WW2: What if Spain had joined the Axis side during the war?

[Ozz]

Sorry, not familiar with the term

Winston Spencer Chruchill

 

[privatehudson]

How obvious

 

[Ozz]

Yes, some, but when time was cutting short, they went through Gibraltar, one of these convoys brought much needed fuel to the island (and substantial losses), without which, Malta probably wouldn't have held.

The famous or Infamous conveys crashed though to Malta from Gibr had
more that the single purpose of supplying Malta, they tested the strenght
of Italy to control the Western Med. and the ability of fleets to supply
their own air cover.

As bad as the shipping losts were the axis aircraft losses and the fact the Italian navy wouldn't even make an appearance made these conveys a
stratigic axis defeat more than allied weakness at Malta. . They could have come from the east, but considering the allied Torch effort wanting to Invade Algieria as far in the Med as Bone it was a test of Axis strenght.

 

[Ozz]

Due to Spanish resistance Adler

The civil war was not that long past, The resistance would have been
split between the republicians and Franco and civil war would have returned.

 

[Adler17]

Possibly but also in this war it would be a war like in Italy: Loosing many troops for gaining nearly nothing. And the Pyrenees were still there.

Adler

 

[samildanach]

I think if spain had entered the war it would not have lasted as long. The spanish would have probably taken gibralter forcing Britain to give up on the med for the short term. When america entered the war their strategic ambitions were subordinate to those of the British in the european theatre who wanted to re-establish dominance over the med as part of their imperial strategy. If Gibralter had fallen then the British wouldn't have been able to flim-flam the americans out of their route one strategy ie. plough through France and into Germany.
As it was the North African and Italian campaigns were a bit of a waste of time as Churchill subsequently balked at doing anything about the R.A.F mutiny in India ....defeating the logic behind those campaigns in the first place.

 

[privatehudson]

Possibly but also in this war it would be a war like in Italy: Loosing many troops for gaining nearly nothing. And the Pyrenees were still there.

Adler

Italy and Spain are like chalk and cheese, italy is narrow and easily adapted into defensive lines, Spain is not so much like that.

 

[Zeekater]

Well, you got those big mountains in the north that are pretty defendable and narrow

 

[privatehudson]

And the whole of the rest of the country to occupy before you hit that problem. Besides, Wellington overcame it

 

[Zeekater]

Good point, Spain isn't very defendable for the rest (I think), so that might actually be easier to occupy then other countries.
That is something we couldn't say anything about, it's impossible to know what kind of defenses there would be.

 

[privatehudson]

Well there are some good defensive positions and natural lines of defense that persisted in dogging Wellington and his enemies, but with 20th century equipment some of that would have been overcome. Even if it could not though, Wellington and co usually had at least two routes of advance each time giving them greater flexibility than the allies had in Italy.

 

[stalin006]

And the whole of the rest of the country to occupy before you hit that problem. Besides, Wellington overcame it

well DUH!, Wellington did not have to deal w/ guerrillas, the spanish were on his side. Spain is VERY defensible, one of the factors that brought napoleon down (ofcourse the russian winter still happened )

 

[privatehudson]

Actually the spanish geurilla bands preyed on Wellington's forces as much as they did on the French to be frank, the difference being that Wellington's armies tended not to live off the land (ie they bought what they took) so they tended not to arouse the local people against them unlike the French.

And yes Spain is defensible, but it's also wider with more routes of attack, attacking Italy in the south meant that it was easy to work out where the allies would go next, in Spain there were many routes. Modern technology would also have solved some of the terrain issues.

 

[Adler17]

But also new difficulties and defense abilities...

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

None of which especially would have troubled the allies considering their superior equipment, supplies and numbers. Germany would probably have had to have ended up supporting yet another weak ally with troops and equipment, draining her resources more and more.

 

[bigmeat]

spain want that strong, america would have crushed them under the weight of their industry, if russia had joined axis, then that would have sucked

 

[joespaniel]

If Spain had joined the Axis in 1940, the war in the Mediterranean would have been very difficult for the UK. The Germans could have sent troops through Spain to take Gibraltar and Vichy France may or may not have opted for a more active role than it actually played.

Spanish troops were worthless, worse than the Italians. But the loss of the Med would have been crushing for the British, and I doubt that Torch could have been launched at all under such circumstances. However, as long as Russia was still alive and kicking, the Western Allies would eventually have landed in France anyway.

The war might have lasted longer, but the outcome would be still be the same and Spain's cities would probably have suffered the same fate as Britain and Germany; destruction from the air.

 

[joespaniel]

if russia had joined axis, then that would have sucked

They did, pretty much. The USSR attacked Poland with Germany. Stalin was negating the effects of the British blockade by allowing massive amounts of supplies to go through (or from) Russia to Germany.

Until Hitler stabbed them in the back, the USSR was Germany's best ally.

 

[Ozz]

the British wouldn't have been able to flim-flam the americans out of their route one strategy ie. plough through France and into Germany.
As it was the North African and Italian campaigns were a bit of a waste of time as Churchill subsequently balked at doing anything about the R.A.F mutiny in India ....defeating the logic behind those campaigns in the first place.

So it would have been better for the allies to sit on their arses for a year
and let the axis move 1/3 of their air force and another 20 divisons into
the Russian campaign for a whole year?

 

[joespaniel]

Ozz is right. Torch drew off 250,000 German troops that could have been used at Stalingrad, as well as strong air assets and supply.

200,000 German soldiers were captured in Tunisia, the same amount lost at Stalingrad, btw. Torch was very important in giving the US troops some much needed battle experience as well. The Americans were still very green, they needed to learn about mechanized warfare before going into France. If something like Kasserine Pass had happened in Normandy, the consequences would have been catastrophic.