If one assumes Germany is as committed to North Africa campaign as it was to the invasion of the USSR, there is no reason to think there would be the same bottleneck in getting troops/supplies to Africa just like it was the case when N. Africa wasn't a priority. Moreover, like nfm pointed out, the whole structure of German military is likely to have been different had the objective been to fight UK rather than the USSR. And like kt pointed out, now that Germany had the control of (non-USSR) Europe, it could wait until everything was just right for their major confrontation with Britain, perhaps time was on their side now that they controlled most of European infrastructure and resources.

Of course, getting the US involved in the war was huge mistake for the Axis. Without US involvement, I have no doubts that UK would have eventually fallen. But even in a scenario where US is involved and USSR is not, Germany would have good chances, as it could have pressured British colonial assets in Africa, and with Barbarossa-like commitment to Africa, chances are they would overrun the Brits there - and who knows, would maybe even gain control over middle Eastern oil. But of course, in any type of these scenarios, it is necessary to not discount USSR. Even if we assume USSR is to stay on the sidelines for a while, it doesn't mean it will always remain that way, as it makes little sense for USSR to just sit there and watch the German Leviathan on its borders just expand and devour country after country. As tough as the war against the United Europe was for USSR when the United Europe didn't include UK, it would be that much tougher if UK fell to the Germans, too. So even in the scenarios where we assume the USSR wants to stay out as long as possible, at some point USSR would have to step in, just to avoid the situation where Germany is too powerful.

So, basically, all these scenarios of "what if UK stayed out of the war" or "What if USSR stayed out of the war" are not realistic, because those countries could not afford to stay out of the war, and they would be dragged into the the war one way or another. In the hypothetical wars between Germany and either UK or USSR, the third country would have to step in in any case, just to limit the influence of the country that was winning at the expense of the country that was losing - kinda like what happened when UK (and US) had to step in to limit Soviet influence when it was obvious Germany has lost the war to USSR.

In a way, the way history did turn out actually does tell us how things would have gone if UK stayed out of the war, because, the UK contribution to the war was so negligible that it didn't matter much until USSR was winning and UK, along with the US, had to open the second front. I for one happen to think that the scenario with UK staying out of the war wouldn't actually be that much different from what has actually happened, except that USSR would pay an even heavier price.

At the outset of Operation Barbarossa, Germany disposed of something like 162 divisions, while the USSR disposed of 351 or so. These numbers are debated, especially on the Soviet side. More details can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

Could ten divisions make a difference? Absolutely. Army Groups North and South had 600 tanks each; Rommel in Africa had two German armored divisions, which would give him a strength of about 400 tanks. You can also see that a German Panzerarmee boasted about five armored divisions; 2nd Panzerarmee had, on June 22, 1941, 3rd, 4th, 1Oth, 17th, and 18th Panzer divisions. So if you take Rommel's two armored divisions, his light division (90th Light division), and add in seven Italian divisions and infantry divisions from Europe, and an entire new Army group is added to the German Order of Battle on the Eastern Front. Hitler diverted Army Group Center's panzer divisions to Army Group South to take Kiev. Add Rommel, the Italians, and several infantry divisions to Army Group South and the diversion is unnecessary. Thus it makes it quite probable that both Moscow and Kiev fall.

Consequently, it was a good thing that Britian didn't make an armistice with Hitler in June 1941. Just as Stalin threw the Allies to Hitler, so Churchill could have thrown the Soviet Union to Hitler. Good thing for everyone he didn't.

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

It was of course a desire of Stalin to have Britain and Germany exhaust each other. If, however, the Soviet Union does not provide resources to Germany, then Germany cannot wage war. Germany could not feed herself, and needed grain from Ukraine. So Germany needs a benevolent Soviet Union to wage war.

If Germany conquers the USSR or not, the problem for Germany remains the same. Germany does have all of Europe under her heel, but those people need oppressing. If Germany withdraws troops from an area to invade Britain, Germany runs the risk of an uprising. So if Germany invades the USSR and conquers, then that huge area becomes one vast theater of partisan warfare. If Germany never fights the USSR, Germany must still keep sizeable forces in the East to prevent a Soviet invasion.

The same goes for the rest of Europe. Hitler kept 15 divisions in Norway. Why? Because he feared that the British would land at Narvik and send an expeditionary force to seize the Gullivare iron ore fields in Sweden. That would have cut Germany off from about 60% of her iron ore needs.

So one can see that it isn't an easy proposition for Germany. Britain, with the much larger and better navy, can land just about anywhere. Hitler, on the other hand, has limited choices for landing in Britain. All sorts of things interfere: the soil on the beaches, for example. The British raid on Dieppe failed because the stones of the beaches incapacitated the British tanks. Tides, phases of the moon, weather, all contribute.

It is possible for Hitler to develop a massive material advantage over Britain. Can he bring it to bear? I don't think so. Even if he invades Britain, he will find it a tough job to support his army. The Allies did it in 1944, but only because the Allies had complete control of the air and sea; even then they couldn't advance quickly because they had no useful ports for months, being compelled to bring all supplies over the beaches of Normandy.

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Historical events proved otherwise. When Rommel's position collapsed at El Alamein, Hitler poured resources into Tunisia, even though his General Staff begged him not to. Mostly Hitler flew in men to fight; but he lacked the airlift capacity to fly in heavy artillery and tanks. In a way Tunisia is a copy of Stalingrad, except that at Tunisia Hitler flew in men, not just supplies.

