Africa was not so much a German initiative as it was a reaction to Mussolini's failure in establishing dominance in Northern Africa. With the fall of most of western Europe and many military resources available to German disposition at the time - there was the impression that North Africa would be an overrunning of the British off the continent.

They could have lost the war after 1940 in my understanding. This year orchestrated events in a way that ignited the other side to their best chance in the war.

Hitler actually was one of the primary reasons that Germany had the early successes it did and ultimately a primary reason that Germany lost. Hitler was a great politician, but just a god-awful military strategist. Fortunately for the Allies, Hitler was so entrenched in power and so convinced of his own genius that nobody could hope to override his bad decisions.

Hitler was politically smart. He knew that the French, despite the raw numbers of soldiers? Was no longer truly a great power. He also was well aware that the British were not entirely unsympathetic to German ambitions to revise the Versailles treaty and to incorporate territories inhabited by ethnic Germans. Hitler used this knowledge to effect political Union with Austria and to get France and Britain to agree to his annexation of the Sudentenland. Of course this only convinced Hitler of his genius and that was reinforced when he annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia without repercussions.

With that in mind, once he invaded Poland and France and Britain declared war, Hitler was convinced that he knew how to win and that only a direct invasion of his enemies homelands was the method to do so. Again he was reinforced in this by the defeat of France. He became convinced that direct frontal action with no conception of retreat was the way to go. His attempt to control the airspace over Britain and the English Channel was obviously in preparation for an invasion of Britain. This was a mistake on his part. BritainÂ’s power was derived from its imperial holdings Morris than from its homeland. Defeating Britain really amounted to cutting off the homeland from the empire; no invasion of Britain was necessary.

He also started to implement his wacky ideological ideas, most notably the idea of invading his partner in crime in Poland - the Soviet Union. That was another mistake. A frontal assault on a thousand mile linear front had no real hope of long term success. There was an indirect way.

That leads me to Africa. Africa was a sideshow in HitlerÂ’s mind, but it need not have been. It could have actually been a war-winning campaign. This is especially true had Hitler not made one more incredible blunder - declaring war against the US after JapanÂ’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Had Hitler maintained a threat of direct Barbarossa-type invasion, but shunted most of the WermachtÂ’s resources to North Africa (and forgone sideshows like Yugoslavia and Crete), he likely could have pushed right through Egypt and into the Middle East. Not only would that have cut Britain off from the oil fields in the Mid East and allowed Germany to exploit them, it would have provided a threat of pushing all the way into Britains most valuable imperial possession -India. With the oil from Arabia cut off and India threatened, he probably could have forced Britain to negotiate a peace treaty on favorable terms to Germany.

Having eliminated Britain (and without the eventual threat of US intervention) he then could have focused on the Soviets. It seems difficult to believe that they could have held off a two pronged invasion through both Eastern Europe and simulateously through the Caucus region by the former Afrika Korps, especially considering how close the Germans actually came to pulling it off in actual fact, with a single invasion front and divided resources.

Eh, no. Britain was able to defend itself with a minimum of support from it's empire. The exception for the defence of Britain was Canada and also supported by pilots from non empire countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Ultimately the RAF and the Royal Navy ensured there would be no invasion of Britain.

There was also no way that Britain would negotiate a peace treaty with Nazi Germany.

I’m not talking about direct military assistance from the empire. Britains hard military power was ultimately derived from the economic strength that came from its empire. No empire would have meant no access to important resources (especially oil) that were needed to maintain a modern military force. Cutting Britain off from its empire would have crippled its ability to continue fighting a great power war alone. Remember, in my hypothetical, Hitler does NOT directly invade the USSR until his armies push through Africa and into the Middle East cutting off Britains ability to maintain its trade with India and its Arabian holdings. Also Hitler does not declare war on the USA after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While Britain could still have gotten Lend-Lease aid from the US, fighting alone against another great power with limited access to imperial resources would have been a difficult proposition. Germany almost won the Battle of Britain as it was it was only another one of Hitler’s “brilliant” decisions, namely changing bombing targets from RAF installations to civilian targets, especially London, that gave the British enough time to replenish the RAF and fight off the attack.

It would not have been a matter of Britain wishing to negotiate. It would have eventually have become a matter of Britain being unable to provide fuel for ships and aircraft, being unable to keep its manufacturing base up to the task of replacing lost war materiel, and an eventual inability to properly supply troops in the field. Modern wars on not won by soldiers, sailor and pilots alone, but rather by a broad economic base, which would have been totally disrupted by a German incision into the Middle East cutting off Britainfrom its Arabian and Indian holdings.

If you truly doubt that the empire was the source of Britains power, consider this historical question: Britain was undeniably one of the great powers of the world prior to WWII. Britain today is undeniably no longer a great power. What is the main difference between BritainÂ’s pre and post war geopolitical situations? Sure, the war itself had an effect, but the Marshall plan recovery put BritainÂ’s economy back together after the war. The loss of empire though led to an economic decline that was reflected in an eventual decline in military power.

The majority of Britain's oil came from the US in WW2. As for the economy, much of Britain's treasure had been expended in WW2, including paying for much of France's war effort.

Well, the US shipped it to Britain, but a lot came from Venezuela. My father was a merchant seaman in the war and he made more than one trip from NY - Caracas - NY - UK

Germany might not invade the USSR with their important forces the other side of the Med in a position they can not supply but the USSR will invade them. Remember Stalin already broke their treaty when he took all of Lithuania including the half that was allocated to Germany. Also quit falling for the Churchill propaganda about the Battle of Britain; it was never that close. Look at what was required for the Western allies to win the Air Battle for France in 1943-1944 and recognize in the Battle for Britain Germany was David not Goliath.