Egypt: /Arab / near east Partisans

[xwormwood]

I don't believe that there should arab partisans in egypt / the near east fighting fighting against the axis player.

After all these people favored the germans (both hated the jews).

as far as i know alexandria whould have celebrated axis troops if monty would have lost at El Alamein.

maybe i am wrong, but i think arab nationalist should only fight axis instalations in a ww1 scenario or after '45, but when if appearin in 1939-1945 they should sabotage both sides (allies / axis) or maybe even only the allied side.

Does anybody know some more or better historical details?

[jon_j_rambo]

@X-Wood --- That's the smartest thing you've ever typed on this website. The Germans had a plan to send a small batch of murderers to Palestine to set up death camps during WW-2. There's no way a bunch of Arabs are going to become friend's to the West, AFTER a takeover by Fritz...living & dying for UK/USA.

Isn't it amazing that there were no Nazis in 1946? But just a few years before...and yet today...the Germans justify WW-2, yet condemn current Western lead.

The end result then was the rope like Hayman.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed, Xwormwood. I didn't know the game had Egyptian/Arab anti-Axis partisans but I think that's a poor idea for the reasons stated by both yourself and Brother Rambo.

Turkey is another story. I can imagine partisans fighting there against any invader.

Interestingly, Egypt was a sovereign state in WWII with an Italian embassy in Alexandria keeping track of the British fleet. It was ruled by the playboy (why not?) King Faruk.

[jon_j_rambo]

Arab governents & Arab partisans are obviously two different things. Well, true of most countries.

[Desert Dave]

originally posted by xwormwood:

I don't believe that there should arab partisans in egypt / the near east fighting fighting against the axis player.

There is no way to know, for sure, IF

Axis "wafdist" sympathizers

Would have embraced the new regime,

For the simple enough reason

That... conquest of Egypt never happened.

My own feeling is that the Arab Nationalists

Would have been "up in arms"

NO MATTER WHO was controlling, dominating and ultimately, as all invaders tend to do, Exploiting their country.

Axis may indeed have placed a "puppet regime"

But my bet is that there would have been

EQUALLY as much foment and resentment

Whether the "over-lords" were GErman

Or Italian or British or Deep Space Alien Invaders.

Surely everyone must realize, by now,

That the Arabic nations simply - do not LIKE

ANYONE controlling their destiny.

Nothing's changed in hundreds & hundreds of years.

Arab nationalists who were helpful

To the Axis were simply

Anxious to rid themselves of ANY interloper.

The partisans are not placed on board.

They do their work in stealth,

As assassins,

Attacking and reducing Alexandria

And Cairo

IF those two cities are not garrisoned.

Now,

In game terms... IF the Axis are intent

On taking Egypt (... and/or Syria, Iraq

and Iran)

THEN: they should have to leave forces behind

In order to "control" a potentially unruly, and militant portion of the populace.

And so,

Adventuring into those treacherous

Mid-East desert sands SHOULD

Cost the Conqueror.

The cost is... garrison, or take some hits

From VERY rabid and determined native

"Rabble rousers."

This is what we have, and IMHO,

It IS just as viable

As those who would insist, without historical evidence

That the Arab Nationalists would have been

Perfectly, prettily content with Axis

"Iron fisted rule."

**If none of the above rationales suit you, well,

At game start, you CAN "un-check" the script

Which provides for Egyptian partisans

Should you prefer. :cool:

[ May 03, 2006, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[JerseyJohn]

DD,

I agree that, in all instances, conquered territory should need to be occupied by it's conqueror.

And, no doubt you're correct specifically about Egypt needing to be garrisoned if conquered; the British, after all, had troops there and also in Jordan and Palestine -- actually, Palestine was the main reason they had as many troops as they did in the Middle East when the war started.

The original tone of this thread was a bit confusing to me in that I thought we were talking about Soviet and Yugoslav type partisans, which actually turn into sizable military units. But we aren't, it seems, instead we're talking about uprisings of opportunity that can be kept under control by an armed presence.

