Which would have been a better Ally to Germany?

I agree with the turkey’s… Ah that is the people that voted for Turkey.  Especialy early in the war.  It would have put alot more pressure on the brits and maybe Romel could have pulled something off in Egypt.  Of course the aditional pressure on the USSR later would have been helpful the the axis cause.  I think Spain would have been another weaker Italy.

Of course all that has been said though, I thought I would add my $ .02

@dezrtfish:

I agree with the turkey’s… Ah that is the people that voted for Turkey.  Especialy early in the war.  It would have put alot more pressure on the brits and maybe Romel could have pulled something off in Egypt.  Of course the aditional pressure on the USSR later would have been helpful the the axis cause.  I think Spain would have been another weaker Italy.

Of course all that has been said though, I thought I would add my $ .02

I’m glad to see this fish come up for air

I have to go with Spain, though neither country would have ultimately tipped the balance.  Turkey is an intriguing alliance because one might think with the added Turkish pressure on the Caucasus front, that the Russians might have been permanantly driven from the area around the Crimea.  But there are a lot of negatives there as well.  Turkey was even less stable at the time than Spain, if thats possible, and its under equipped armies would not just have been fighting the Russians on that front.  The Allies were very quick to regain Vichy French Syria, put down the revolt in Iraq and Persia was occupied as well.  Turkey would then have been assailed on all fronts.  Perhaps it would have diverted some more forces, and maybe in the very early stages that could have made the difference, but I think Spain offers the tantalizing aspect of a conquest of Gibralter as well as further U-Boat bases for the Battle of the Atlantic.  It made the territory the Allies would have to capture in the West that much more comprehensive, plus the Spanish Nationalists had already been fighting with German and Italian planes, tanks, and artillery anyway.  Spain may not have held out long if invaded, but neither did Italy, yet it would have been, like Italy, extremely difficult to capture, with a great deal of mountain fighting and stretched supply lines.  All of this would have helped buy time for the Germans to press home a technilogical advantage like the Jet fighters.  Of course, the A-bomb is going trump all of those things, and the common consensus is the Germans were pretty far away from achieving a workable atom bomb of their own.

France was Germany’s best ally. They collaborated by far more than anybody else who got conquered even with some degree of enthusiasm. You almost wonder if they surrendered on purpose.

@Imperious:

France was Germany’s best ally. They collaborated by far more than anybody else who got conquered even with some degree of enthusiasm. You almost wonder if they surrendered on purpose.

lol :lol:
greatest post ever!
I’ll have to remember to give you +1 Karma after my 100th post

@Adlertag:

If Spain had joined Germany, then Portugal would had joined the Allies, and then the Allies would have attacked and utterly destroyed Spain. And even if Germany had won the battle, what was the benefit ? No oil in Spain. No oil in UK. In 1940 UK was a little island short of resources, actually the brits was dependet on convoys to survive. So if Germany did conquer UK, they would only get 50 000 000 more hungry mouths to feed, and a poor island with a lot of fog. Only USA would benefit from a weak UK. So what would be the big idea ?

I doubt Portugal would have joined the the Allies.  If you recall, Salazar, the right-wing dictator was in power there and had sent over 10,000 troops to fight with the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.  He would have certainly followed Franco’s lead and either joined as well, looking for some tempting colonial exploits in Africa or at the very least remained a fairly hostile neutral to the Allies.

@ABWorsham:

I think Spain would be more tempting of a choice had that country not been in recovery from a bloody long civil war. With a better navy than Turkey, first-class ports for U-Boats and Gibraltar for the grab Spain does look tempting.

It is because of the recent Spanish Civil war I choose Turkey, But that is the only reason.  Spain is a Very Nice Location for the U-Boat Fleets, and Makes a Nice refit and refuel Station fro the Kriegies without having to get to close to UK. Not mention Gibralter would be in German Hands and There for the Med would also belong to the Axis By Default.

Although Turkey would have been nice to have for Russian Operations, My Nazi Germany would have not Attacked Russia, Until Churchills Fat Head was on a Pole in the Middle of Berlin.  Sorry Ranting again…

@bigbadgoo:

@Adlertag:

If Spain had joined Germany, then Portugal would had joined the Allies, and then the Allies would have attacked and utterly destroyed Spain. And even if Germany had won the battle, what was the benefit ? No oil in Spain. No oil in UK. In 1940 UK was a little island short of resources, actually the brits was dependet on convoys to survive. So if Germany did conquer UK, they would only get 50 000 000 more hungry mouths to feed, and a poor island with a lot of fog. Only USA would benefit from a weak UK. So what would be the big idea ?

I doubt Portugal would have joined the the Allies.  If you recall, Salazar, the right-wing dictator was in power there and had sent over 10,000 troops to fight with the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.  He would have certainly followed Franco’s lead and either joined as well, looking for some tempting colonial exploits in Africa or at the very least remained a fairly hostile neutral to the Allies.

While I see your point that Salazar might have been tempted by fascist block overtures, it’s hard to imagine Portugal waging war on Great Britain, its ally for centuries.  Portugal had fought against the Germans in World War One.

Hard to say for sure but I think if Spain joins the Axis and UK invades Spain then Portugal either insists on neutrality or joins the Allies.

The only way Portugal joins the Axis is if they declared neutrality but Great Britain seizes the military assets anyway, giving Salazar an excuse to throw in with the Axis.

In any case it would have been a challenge to drum up popular support in either Spain or Portugal for the Axis war of conquest.  If the Allies gained control of a large portion of the peninsula, Franco’s regime could easily collapse.

Turkey without a doubt

Spain contributes little strategically that France or Italy Doesn’t.

