Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

We'll need to disagree here.

Gibraltar changes the nature of the war in the Med in a pretty fundamental way, Malta and North Africa will look quite different as a result.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I suppose it's relative - it's an interesting thought exercise as to how important the disasters of June 1941 were on rapidly reforming the Red Army. 1942 would see a Red Army substantially better equipped and trained, but the organisational and leadership problems remaining. Second Kharkov writ large?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't think so - continental France is effectively controlled by the Germans. The overseas territories and much of the military is splintering off to the Vichy Regime or joining the Free French.

warspite1

We will agree to disagree. I think you've totally underestimated the problems of Vichy, Spain and Italy and why Hitler was so keen not to upset Vichy. Plus even if you ignore all this (which I don't believe you can) then you've just created yet more occupation duties for the Germans. Wow, the numbers available for Barbarossa are dwindling rapidly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

We'll need to disagree here.

Gibraltar changes the nature of the war in the Med in a pretty fundamental way, Malta and North Africa will look quite different as a result.

warspite1

Indeed we will. The loss of Gibraltar (and Malta will succumb shortly thereafter) is simply not the game changer that you seem to believe. Indeed there is an argument that not having to supply Malta actually massively helps the RN and RAF given the colossal losses suffered trying to keep the island in the war.

The British always assumed the Med would be closed if Italy joined the war (in practice it was only really closed to through traffic once the Germans came to play). The problems with taking Suez remains. Not to mention all the other problems that will almost certainly arise from an invasion of Spain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I suppose it's relative - it's an interesting thought exercise as to how important the disasters of June 1941 were on rapidly reforming the Red Army. 1942 would see a Red Army substantially better equipped and trained, but the organisational and leadership problems remaining. Second Kharkov writ large?

warspite1

But let's he kind to the Germans and assume the Soviets are in no better position in 1942.

The problem is that the Germans will be definitely worse off. You have occupation needs in:

France
Spain
Spanish Morocco
Morocco

You have the losses from taking Spain and Gib, you have the losses from taking Turkey, you have roughly the same number of Germans, now even less concentrated, from Finland to Turkey - and I would like to see an answer on the Turkish logistical nightmare

quote:

You have Stalin's reaction to the Germans taking the Straits and moving into Turkey - you really believe he will do nothing about this? I don't think he would necessarily threaten war, but I think we can assume that Soviet supplies under the NS pact are suddenly cut-off - and that means oil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I wouldn't have ever described Hitler as "keen" in regards to upsetting Vichy. The diplomatic relationship between the two was not remotely traditional and even if it had been, the terms of Compiègne were such that good relations were likely unattainable without major revisions on the terms from the Germans.

The importance of the French fleet has (at least in my view) tended to be overblown. I've always seen the German approach as a pragmatic decision on asset denial than anything resembling a realistic attempt to rebuild their naval strength at the expense of the rump French regime.

As for the occupation duties, that depends on how any Spanish adventure is handled. Is this a full-on war on conquest, or a replacement of Franco, or a fait acompli (a la Austria?). That determines how much (if any?) occupation forces are needed. Given the civil war and German involvement in it, Spain seems a much more likely candidate for changing the top leadership of the Nationalist movement to be more pro-German rather than requiring occupation forces.

Worth remembering that German troops only occupied selected regions of France before Case Anton. I could see Spain being a similar case where strategic areas in the North-West and South are under German control, in the event of an occupation being necessary.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What makes you think there will be occupation needs in Morocco? The Germans were content to leave the French colonies in the hands of the Vichy regime, and it was a source of no end of awkwardness for the Allies.

That's presupposing the Germans need to go down the route of a full military occupation however. I wonder if that would be at all likely given that there would likely be one (or more) of the factions in the Nationalist camp that would form a pro-German government as a means to power, and Franco was at the head of a collection of very unlikely political groups.

Far more likely however that Franco is just removed from the picture by his opponents within the Nationalist camp (with some encouragement from the Germans). There's options in terms of both the radicals within the Falange movement. I can't claim to know enough of Spanish politics of this period to say much about the other movements.

The "Turkish logistical nightmare" based on a German campaign in Central Anatolia. There's no need for the Germans to campaign in Central Anatolia. They don't even need to go past Ankara. The major Turkish population and industrial centres are in the West, the geography of the Bosporus and Dardanelles are such that the Axis can cross under air cover alone while the Turkish Navy and Air Force is not sufficiently prepared to offer sustained resistance.

Once the Aegean region of Turkey is in German hands, there's no need for further advances into Turkey. The benefit of any Turkish campaign is in free movement of naval assets from the Med into the Black Sea to pressure Soviet Russia, not from a grand overland campaign.

The additional scope of the war cuts both ways - the British now have additional commitments to respond appropriately to German entry into Spain. Turkey will need substantial investment to modernize its armed forces which needs to come from somewhere (if not a stiffening of British or Soviet troops) and the Soviet Union needs to reinforce the regions around the Black Sea.

I think the problem is that a lot of the ramifications can't neatly be accounted for in terms of commitments of manpower. Nor can you simplify it as having 100,000 men less on the Eastern Front, but complete freedom to conduct naval operations in the Black Sea...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, from what I've read on June '41, Stalin was mortally afraid of any provocation of Germany as the prelude to war - even after the invasion. His behaviour then doesn't lead me to think he'd be willing to sanction Germany.

A repudiation of the ML pact seems to fall quite firmly in this category, and I would suspect that Stalin would be pragmatic enough to exchange Turkey for an extra six months of time to build the Red Army.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

There is no way you are invading Turkey with 100k troops there M_M. Turkey has 41 Infantry , 3 Cavalry Divisions with 1.3m active standing army , with really rough terrain that you need to pass through constantly. If Germans thought they could have invaded Turkey as easily as you stated , they would have. It opens a direct path to Middle east and Caucasian oil , a backdoor to Africa front.