On that understanding, the idea sounds fine to me.

-- I believe Spain, the UK and Turkey should have partisans along the lines of the USSR, but garrisons in their major cities should keep them under control.

[Chris G]

Good point xwormwood! I was surprised by this myself. Egypt was more or less occupied by the allies at that time as well as many of the other Arab countries in the Middle East. Just like Iraq is today.

Germany was considered as a potential liberator by most Arab people in this region. Many fought as partisans/resistance against the allies with or w/out support from Germany.

Some may say that Arabs also fought for the Allies. True, but most of them were paid or in some rare cases chose the allied side because rival “tribes” supported the Germans.

It can also be mentioned that the German SD, Brandenburgers and so on tried to establish command/stab centrals in for ex. Cairo, but failed for various reasons. If succeeded, the resistance fighters would most likely have started to fight more aggressively and open. They were waiting for an opportunity like those who rebelled in Warsaw 1944. In there case it never came.

The African campaign would likely been a lot different then; even thus speculating about alternative history always is just speculations.

jon_j_rambo may be a good SC2 player, but his comment:

“The Germans had a plan to send a small batch of murderers to Palestine to set up death camps during WW-2. There's no way a bunch of Arabs are going to become friend's to the West, AFTER a takeover by Fritz...living & dying for UK/USA.”

can be ignored to but it nicely.(If it was some internal joke I'm not aware of, I'm sry.)

[TaoJah]

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if we see Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"

Harry S. Truman, Senate speech

That's a very... provocative signature, lol.

[JerseyJohn]

ChrisG,

Thanks for that quote in your signature. Growing up during the 1950s I used to hear my father saying all the time that "We should have stayed home and let them kill each other!" I never realized till now where he probably got the idea from. Ironically he used to also say Harry Truman was the worst president we ever had -- but that was a lot of truly terrible presidents ago.

[Lars]

Perhaps we should have Axis Partisans in the Middle East.

As it stands now, the Allies don't have to garrison. In fact, they can evacuate the whole place and still get all the benefits. Rather ahistorical, imho. Those garrisons were there for a reason.

The Iraq revolt is a nice touch though. Maybe a random chance of that happening in other countries would be good, if left unoccupied. The Allies shouldn't get to keep collecting mpp for nothing.

Or maybe a declaration of independence? Allies lose mpp, but no unit for Axis.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Chris G --- WHAT? Learn history, pal. Here's the historical account from the GERMANS THEMSLEVES!!! Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060407/wl_nm/germany_holocaust_palestine_dc_1

BERLIN (Reuters) - Nazi Germany planned to expand the extermination of Jews beyond the borders of Europe and into British-controlled Palestine during World War Two, two German historians say.

In 1942, the Nazis created a special "Einsatzgruppe," a mobile SS death squad, which was to carry out the mass slaughter of Jews in Palestine similar to the way they operated in eastern Europe, the historians argue in a new study.

The director of the Nazi research center in Ludwigsburg, Klaus-Michael Mallman, and Berlin historian Martin Cueppers say an Einsatzgruppe was all set to go to Palestine and begin killing the roughly half a million Jews that had fled Europe to escape Nazi death camps like Auschwitz and Birkenau.

In the study, published last month, they say "Einsatzgruppe Egypt" was standing by in Athens and was ready to disembark for Palestine in the summer of 1942, attached to the "Afrika Korps" led by the famed desert commander General Erwin Rommel.

The Middle East death squad, similar to those operating throughout eastern Europe during the war, was to be led by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Walther Rauff, the historians say.

"The central plan for the group was the realization of the Holocaust in Palestine," the authors wrote in their study that appears in a book entitled "Germans, Jews, Genocide: The Holocaust as History and the Present."

But since Germany never conquered British-controlled Palestine, plans for bringing the Holocaust to what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories never came to fruition.

Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in Europe. According to their own records, the Einsatzgruppen killed over one million people, most of them civilians.

In the battle of El Alamein, Egypt, British General Bernard Montgomery turned the tide of the war in north Africa by routing Rommel's "Afrika Korps" and ending his African campaign.

As they did in eastern Europe, the plan was for the 24 members involved in the death squad to enlist Palestinian collaborators so that the "mass murder would continue under German leadership without interruption."

Fortunately for the Jews in Palestine, "Einsatzgruppe Egypt" never made it out of Greece.

"The history of the Middle East would have been completely different and a Jewish state could never have been established if the Germans and Arabs had joined forces," the historians conclude.

Regarding the question why this is emerging 61 years after the end of World War Two, Mallmann and Cueppers said they simply unearthed something other historians had not found yet.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Chris G --- Dude, obviously you're lost, but that's why I'm here to educate you. Enjoy the article & stop denying. Ever since a man changed his name to Abraham, the world has hated that group...and it's still ongoing despire modern technologies of air conditioning, computers, whatever.

There was a plan for the Middle East by the Nazis. Everybody thinks they were going for Oil, you kidding me? They were going for the HOLY LANDS!

[ May 04, 2006, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

Great info, thanks for posting it.

Actually, nazi plans along these lines go back to the mid-30s. Knowing the UK had much earlier (late 19th century) committed itself vaguely to the establishment of a Jewish state (at the time they wanted it to be the Sudan, but Disraeli flatly refused to endorse it), the nazis encouraged European Jews and specifically German Jews, to move to Palestine. The only ceased doing this openly because otherwise sympathetic Arab leaders opposed this so fervently that open warfare broke out in the Jerusalem area.

The reasoning was to have the entire European Jewish population in one place to make it's extermination all the easier. After the fall of France, for a short time when it was hoped the UK would settle for peace terms, an alternate plan was hatched to send the European Jews as colonists to Vichy French Madagascar. At the time that island was underpopulated and rife with tropical diseases.

Before Pearl Harbor the Japanese also got into it, saying it would accept all the Jews who could make it to Manchuria and they would be honored citizens of the Japanese Empire. The nazis discouraged that immigration, however, because the Japanese had no intention of killing, or even of harrassing the Jewish immigrants; they felt they'd become a valuable part of their own Imperial population.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- I've never believed the Fritz went to Africa for oil!!! They were going for the Holy Lands.

The Indianna Jone's Movies were based on this too A batch of Wolfgangs possessed by Evil.

[ May 04, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

At the time nobody even knew there was oil in Africa -- when well water in Libya came up foul from petrol by products, both the Brits and Germans accused one another of poisoning them!

I think linking with Palestine was a large part of it. Strategically, Rommel himself drew a map showing the Afrika Korps running through Egypt and bolting north to the Caucasus, linking with the German units fighting the Soviets.

Other reasons were to surround Turkey with Axis puppets, getting better leverage to force it into the Axis. And to encourage Iraq and Iran, with their own oil, to kick in with Germany.

All things considered, if Germany had achieved any of those goals it would probably have won the war.

But, for the plan of exterminating all the Jews in Palestine, I think they gave up on that when they realized Britain would not be aggreeing to peace in 1940.

Part of the German 1930s plan was to bloat Palestine with newly arrived Jews. Arrouse the Arabs to fever pitch and help arm them and then sit by as though innocent while the Arabs conducted the slaughter. Much as you were saying above only without the later addition of the SS Deaths Head Group.

By 1941 it was only a peripheral idea and wasn't mentioned at all in the Wansee Conference in which the Death Camps were officially decided upon.

[jon_j_rambo]

Also, destruction & control of the Suez Canal would have screwed the Brits over, big time.

[JerseyJohn]

True.

Combined with the rerouting of Axis supplies through Greece and Crete to Alexandria, it would have made Gibraltar and Malta next to meaningless.

Of course, without their Mediteranean route, the India commerce would have needed to circumvent Africa. Which most of it already did (till after the fall of Tunisia), but losing that link permanently would have been a huge setback.

