '16 at 16:04

score 2 · Answer 6 · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:47

2

The German military -- and indeed large parts of its economy -- were built up through short-term financial schemes.

By the time the military was ready to attack on any front, those schemes were about to run out. Going to war, putting banks under direct control of the government etc. was the only way to keep the whole economy from collapsing.

At the same time, Germany could not (yet) go for all-out wartime production. For one they were still hoping to keep the western powers appeased, for another they needed the support by the populace.

From a certain point onward, Germany -- being heavily outnumbered in manpower, resources, and production capacity even if considering only Russia as an opponent -- had only that one chance, going to war, and winning it within one year, two at the most, through surprise and "Blitzkrieg" tactics (or "shock and awe" as we would call it today).

Anything longer than that would mean a war of attrition, which Germany had no hope of winning -- even if resources were captured elsewhere in the meantime, and even with the whole economy geared toward weapon manufacture. (Which it historically did not do until 1942/43, when the chances at winning the war -- as opposed to prolonging it -- were already gone.)

At the same time, Russia was gaining strength after Stalin's purges, and became a stronger enemy by the month.

Taking a detour through the middle east would have gained little, and given away the only chance Germany had at coming out on top -- surprising and crushing Russia in one fell stroke.

Wikipedia: Economy of Nazi Germany. (The German article seems to be even better.)

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:47

Community

1

answered Jul 28 '16 at 13:37

DevSolar

13,922
1
48
71

Interesting argument on the fragility of Reich economy. The linked question only touches on the Reinhardt Programs and Mefo bill. Do you have any data or references that better describes the fragility of the economy?
The relevance of the argument that Soviet Russian was getting better is intrinsically related to the imminent collapse of Reich economy too. Without a collapse, Germany could also seek to grow its capacity. While Soviet Union had more raw resource, Germany had more industrial capacity. The lack of either can be just as bottlenecking.
– Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 17:37
@Argyll: None that I could quote ad-hoc. It's a recurring theme in history books that cover the German economy etc., but I am a layman in these things, not a librarian. – DevSolar Jul 28 '16 at 17:41
The problem is recurring themes in history books are not always accurate and in some cases they are not even close to be correct. Book authors learn from each other and sometimes in effect copy incorrect ideas without primary research. It is quite a technical proposition to predict imminent collapse of the then Reich economy. I don't think any "history" book can be given too much credit. The impression of an imminent collapse in Nazi leadership's minds though could be a less technical topic. And impression could have the same effect. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:00
Again, I wouldn't trust "history books" that don't cite or at least describe their primary sources. – Argyll Jul 28 '16 at 18:04
@Argyll: The point is that I have read these things over a span of about three decades, two thirds of those books were lend from the public library, and I am right now not prepared to sift through the other third. Take it as an interesting starting point for your own research. ;-) – DevSolar Jul 28 '16 at 18:33
@Argyll: I mostly posted this because it is the core of the answer for pretty much any "what if" question regarding WWII. What if the Germans had gone for full wartime production sooner? (Run out of resources and popular support, still being outnumbered.) What if they had attacked in the west first? (Run out of time in which Russia could be defeated, not winning any of the desperately needed resources for a prolonged war, still being outnumbered.) What if they had kept building up their military first? (Run out of resources, time in which Russia could be defeated, and money.) – DevSolar Jul 29 '16 at 11:09
(ctd.) And so the list goes on. I also dislike blanket statements like "they didn't think it through" or "Hitler was a madman". Especially in the beginning, he had quite capable (and critical) generals advising him, and he listened to them. (That changed later.) But Germany was on a tight schedule to "make things work". They could not have waited another two or three years, they could not have struck earlier. That is the impression I got after many years of studying that time period, and I am sorry I cannot give backing references, not having lived an historian's but a layman's life. – DevSolar Jul 29 '16 at 11:12
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I respect the extent of your reading and wish to have replied sooner to show that respect. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:24
As for Nazi Germany "on a tight schedule", I certainly agree. It was on a resource crunch. And it didn't just start out of nowhere. Germany lacked the "living space" that would yield the resources Hitler's ambitions required. The point of the "what if" question about the Middle East route, is that in fact Turkey and Middle East would provide considerable resources which the Nazi Germans needed. I remember reading about Chromium production in Turkey in WWII. There were significant oil production in Iraq and Iran, which is covered in some of the comments elsewhere under this post. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:27
Food cannot be easily acquired from Middle East but it would not be easily acquired from a war-torn version of the completely rural, undeveloped western USSR. The Nazis would let people from occupied territories starve to solve the food problem. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:29
So it appears invading towards Middle East makes more sense as opposed to gamble that USSR would not have enough manpower and industrial capacity to grind in a protracted war with Nazi Germany. One major merit of any "what if" questions is about shredding light on the historical circumstances -- in details. Was there operational reasons? Are some of the impressions common known nowadays actually true? etc etc – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:31
What I find hard to put faith in regarding "tight schedule" is not about the commonly known and proven shortage of resources Germany faced, but about the fragility of Nazi economy. I don't think anyone would honestly consider themselves convinced that Nazy economy would implode if Hitler delayed invading USSR and that Hitler acted on that thought, without some serious analysis and hard digging into how Hitler might've thought. I doubt you would see such a unique angle analyzed indepths as a recurring theme in series of books. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:36
@Argyll: No time in the forseeable future to expand the answer. But please note that Russia was more than just "resources". It was also a political enemy (Bolshevism), a strategic enemy (see WWI), a weakened enemy (Stalins purges), favourable territory, and more. The middle east was none of that. – DevSolar Sep 29 '16 at 16:36

