Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 191

Thread: What if - Spain joined the Axis in 1939.

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,134
    Without Franco's harsh terms(i.e French NA) and IF the Germans follow a Med strategy,then there's some sense and even some significant advantages.Without those Spain becomes a drain.There's a 3 years period when the allies can do nothing.Even if they do,there's little a landing in Spain can achieve.But since Germany started looking East in autumn 1940 there was no chance for a Med strategy,so all this is moot.Even Hitler agreed with us,for all the good it did him(or us).
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    F Halder received the following report on 13 noe 1940.
    At that time the occupation of Gibraltar was not taken of the table.
    spain
    army-27 divisions of 9000.
    armed forces strength. 500.000.
    antiaircraft arty- lacking
    armor: different models
    air force-same
    ammo supplies- not to large.
    officer corps has suffered 50% casualties.
    political differences in the army high command.

    Maroco-at frontier only field fortifications.
    7 divisions with full complement of arty.
    plus 3 independent arty regiments.
    canary islands -25.000 men , no info on artillery
    rio de oro -only weak police forces.
    J'ai en marre.

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    The most Spain could have done was taken Gibraltar and maybe overrun Portugual which would have been a disaster for Europe's Jewry. Portugual is an unsung hero in the battle against the Holocaust.

    BF,

    The Axis Allies were not worthless. The Italians and Hungarians in particular fought hard in Russia. Hungary stuck by Hitler longer than any other. No one can doubt the ability of the Finns either. Also some of the volunteer SS units were top notch fighters. Romania provided more troops than all the others combined plus oil.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    if we include japan in the freak show it gave him the chance to fight on for as long as he did.
    I'll do a detailed reply later, but this deseves a special mention. Remind me, what event prompted Hitler to declare war on the US? Give me Mussolini any day.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The most Spain could have done was taken Gibraltar and maybe overrun Portugual which would have been a disaster for Europe's Jewry. Portugual is an unsung hero in the battle against the Holocaust.

    BF,

    The Axis Allies were not worthless. The Italians and Hungarians in particular fought hard in Russia. Hungary stuck by Hitler longer than any other. No one can doubt the ability of the Finns either. Also some of the volunteer SS units were top notch fighters. Romania provided more troops than all the others combined plus oil.
    Z,

    I realised afterward that I should have singled out the Finns for special mention as punching above their weight (though complete & total failures at exterminating Jews). Those SS volunteers don't really count as 'allies'. And the Romanian oil didn't require an alliance to obtain.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  6. #21
    Contributor Genosaurer's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 10
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No one can doubt the ability of the Finns either.
    Despite that, from the Nazi viewpoint Finland can hardly be called an ally. The Finns largely did their own thing, which occasionally coincided with what Germany was doing at the time... and occasionally did not, with catastrophic results. Ryti and Mannerheim's refusal to play ball in the seige of Leningrad left some of the best German formations tied up in the north for years to no real effect.
    "Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    ok, time for a proper reply

    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    no Italy helped Germany fight the battle of Atlantic.
    ...which germany lost. Presumably this loss was delayed a bit by Italy tying down British units (at least some of which would still have been stationed in the Med no matter what Mussolini did given the presence of two potentially hostile fleets.

    Explain to me again how Germany would have been expending resources fighting those forces had it not been bailing out Mussolini? Was Britain going to invade the Continent in 1942-3? Note that all the fighting here is on territory controlled by German allies (Vichy & italy).

    wrt to french Tunisia it was
    Hitlers call not Mussolini .
    Irrelevant. Two allies, both worthless. One full of people looking for an excuse to change sides, another that did. They weren't even that committed to the whole Jew-killing thing. Sure, there were a few guys in Vicht who got with the program, but the Italians were so uninterested (until the Boschian nightmare of the Salo regime, anyway) that they even objected to the NDH (another worthless ally) trying to purify holy Croation soil Nazi style. That Hitler was dumb enough to waste resources defending their territory doesn't make them any more worthwhile.

    I guess that means no Italian troops in Russia.
    Gee, won't that just upset the Russians. Instead of facing poorly equipped & often poorly trained forces best suited to occupation duties they might actually have to face decent quality German troops. By the time the Italian troops had enough experience to be anything more than grease for the tracks of T-34s Mussolini pulled them out due to intolerably high losses.

    if we include japan in the freak show it gave him the chance to fight on for as long as he did.
    Already covered, but Japan was actually worse then useless.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  8. #23
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Already covered, but Japan was actually worse then useless.
    Oh come on? How much faster would the Battle of the Atlantic ended if we added the USS ENTERPRISE, USS YORKTOWN, USS HORNET, and the USS LEXINGTON to the Atlantic Order of Battle?

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    I'll do a detailed reply later, but this deseves a special mention. Remind me, what event prompted Hitler to declare war on the US? Give me Mussolini any day.

    the battle of the Atlantic.

    ...which germany lost. Presumably this loss was delayed a bit by Italy tying down British units (at least some of which would still have been stationed in the Med no matter what Mussolini did given the presence of two potentially hostile fleets.

    does not change the fact that the losses of British warships in the Med amounted to all other theater losses ...combined.

