@SuperbattleshipYamato hard to argue against any of this really. The IJN was so far gone by this point in the war that there’s not really much they could have done to salvage their situation one way or another. The bit about the allies not having many LSTs in general is something I never knew before though.
Spain or Turkey
-
Turkey would have been the nitro’s in the gas tank that pushed the german momentum over the volga, and all the way to the Kremlin.
With this boost, the Leningrad pocket would have also collapsed.
Game over.
-
N.O.T.A
none of the above.
Turkey would have been to weak as a Ally to Germany to lend strong Armies and Spain was splitt politicly and would only extend the frontline for the risk of possible invasions.
The way it was ,served best and the only downfall was that Turkey gave in a little bit to early the Bospporus to the Soviets ,but as we know it was A.H`s fault anyway.
A good ally would have been Kazakhstan maybe, just a thought… -
Sweden would have been a useful ally because it was an industrialized nation close to Russia.
But its Turkey. Huge army. And Turkey’s entry would have put the Allies on the defensive in the entire Middle-East region. The Allies might have conquered Turkey, but that would take a lot of resources, and it would have pissed off the Turkish people and make them firmer allies with the Axis.
Fortunately, the Turks had a military pact with Great Britian and they wanted to avoid war with the Soviets.
-
Spain would allow a better chance for Germany if they joined just after the fall of France. They could have offered an assist to attack Gibraltar and close off the medd.
However, once Hitler attacked the Soviets, Turkey could have been more of a benefit. The axis could transport forces into the middle east w/o use of naval transport.
So the answer depends on if you want to go after the British or Soviets. Spain had a much more rounded armed forces including naval. Turkey was an untested quantity with no naval and meager air forces.
-
I think alot of people focuses WAY to much on moscow and leningrad. This war was about resources.
spain could have been the best ally if they joined in 1940 and then helped germany close the med.
but in reality if turkey had joined in 1941, at the same time as rumania, it might have been game over for russia by the summer of 1942, They would have been able to effectivly defend iran from the soviet/british invasion of 41 too. It would probably be game over because of the oil in caucasus and the oil in iraq/iran. Germany lost mainly because of too little oil.
Once russia has fallen, along with egypt, germany could have sued for peace quite effectivly, offering to give back france, egypt and all of northern africa. If germany was lucky, they could have even broken the soviets in 1941 and might have been able to get their peace before US entered the war. Turkey would have gotten to keep iraq and syria, becoming the ottoman empire once more.
-
Shouldn’t India be an option?
The material and morale damage to Britain would be worth more than the extra resources brought in by Sweden, Spain, or Turkey.
The Axis courted Indian nationalists, so it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility.
-
More Indians fought for the Japanese in India, than the Japanese.
-
india is clearly outside of the realm of posibility, so is kazhakstan. you might as well suggest that texas and california joined the japanese, or scotland and wales joined germany.
-
I don’t think it’s that clear.
India was agitating for independence from the UK and held no historical animosity towards any of the Axis powers. I’m not suggesting that the entire British Indian Army would rebel … but if more radical activists dominated the independence movement in that era, the UK could have been greatly weakened.
Sweden and Turkey had little to no popular support to join the Axis or to pick a fight with the Allies. They would probably only join if it was a matter of self-preservation (like Finland).
-
Ironically,
India today is a haven for Naziism. Hitler is seen as a managment guru, converting a battered Germany into an Economic superpower in less than a decade.
For all you Nay Sayers…
EXAMPLE SOURCE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501370_162-6639745.html
(there are MANY more)I also read an article in TIME 2 years ago, regarding the same issue, and Hitlers popularity through the south east asian sphere.
-
Ironically,
India today is a haven for Naziism. Hitler is seen as a managment guru, converting a battered Germany into an Economic superpower in less than a decade.
For all you Nay Sayers…
EXAMPLE SOURCE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501370_162-6639745.html
(there are MANY more)I also read an article in TIME 2 years ago, regarding the same issue, and Hitlers popularity through the south east asian sphere.
Maybe today ,but as you allready know India thought it was better to join the Commonwealth. India declared war to Germany on 3. 9. 1939.
Ironically, isn´t it? -
Actually, a UK Viceroy declared war without actually consulting any Indians. If it had been up to Gandhi, India would have remained neutral.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1138673.shtml
-
Actually, a UK Viceroy declared war without actually consulting any Indians. If it had been up to Gandhi, India would have remained neutral.
When Roosevelt and Churchill issued their joint declaration of August 1941 (which came to be known as the Atlantic Charter), one of its articles stated:
“Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
This point was seized upon by nationalist groups in various parts of the world (including India), but Churchill’s position about “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live” was that it didn’t apply to the people of the British Empire, which left him open to accusations of hypocrisy.
-
As far as the original question is concerned, a similar poll has been held before:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13252.0The outcome was also rather convincingly pro-Turkey, though not by a margin as large as this time.
On a side note, Hitler and Franco did actually meet to discuss a possible alliance. It didn’t go well. Hitler reportedly stated about this meeting: “I would rather have my teeth pulled than meet with Franco again.”
-
I know this post sounded familiar but didn`t wanted to dig this deep…
Good post Herr KaLeun! eins hoch :wink:
-
How would the Arabs have reacted to a German/Turkish alliance? Would the fears of a rebirth Ottoman Empire driven the Arabs to ally with the British?
-
Germany had great support throughout the Arab/Muslim community. But of course they created Franco. The only issue with Spain is they didn’t like Italy.
-
@Imperious:
Germany had great support throughout the Arab/Muslim community.
As one example, Egypt was nominally neutral (and nominally independent, though there was a large British presence there) for most of WWII, but King Farouk and some of the people around him had pro-Axis sympathies. The British were worried about this, and these worries eventually led to the Abdeen Palace Incident of 1942 (a political maneuver which was similar in purpose to the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941, but less dramatic in scope and method).
-
I was reading of Vichy’s French defense of the Middle East, the Vichies put up a tough fight.
-
I’m not sure the Arab support for the Nazi cause would have held if Germany would have allied itself with Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was an entity of the past, but as late as 1938, the Turks took Alexandretta, which had until then been a part of Syria, driving out most of the Arab population.
Suggested Topics