[Lars]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

True.

Combined with the rerouting of Axis supplies through Greece and Crete to Alexandria, it would have made Gibraltar and Malta next to meaningless.

Of course, without their Mediteranean route, the India commerce would have needed to circumvent Africa. Which most of it already did (till after the fall of Tunisia), but losing that link permanently would have been a huge setback.

Ah, but starting slipping subs through the canal. Buh bye India...

[JerseyJohn]

Yup! Totally agreed, Lars.

Especially considering how thin the Royal Navy was in the Indian Ocean.

I think you've just touched on something that should be incorporated into a scenario -- interactive effects of European Theater to Asia, and Asian Theater to Europe.

-- We already have that with the Siberian transfer option, but things like this create an entirely new area of possibilities.

Time for some of Edwin's famous pop-ups.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The reasoning was to have the entire European Jewish population in one place to make it's extermination all the easier.

Now that is a fine example of rewriting history, lol.

There were plans to make a Jewish state for centuries. Saying that supporting this was so they could be easier exterminated is so far from the truth that it's not even funny.

It were the Jews THEMSELVES that wanted a state...

Surely you don't want to suggest that they wanted this so they could easier exterminate themselves, do you ?

[jon_j_rambo]

@ToJo --- Give me a break. Think before you type, you're talking to Sir Jersey, a Made man.

"You're talking about a Captain" --- Christopher in Sopranos.

[JerseyJohn]

TaoJah

I love it when someone takes a quote out of context and twists it.

Did you bother to notice I was talking about THE NAZI'S reason for supporting Jewish immigration to Palestine? No, I don't think so.

Did you also notice that I mentioned the late 19th Century British committment to a Jewish State, long before they controled Palestine? Once again, NO.

Please have the courtesy to only qoute things addressed in context to what was said. [edited by JJ]

-- Back on the subject, if the British were so determined to set up Israel for the sake of the Jews, why did they wait till after the Hollocaust to do it? They could have done it right after World War One, but it wasn't convenient for them.

And why, when they did do it, was it carried out in a way that did it's best to insure a successful Arab invasion and after that back to business as usual?

[edited by JJ]

Please note, I've removed some of my original remarks a couple of days after the post. After thinking it over I felt that I became overly agitated and went over the top against TaoJah, who I happen to like and respect.

In this particular instance he did butcher and twist something I said earlier, but I don't think it was done intentionally.

Apologies for the harshness of my original response.

[ May 05, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

Appreciated. Sometimes we offer opinions and get kicked in the ass for no apparent reason.

[Canuck_TAR]

Not about Oil..............hmmmmmmmm...........I'm thinking that was the top priority, the others as a secondary one. You secure the resourses then you can do what you want to who you want later.

Lets face it, how far did the Germans have to go in NA............ if they took Alexandria and the Suez the rest of the Arab world would have joined them to get rid of the English that remained.......they would have been outta supply in a major way.........thus making a free ride into the Caucasus.

[JerseyJohn]

A valid point, but also part of what was being discussed earlier.

Really, the Germans only became involved in North Africa to bail Italy out of the fiasco it found itself in after trying to invade Egypt.

Hitler was reluctant to get involved in Iraq also, when they attempted to oust the British garrison and governor by force. If Germany had acted more quickly and with greater resources, the coup might well have succeeded.

I don't think Hitler had any real plans regarding the Middle East. He saw it as part of the Italian sphere, along with Africa.

As mentioned (and misquoted) earlier, there were some vague nazi plans for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, but I'm not sure Hitler was himself particularly drawn to that either.

I think Germany's plans for The Middle East before, and during WWII, is one of history's gray areas. My guess is Hitler was much more interested in things closer to home, such as an alliance with Turkey -- something he pushed, but that the Turks always side-stepped. If that had been achieved I think Germany would certainly have become interested in both Iraq and Iran.

-- As for oil, Hitler's assumption was simply that he'd take the Russian oil fields, making Arab oil irrelevant.