Hitler could have held Tunisia, if he had the sealift capacity. He didn't, and no Operation Barbarossa program would have achieved it. It would have taken the better part of a decade to build in Italy the shipbuilding capacity and build the ships, man the crews, train the men, and build up a supply 'pipeline' of replacement crews and ships. The capacity for the Axis to wage serious war in North Africa simply didn't exist.

Quote:

Moreover, like nfm pointed out, the whole structure of German military is likely to have been different had the objective been to fight UK rather than the USSR. And like kt pointed out, now that Germany had the control of (non-USSR) Europe, it could wait until everything was just right for their major confrontation with Britain, perhaps time was on their side now that they controlled most of European infrastructure and resources.

European infrastructure wasn't much, outside of the Czechoslovak Skoda works. The French blew up a number of their military factories, and the rest of Europe had no military factories to speak of.

And none of them, Britian included, had any clear idea of how to build amphibious ships.

Quote:

Of course, getting the US involved in the war was huge mistake for the Axis. Without US involvement, I have no doubts that UK would have eventually fallen. But even in a scenario where US is involved and USSR is not, Germany would have good chances, as it could have pressured British colonial assets in Africa, and with Barbarossa-like commitment to Africa, chances are they would overrun the Brits there - and who knows, would maybe even gain control over middle Eastern oil.

All of which depends on the Italian Merchant Marine, which was inadequate for even waging the North African campaign.

Quote:

But of course, in any type of these scenarios, it is necessary to not discount USSR. Even if we assume USSR is to stay on the sidelines for a while, it doesn't mean it will always remain that way, as it makes little sense for USSR to just sit there and watch the German Leviathan on its borders just expand and devour country after country.

Which, of course, it actually did from 1939 to 1941, and then was caught napping on June 22, 1941.

Quote:

As tough as the war against the United Europe was for USSR when the United Europe didn't include UK, it would be that much tougher if UK fell to the Germans, too. So even in the scenarios where we assume the USSR wants to stay out as long as possible, at some point USSR would have to step in, just to avoid the situation where Germany is too powerful.

Apparently Stalin thought so too, as the book Stalin's Folly brings out: Stalin positioned his armies in offensive positions in June, 1941, not defensive positions. When he surprised by the Germans these very dispositions made it easier for the Germans to round up huge numbers of Soviet troops.

Quote:

So, basically, all these scenarios of "what if UK stayed out of the war" or "What if USSR stayed out of the war" are not realistic, because those countries could not afford to stay out of the war, and they would be dragged into the the war one way or another. In the hypothetical wars between Germany and either UK or USSR, the third country would have to step in in any case, just to limit the influence of the country that was winning at the expense of the country that was losing - kinda like what happened when UK (and US) had to step in to limit Soviet influence when it was obvious Germany has lost the war to USSR.

That is hardly the reason for the D-Day invasion.

Quote:

In a way, the way history did turn out actually does tell us how things would have gone if UK stayed out of the war, because, the UK contribution to the war was so negligible that it didn't matter much until USSR was winning and UK, along with the US, had to open the second front. I for one happen to think that the scenario with UK staying out of the war wouldn't actually be that much different from what has actually happened, except that USSR would pay an even heavier price.

I think this reveals how little you understand about the war.

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

I don't disagree with your analysis. I just think that given the ability to be patient (not something Hitler was known for though) that Germany could find a way to win against Britain if that was their sole remaining foe. It would be very difficult, no question, but it is at least possible.

That makes it sound like Germany had a bigger share of tanks in S.Africa than it really did. How much did Army Group Center had on the Eatern front? Your own link shows 3600 tanks, ~5.6 million men,
4,389 aircraft[1] on the Axis side of the Operation Barbarossa.
At the same time, things were disappearing so quickly on the Eastern Front, that it seems wrong to just assume that the War could be won by throwing just a little bit more resources at USSR. You make it sound nice, but Operation Barbarossa itself looked nice - on paper.
Yes, it was a good thing that Britian didn't make an armistice with Hitler in June 1941. But, in some respect, Churchill did throw the Soviet Union to Hitler. Maybe not techinically, but UK effort was limited enough to allow Germany to concentrate on a huge strike on USSR. UK didn't invade Normandy in 1941 or 1942, when the fate of the war was decided. They opened it in 1944, when it was the time to split the war prizes. But UK's limited involvement sure made UK's option's open. I think it was possible for UK to still switch sides if Stalingrad went the other way - it wouldbe be a first time a country switched sides in a war. So, if things went differently on the Eastern Front, maybe we wouldn't be talking about Invasion of Normandy now, but Invasion of Vladivostok or Arkhangelsk. So, you are perfectly right to point out it was a good thing that Britian didn't make an armistice with Hitler in June 1941, but by that very point you indirectly acknowledge at least a possibility of such a thing - which, IMO, shows the nature of UK's limited involvement in a war. OTOH, it would be silly to speak of any armstice between Germany in USSR in, say, the fall of 1941 or any time after that.

(putting on his Scrooge hat) Doesn't all this really belong in The History Thread ?

More than any other presidential candidate in my life, I worry that some group will try to kill Obama. That would be a terrible blow to America, but I sincerely worry about it happening. No, I do not think that Americans are more racist than other people (like many foreigners seem to think), but those who are racist in our country are often rabidly so. I think they must feel more theatened now than at any other time. I am sure they are putting a tremendous amount of protection on Obama and his family, and I hope it is sufficient.

Yes, I have worried about that too. As far as we've come, there are still those out there that are crazy enough to try. But I am optimistic that, if elected, he will be okay.