    Explain to me again how Germany would have been expending resources fighting those forces had it not been bailing out Mussolini? Was Britain going to invade the Continent in 1942-3? Note that all the fighting here is on territory controlled by German allies (Vichy & italy).

    first of all, it was the VICHY loss of control over N AFRICA that prompted hitler to invade Tunisia and secondly do you understand the difference between collaboration and alliance ?
    No, Britain was not going to invade in 1942-1943, dieppe was just sightseeing.
    J'ai en marre.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    That Hitler was dumb enough to waste resources defending their territory doesn't make them any more worthwhile.
    so actually Hitler put his Italian allies in a situation in which they lost a quarter of a million men in just 5 months (eastern front included) and the ability to defend their homeland.
    where exactly was he planning to carry them ...to a speedy defeat ?
    J'ai en marre.

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    '. And the Romanian oil didn't require an alliance to obtain.
    it does because almost all of the refineries and oil exploitations were owned by British and American firms before 1940.
    J'ai en marre.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Oh come on? How much faster would the Battle of the Atlantic ended if we added the USS ENTERPRISE, USS YORKTOWN, USS HORNET, and the USS LEXINGTON to the Atlantic Order of Battle?
    How much longer would it have taken if Germany hadn't declared war on the US? Thats my point here.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    I'll do a detailed reply later, but this deseves a special mention. Remind me, what event prompted Hitler to declare war on the US? Give me Mussolini any day.

    the battle of the Atlantic.
    Try again. Give you a hint...it has the initials 'Pearl Harbour'.

    ...which germany lost. Presumably this loss was delayed a bit by Italy tying down British units (at least some of which would still have been stationed in the Med no matter what Mussolini did given the presence of two potentially hostile fleets.

    does not change the fact that the losses of British warships in the Med amounted to all other theater losses ...combined.
    ...and? Germany still loses, just more slowly. Germany would have been better off wiht italy as a neutral.

    Explain to me again how Germany would have been expending resources fighting those forces had it not been bailing out Mussolini? Was Britain going to invade the Continent in 1942-3? Note that all the fighting here is on territory controlled by German allies (Vichy & italy).

    first of all, it was the VICHY loss of control over N AFRICA that prompted hitler to invade Tunisia and secondly do you understand the difference between collaboration and alliance ?
    In Europe of 1940-45 the line gets pretty blurry. Vichy was nominally an independent state & frequently acted as such. In any case, another example of Hitler losing resources defending territory that was someone else's empire. German troops got into Africa to save Mussolini's arse & ended up defending Vichy's (after Mussolini ran out of arse to defend). I struggle to imagine Hitler shipping in several hundred thousand troops & associated vehicles to defend Tunisia withou the preceding Italian campaign, not least because it would have been logistically impossible without Italy as an ally. Again, not helping you case.

    No, Britain was not going to invade in 1942-1943, dieppe was just sightseeing.
    OK, so if it weren't for his worthless Italian ally going to war with Britain those British corps don't do much more than a bit of sightseeing in France until D-Day - something only made possible because Hitler decalred war on the most powerful nation in the world in order to encourage his Japanese ally to attack the one place in all of this where he actually DID want a war - Russia (yes, I know the US was likely to have found a war into the war all by itself, but we don't know how & when & what it might have meant for those 3 British corps). Still think Hitler would have lost, but you really aren't doing much good proving the worth of some of those Allies.
    Last edited by Bigfella; 31 Aug 11, at 09:49.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,456
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    so actually Hitler put his Italian allies in a situation in which they lost a quarter of a million men in just 5 months (eastern front included) and the ability to defend their homeland.
    where exactly was he planning to carry them ...to a speedy defeat ?
    Again, you appear to be trying to prove my point for me. Hitler allies himself with someone stupid enough to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Russia while unable to actually defend his own empire - an empire only under threat because he invited himself to a war he could have watched from the sidelines (and note that I haven't even had to bring up Italy getting beaten up by Greece or struggling against a barely functional Yugoslavia - talk about useless). I've said it before, Italy had no business involving iteself in a war with grownups. Gassing Ethiopians or beating up King Zog was about Italy's level. A worthless ally.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,134
    Without distractions on secondary fronts,Germany has a better chance of winning in Russia,or at least a better chance to a draw and separate peace there.More men in 1941 means fewer Soviets escaping the pockets and faster reduction.Yugoslavia,Greece(occupation troops)and NA kept those men.The men,tanks and supplies that would have crushed the Soviet attack at Stalingrad were preparing to go to their doom in Tunisia.2nd SS PzKp was halted after it destroyed the Soviet reserves at Kursk,because of Husky.The list could go on.
    While German strategic mistakes are clear,they would not have been in the position to make those mistakes without the Italians.Italy didn't lose the war for Germany,but it helped.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The King George V Class battleship (1939)
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 21 Mar 14,, 03:34
  2. Great Britain and France Declare War on USSR in 1939
    By Danowest in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08 Mar 08,, 19:53
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09 Oct 04,, 08:33

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •