If you were Hitler and had the choice of these three allies, which would you choose?
Hi Worsham.
Even though Spain has its merits: the main one is the capture of Gibraltar and all the power of maneouvre that would remove from the Allies.
I have to choose Turkey, as it is the “back way” into the oil of Russia, which Hitler understandably craved to continue his Eastern campaign.
I am not sure of the state of the Turkish military or even what its war aims would have been, but I think its entry on the Axis side would most have helped their war effort.
I agree with Wittmann in choosing Turkey. It not only would have provided another route into Russia, it also would have allowed Germany to strike eastward towards Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia (gaining their oil and depriving Britain of it), and it would also have given Germany a launching point for an attack westward towards the Suez Canal and Egypt. Closing Suez would have cut Britain’s shortest route between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and made it harder for Britain to contest the Italian fleet for control of the Mediterranean; this in turn would have improved the supply situation of the Afrika Korps (and complicated the logistics of the British forces in North Africa). The British would have been caught between Rommel’s forces in the west and the new German forces in the east (the ones invading Egypt via Turkey), and possibly forced out of North Africa altogether. By contrast, Spain was in bad shape after the Spanish Civil War and was in little condition to help Germany in the war effort if it had joined the Axis. The capture of Gibraltar would have been made possible, but closing the Straights of Gibraltar to British naval traffic would still have been less straightforward than closing the much narrower Suez Canal.
Turkey hands down.
Turks are traditionally ruthless, with long standing military traditions, and a long history of anti-british/pro-german diplomacy.
They would have mopped the floor with Russians, and as said - allowed much needed access to the middle east, Egypt, the Black Sea, etc.
I chose Spain, the Spain would have closed off the Western Med. to the British and added a good many troops with anti-soviet grudges. The Soviets took 400 tons of Spanish for safe keeping and arms sales and kept the loot after the Spanish Civil War.
How would the war in the Atlantic been had Spainish Ports been open to U-boats and surface raiders?
I believe Malta falls with Spain joining the War. This helps Rommel with supplies and allows the Italian Navy to leave port and go into the Atlantic.
German bombers would be able to attack and track Freetown to England convoys.
How would Operation Torch have been had a large Spanish Army had awaited the Allies instead of Vichy Frech troops?
The Turkish/Soviet front would have been the roughest terrain fought for on the European War, minus the Finnish Front. This front was a major front in WWI and is known as the Battle of Sarikamish. Both sides lost half the troops involved. The Turks would need heavy German support to go to War, Mountain troops, Panzers divs, and air support.
The allies would have landed in Spain instead of Normandy. Also BAD terrain.
and what a slug fest western europe would have been…
the allies would still have landed in normandie.
the allies NEVER invaded outside of spitfire range, and would not have done it in spain. if they had tried, they would have lost whatever they put in, because they would not have been able to compete for airsupremacy in the vital first 1-3 weeks of the invasion
the allies would still have landed in normandie.
the allies NEVER invaded outside of spitfire range, and would not have done it in spain. if they had tried, they would have lost whatever they put in, because they would not have been able to compete for airsupremacy in the vital first 1-3 weeks of the invasion
Could the Allies not have used air bases in Africa to provide air supremacy in an invasion of Spain, Germany would still have the problems of checking the round the clock bombing of Germany and supporting the Army at the same time. Spain would have been even further from Germany, I wonder how good the Spainish Me-109 were?
For Spain to be any real value to the Axis, they would have had to been several years removed from the Civil War. The fact is that civil unrest and the police state the ensued, forced a lot of resources to trying to hold on to the order. It was bad enough Hitler choose the ITies to have as partners in bed, but could you imagine having another war partner that doesn’t even have its own house fully in order yet?
While I don’t believe Spain would have been invaded (and if you use the Africa landing point, please find me a suitable landing point from Africa because that is not easy terrain to deal with).
1. Land on cliffs
2.Cross hot open plains and get shot lots of times
3. Deal with Spain’s mountains/hills, and then try crossing the Pyrennies?
The Allies could have landed, yes, but they would have stalled out. I agreed with Turkey much like with the oil comments, but also think about how deep you get into Russia’s back door. Don’t you think Stalingrad would have had more of a chance to fall if Turkey fought with Germany? Don’t you think Egypt and the Suez would have been doomed? Plus how the hell are you going to invade Turkey? You have to get through that minefield in the Med.
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?
