Re: Could North Africa have costed Hitler Stalingrad

BernardZ wrote:

North Africa was to Germany a sideshow from the real war in Russia.

While going over the air supplies to Stalingrad, in the discussion

Subject: Re: Could more of German army in Stalingrad have been taken out
was Re: Stalingrad: Could Hitler have saved 6th Army by prompt
withdrawal from Caucasus?

It occurred to me that much of the strategic reason for Stalingrad was
to get the oil. A significant amount of oil was used to keep the North
Africa campaign going.

More importantly much of the German Air force was lost or being used in
North Africa.

Lack of air supplies was a major problem to the Germans in late 1942/43.
Even before the Russian isolated Stalingrad, air supplies were being
flown in.

Could North Africa campaign have costed Germany Stalingrad and much of
the problems in 1942/43?

Perhaps it is the other way around. German forces were in North Africa long
before Hitler decided to drop his plans for the invasion of Britain and
attacked the Soviet Union instead. Having conquered Poland in a short time
he had more or less a single front to deal with. Moving into North Africa
provided the opportunity to control the Mediterranean, so it might not have
been a two front war. By moving against Russia, he opened up a whole new
and much more dangerous front. I would suggest that if anything was to e
blamed for losing Stalingrad it would be the decision to invade the Soviet
Union. It is not just dumb in hindsight. It looked like a dumb thing at the