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).
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What if - Spain joined the Axis in 1939.
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View Postif we include japan in the freak show it gave him the chance to fight on for as long as he did.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThe 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.
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.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostNo one can doubt the ability of the Finns either."Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken
Comment
-
ok, time for a proper reply
Originally posted by 1979 View Postno Italy helped Germany fight the battle of Atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XIII_Corps_(United_Kingdom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_Corps_(United_Kingdom)
the only problem with that argument is that they did.
wrt to french Tunisia it was
Hitlers call not Mussolini .
I guess that means no Italian troops in Russia.
if we include japan in the freak show it gave him the chance to fight on for as long as he did.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostThat Hitler was dumb enough to waste resources defending their territory doesn't make them any more worthwhile.
where exactly was he planning to carry them ...to a speedy defeat ?J'ai en marre.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostOh 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?sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View PostI'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.Last edited by Bigfella; 31 Aug 11,, 09:49.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by 1979 View Postso 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 ?sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
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
Comment
Comment