score 1 · Answer 7 · edited Sep 28 '16 at 11:13

1

Well I guess you should see your question in a bigger context. Hitlers aim was to lead Germany to a dominant major power (maybe THE dominant major power) of Europe (maybe the world). In his opinion for this you need the right nation (--> "Arier") and enough land (-->"Erweiterung des Lebensraums"). Furthermore he believed that this "land" should be connected. In his opinion a colonial nation (like the British would not match). So his main 'threat' was Russia and at the same time Russia was his best price (enough land who could conquer for his own).

His first war action (invasion of Poland) was a gamble. How would the allies react? Luckily for him the allied did nothing (okay they declared war but France didn't invade Germany - there were reasons for this, but I guess it should be another topic).

After the success over France (France count as the strongest land force at this time) and the successful "Blitzkrieg" doctrine no-one had any doubt about a successful campaign against Russia. So in my honest opinion after the failure of operation Barbarossa the war for Germany was lost.

You see the Germans never had consider about resources because they never planned a long ongoing war against one nation. They always tried to defeat single nations with their "Blitzkrieg" tactic and took them out of the war (Poland, Denmark and Norway, the Benelux and France, Yugoslavia and Greece).

So the main goal was to attack Russia and the "strategic" calculation was to defeat them quickly and sadly for the Nazis but good for all others, they never wasted their time for a plan B - as you did (get enough resources elsewhere to be prepared if the main battle plan fails).

edited Sep 28 '16 at 11:13

MCW

33,640
12
105
158

answered Sep 28 '16 at 09:50

wawa

388
1
8

3

This answer would be improved by sources. – MCW Sep 28 '16 at 11:12
1

It is interesting to relate to Hitler's ideological view, which was espoused by many in Germany at the time. However, it is incorrect to say the Germans never considered resources. There are numerous indicators to the far contrary, including records of talks by Nazi officials up to Hitler himself. I'll pick an easy examples to start off. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the trade agreements in its core, under which Nazi Germany acquired a large amount of raw resources from USSR. Had the Germans not "considered" resources, they would not be able to produce their tanks and run their Blitzkrieg – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 15:47
simple as that. And the reality was easy for everyone to grasp. The other thing is "Blitzkrieg" was a term coined by a journalist to describe the field tactic by Nazi German army which involved concentrated armored or combined-arm breakthrough, infiltration and subsequent exploit, coordinated with artillery close air support. The word "Blitz" described the overwhelming nature at tactical level more than the your interpretation on speed at a strategic level, which I understand may be shared by many but is an added interpretation. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 15:52
Long and short war is not a matter of tactical style. The length of the war is determined by the time required to achieve the strategic initiatives necessary to defeat an enemy. It is backward to say Nazi Germany didn't consider resources because Blitzkrieg meant Nazi Germany didn't need to plan for long war. Rather, the scarcity of resources before Operation Barbarossa forced Germany to only consider a brief war within the same year as the only viable option -- which was estimated to be impossible by some army officials but tried anyway. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 15:54
meant to make the edit: estimated to be probably impossible by army officials such as the Quartermaster General Eduard Wagner but tried anyway. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:01
France did invade Germany in 1939. The invasion was not pressed hard, and the French retreated after the fall of Poland. It's hard to see the offensive accomplishing much, given the time for French mobilization. – David Thornley Nov 07 '18 at 23:00

sofa general · Answer 8 · 2018-11-07T19:55:37.777

READ THE BOOK (Mein Kampf)

From the wikipedia excerpt on Lebensraum...

And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future. If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.<<

Basically, Hitler made a plan to invade Russia and he wasn't about to let geopolitical reality (he made a non-aggression pact with Stalin) or strategic necessity (of defeating England) get in the way of his Master Plan.

Obviously, the better strategy would have been to spend 1941 and 1942 to gain complete control of the Mediterranean Basin (something well within the power of Nazi Germany to do). Taking Malta (first) and the Suez would have forced the British Mediterranean fleet to evacuate Mediterranean, least it be trapped and destroyed. That would have made life much harder for the British, as the British Empire will now have to sail around the cape of good hope to reach India and Australia. That would also put pressure on Stalin, as a German advance into the middle east would threaten it southern flank (England and the USSR would later invade Iran to secure a supply line to the USSR). It would also do much to encourage pro-Germany Spain, and pro-Germany Turkey to join the war on the Axis side.

Remember, in 1941 Stalin was belatedly modernizing his armies, and he would not have dared raise the ire of Germany at least until 1943. So hitler could have easily gotten all the grains and oil he needed from the USSR.

Actually, British shipping was already mostly going around the Cape of Good Hope, only rarely going through the Mediterranean from end to end. While the Axis could probably have take Malta, Suez is a much more difficult goal. Auchinleck's plan in case of defeat at El Alamein was to retreat up the Nile and hang on as a major threat on the German flank should they move East. The question about the Red Army is not when it would have attacked, but what it could have done in defense. It would have been much more formidable in 1942. — David Thornley, Nov 07 '18 at 22:58
The Germans sent 3 million men into Russia in 1941. If they didn't invade russia in 41, they would have had more than enough air power to take malta and more than enough men and supplies to take egypt in 1941 or early 1942. Rommel's africa korps in summer of 1941 numbered 2 German divisions. If he was given just the mechanized portion of the 2nd panzer army with (5 panzer divisions 4 motorized) in 1941, Germany would have been the master of the Mediterranean and the Middle East (the Arabs had strong pro German sympathies at that time) — sofa general, Nov 08 '18 at 15:26

score 0 · Answer 9 · answered Nov 18 '18 at 23:32

I read somewhere long ago that Stalin's daughter remarked that Stalin said something on his deathbed along the lines of "We could've linked up with the Germans and ruled the world". He showed a complete lack of understanding of Hitler's main ambitions which were to annihilate Russian Communism to give Germany living space, vast resources, and slave labor. Think about it. Who would Russia's enemies be if Hitler didn't link Communism with Judism? He preferred a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany with a complete lack of human rights and religion. Democracies like America, England, and France were Stalin's enemies in his mind. When Germany was building up to invade Russia in summer of 1941, Stalin refused to believe it!

How does this factor in to the original question of Germany & the Middle East? If Hitler wasn't a madman then he could've taken the Middle Easy easily! Look at the British army in France....they had zero chance against the full wrath of the Nazis. They could've taken Cairo, Gibralter, Malta, Iran, Iraq...etc etc. Suddenly Mussolini gets his victory ride on a white horse in Egypt and the Japanese can finish off India and come over whenever they like for as much oil as they need! The American oil embargo on Japan no longer forces (in their mind) an attack on Pearl Harbor. England is going down! Literally starved out without the fuel to support all their naval needs that kept them alive! The pressure is then on FDR to try to talk the American public into a war when they weren't directly attacked. The pressure is on Turkey to pick a side between the eventual war between Germany, Japan, and possibly Turkey versus Russia.