Turkey opens a second flank on Russia, pressures the middle east and North Africa.

It’s not even close.

This is going to be a lengthy post so bare with me.  All the points listed before about Turkey are valid.  It would have been to the Germans advantage with Turkey to push another front with Russia, secure Middle East oil, and deprive Britain of that oil.  But why not have 2 for one.  Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall’s main concern at the beginning of Operation Torch was an Axis push through Spain.  After we secured Morocco, Algiers, and Oran we ran into a stalemate with the Germans at Medjez-el-Bab.  Due to inexperienced US forces and the loosely integrated formation of British and US units, the Germans under Colonel-General Hans-Jurgen von Arnim pushed the Allies almost out of Tunisia in their push to Tunis.  Why was this?  Along with the deficiencies listed above, Marshall urged Ike to leave some of his best commanders at the rear (like Generals Patton, Allen, and Roosevelt) in fear of an Axis strike from Spain.  Previous to this, it was US military consensus to enter the war with Operation Sledgehammer (which was later used for D-Day June 6 '44). Churchill greatly disapproved this, so the British urged an invasion of Northern Africa to set up an invasion of the soft under-belly of Europe.  US military doctrine at the time called for direct action at the enemies strongest point.  The British still reelling from European theater failure highly disapproved of such a maneuver.  So Operation Torch was was approved at the stalwart  pleas of the British.  The initial invasion was plagued with many debacles and failures.  Operations RESERVIST and TERMINAL were absolute disasters during the landings of Oran and Algiers.  Inexperieced coxswains and boat commanders lost many men just trying to get to shore during the landings at Fedalla in Morocco.  Patton’s own boat capsized  just prior to landing on the beach due to operational inadequacies (US naval personnel were unprepared to deal with adverse Atlantic waters.) Many ships and transports were lost at the hands of mediocre French Naval arms. The Jean-Bart, a French battlecruiser, sunk a few ships even though it was operationally beached at port in Morocco by simply pointing its guns from shore to the enemy. The Allies were only able to take  and secure the landings due to insufficient French military strength, most of which were French Senegalese troops.  Even at that the French resistance was still able to tally a fair amount of Allied casualties.  In regards to that, had the Germans been able to acquire Axis military control in Spain, they most certainly would have taken Gibralter and closed the Med. The Allies would at that point still face two choices:  Operation TORCH or SLEDGEHAMMER. Had the Allies still went ahead with TORCH with German control of the Strait of Gibralter, our inexperienced Navy would have meet strong German naval resistance and German air supremacy in the landings, and would have most likely been greatly demoralized.  A serious setback would have greatly delayed an Allied rebottle.  This in effect would have given Axis military in Africa and Rommel a lot of breathing room to destroy the 8th army in Egypt and push to the Middle East with out even having to negotiate an alliance with Turkey. If the Allies chose option b (SLEDGEHAMMER) and accepted Axis control of the Med in this situation, our inexperienced forces coupled with untested battle cooperation with the British would have been thrown into the teeth of fortress Europe and you would have seen a D-Day invasion of France in late '42 early '43. The results of which I cannot bear to imagine.  In a historical sense, operation TORCH as it really played out in history, gave our soldiers and forces much needed battle prepping for the eventual dangers to come in the landings of Sicily, Italy, ad France.  Had the Axis had control of the Med and Gibralter history may have been gravely altered.  A simple alliance with Turkey would have still open the door for the Allies in Northern Africa.

It depends on when either Turkey or Spain would have declared war.  If Spain declared war on sept 1 1939 than it would be by far the better of the 2.  If it declared war on june 22 1941 it really wouldn’t have mattered.  An early Spanish entry into the war would have seen Gibralter fall almost immediatly IMO, which would have damaged England almost to the point of irrelevence from trade alone.  Than take into account that the battle in Africa would have almost def. been won by Rommel with England starving at home, and Rommel having undisturbed convoys giving him supplies.  Had he pushed through Egypt most middle eastern countries were sympathetic to the Germans (because they hated the British so much) and it would have been an easy conquest.  More importantly, if done in a timely fashion could have threatened Russia’s southern front by the time barbarossa took place.  Which would have distracted Russian forces their western front or lose the Caucus.  Not to mention a German force in the Middle East would have been a threat to India and caused the British to have to defend in the west while still getting hit by Japan in the east.  You could even argue with gains like this, and fighting side by side with the Germans… at this point Turkey may have joined anyway.

I have always thought that the Germans not taking Gibralter was a horrible mistake (militarily of course, thank god they lost).  That one asset was worth more than the entire Italian military combined.

@Zooey72:

That one asset was worth more than the entire Italian military combined.

That’s not saying much…… :-D

@ABWorsham:

The Turks would have a hard time slowing an attack of T-34s supported by seasoned Red Army troops. Could Germany afford to supply another ally with modern weaponary without jeopardizing their own front lines?

I don’t think that Germany would really need to supply Turkey with anything. Sure, Turkey’s weapons were pretty outdated, but as long as there were able to get some troops into the Middle East and Southern Russia it would’ve been game over for the Allied oil reserves

I’d say drop Japan as an ally and pick up both Spain AND Turkey, preferably before Pearl Harbor, but that’s just me.  :-P

yea thats good , but Turkey at least would not do it unless Rommel broke out in the middle east and they isolated Turkey, “influencing them by other means”

That is a good one Gibraltar or the Dardenelles.  Turkey would be a great starting point for a variety of operations:  oil, the canal, underbelly of the USSR.

the turks were too tired after WWI to do much. Russia has never been a very fun enemy to have

Definitely Spain.

They could have taken Gibraltar and defended against the Normandy invasion so Germany could have concentrated on Russia as Turkey would not have been much help.