The Allies obvious victory would be in doubt! Good thing for everyone that Operation Barbarosa and Pearl Harbor happened because they didn't have to.

Hi Brian and welcome to History SE. Your answer would be greatly improved by adding sources. — Lars Bosteen, Nov 19 '18 at 00:08
"Somewhere", "something" sounds 'somehow' like hearsay. And one that seems implausible, as on his deathbed he couldn't articulate any words — LаngLаngС, Nov 19 '18 at 17:08

score -1 · Answer 10 · answered Jan 14 '20 at 00:12

The simple way to have defeated Russia was got not mistreat the millions of people that wanted to fight for the Germans. This would have meant a small fraction of the partisans problem and millions of allies and people fighting for Germany against Stalin.The other way would be to have taken just 25% of German army in 1941 and taken North Africa, Middle East and even India by 1942 with ease. From there they would have all the resources that they would need for a long war with Russia and victory. The writer is misinformed and forgets that less than 10% of German army was fighting in North Africa as 90% was in Russia in 1941 and hence the close battles with Britain wherein Britain outnumbered Rommel by 2 to 1.

They only was and were blinded by immediate want to fight Russia and this plus driving south and not on Russia in 1941 and lack of winter clothes did it. Simple request from Japan to threaten Siberian Army would have prevented the deployment to save Russia and that's why it's called war of lost opportunities. The last point brought up by a writer was yes Stalin knew that an alliance with Germany would make them unstoppable and able to conquer world and Hitler would have been leader and got most out of it. So it was a misunderstanding of bird in hand is better than 2 in bush. But in reality Germany and Russia would mean guaranteed 1 1/2 birds in hand for Germany versus 2 in bush by fighting Russia and risking it all. There were a few in Hitler's Germany that understood this but Hitler being the addict that he was did not.

Sources to support your assertions would improve this answer. — Lars Bosteen, Jan 14 '20 at 00:23
largely nonsense. The Germans made quite a few recruits in Ukraine and the Baltic states especially where the people were glad to be rid of the Soviet oppression and didn't mind the mass shootings of "undesirables" at all as they were well used to much worse under Stalin (and it got rid of people they didn't like much in the first place). Also, if you had a shred of understanding of the historical reasons for Barbarosa, one of them was securing the oil fields of the Caucasus, which would have given Germany oil and other resources without the vulnerable logistics of the Mediterranean route. — jwenting, Jan 14 '20 at 07:44

score -2 · Answer 11 · answered Aug 03 '16 at 08:11

-2

After the winter war against finnland no one thought that that the soviets could win against germany, even the allies were sure that the weeks would be other within weeks. Also you have to keep in mind 2 thinks russia will get stronger per day and also has a ideology which wants to capture the world and the supply situation would have been a lot better if italy would have attacked greece bc germany could have started the war early and would not have been stuck in the russian winter than.

answered Aug 03 '16 at 08:11

M. Petersen

1

3

Sources would improve this answer. – MCW Aug 03 '16 at 08:25
1

I will add them when I get home currently writing from work – M. Petersen Aug 03 '16 at 08:26
The perspective on German evaluation of Soviet capacity is interesting. Would love to see some sources. As for the idea of strike because Soviet was "getting better per day", I would suggest that a rational player would not weigh much on the idea because Nazi Germany could also get better per day. The alternative scenario of invading Middle East before USSR (instead after) could have helped Nazi to keep up. – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:05
I also wouldn't put the Russian winter as any surprising external factor that ruined Operation Barbarossa by a stroke of luck. The Germans did not just run out of time before the winter. They ran out of capacity to continue. One way to appreciate this is to look up exactly how close German army got to Moscow (40 kil away by my memory from reading) and in what shape (e.g. if they even have more than single-digit number of tanks at the front.). – Argyll Sep 29 '16 at 16:10

Why didn't Hitler invade Middle East for resources first before invading Soviet Union?

11 Answers11

Linked