Operation would require an entire army group that would suffer casualties at least comparable to Soviet campaign if not worse. Thats not a luxury Germans can afford. Istanbul would likely be another Stalingrad for Germans.

Anyways thats enough alt-history for me today , peace

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What makes you think there will be occupation needs in Morocco? The Germans were content to leave the French colonies in the hands of the Vichy regime, and it was a source of no end of awkwardness for the Allies.

That's presupposing the Germans need to go down the route of a full military occupation however. I wonder if that would be at all likely given that there would likely be one (or more) of the factions in the Nationalist camp that would form a pro-German government as a means to power, and Franco was at the head of a collection of very unlikely political groups.

Far more likely however that Franco is just removed from the picture by his opponents within the Nationalist camp (with some encouragement from the Germans). There's options in terms of both the radicals within the Falange movement. I can't claim to know enough of Spanish politics of this period to say much about the other movements.

The "Turkish logistical nightmare" based on a German campaign in Central Anatolia. There's no need for the Germans to campaign in Central Anatolia. They don't even need to go past Ankara. The major Turkish population and industrial centres are in the West, the geography of the Bosporus and Dardanelles are such that the Axis can cross under air cover alone while the Turkish Navy and Air Force is not sufficiently prepared to offer sustained resistance.

Once the Aegean region of Turkey is in German hands, there's no need for further advances into Turkey. The benefit of any Turkish campaign is in free movement of naval assets from the Med into the Black Sea to pressure Soviet Russia, not from a grand overland campaign.

The additional scope of the war cuts both ways - the British now have additional commitments to respond appropriately to German entry into Spain. Turkey will need substantial investment to modernize its armed forces which needs to come from somewhere (if not a stiffening of British or Soviet troops) and the Soviet Union needs to reinforce the regions around the Black Sea.

I think the problem is that a lot of the ramifications can't neatly be accounted for in terms of commitments of manpower. Nor can you simplify it as having 100,000 men less on the Eastern Front, but complete freedom to conduct naval operations in the Black Sea...

warspite1

I think we are so far removed from what we think likely in Spain. I really don't understand your logic.

As for Turkey, ditto. I will ignore the 100,000 men comment as this simply bears no relation to anything, much less a 'blitz' through Turkey. IF the Germans aren't going to use Turkey to attack the Caucasus then why invade in the first place? And if they are not going to secure their Chromium resources then where do they get replaced from. And a Turkey not beaten? What are they going to be doing?

It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, from what I've read on June '41, Stalin was mortally afraid of any provocation of Germany as the prelude to war - even after the invasion. His behaviour then doesn't lead me to think he'd be willing to sanction Germany.

A repudiation of the ML pact seems to fall quite firmly in this category, and I would suspect that Stalin would be pragmatic enough to exchange Turkey for an extra six months of time to build the Red Army.

warspite1

And this is one of the problems with this type of what-if. Stalin did adopt a policy of extreme caution with Germany. But this is different. Turkey was not up for discussion, the Straits were not up for discussion. Such a development is likely to change Stalin's thinking dramatically - it's a real game changer.

quote:

Lebensraum is Hitlers raison d’etre, its his Holy Grail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't think so - continental France is effectively controlled by the Germans. The overseas territories and much of the military is splintering off to the Vichy Regime or joining the Free French.

warspite1

We will agree to disagree. I think you've totally underestimated the problems of Vichy, Spain and Italy and why Hitler was so keen not to upset Vichy. Plus even if you ignore all this (which I don't believe you can) then you've just created yet more occupation duties for the Germans. Wow, the numbers available for Barbarossa are dwindling rapidly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I think the political fallout from Germany occupying Vichy, and Spain, is downplayed.

I am sure that US would react negatively to both, but I have no clue what they would do practically.

To the USSR it send the signal that Germany has no issue with breaking their pact as soon as they see any benefit. I suggest that this would change the Soviet WWII policy at once. I think that the Soviet Union was willing to let the Axis, and Allies to wear themselves down in the hope of getting some spoils at low cost for themselves. But after that harsh treatment of Spain, and Vichy, I think Stalin would change the policy to stab Germany in the back as soon as they could do so. In other words, I do not think that Stalin would have waited for a '42 Barbarossa. He would have attacked before that.

And I also think it would have impacted other, minor, countries. I doubt that Finland would have joined with Germany after that.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

. . . it would be unhelpful to Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What Turkey facilitates is increased naval involvement in the Black Sea, both in terms of supplies and naval operations.

Considering the impact that fairly small Axis naval involvement in the Black Sea had, I think that's actually quite an important strategic consideration (even more so given the fairly weak state of Soviet naval forces in the region).

Now, do I think that the trade-off's required to bring it about are worthwhile? Probably not, but certainly feels like a realistic consideration.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Stalin is not going to lift a finger in the event of a German invasion of Turkey.

Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France.

Given the list above, I doubt that it will be Turkey that causes a complete volte face, if it all it was likely. Stalin's Road to Damascus moment was on June 21st 1941, and he was recovering for quite some time.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The political cost for this operation seems very high to me. Not only declaring war Spain to consider here. There is also the question of Vichy France. Had AH, and Germany, planned for Spain, and Gibraltar, before they begun peace talks with France then passage for an Army going into Spain would, in my humble opinion, not been any real issue for Vichy France. But since they did not, I suspect the Vichy leadership would have strongly objected.

So how would the world react to Germany entering a treaty with France, and break it before the ink dried up. And then, without any cause, advance into Spain. UK might very well have won the war by this, even if it cost them Gibraltar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't think Vichy objections would rank high in terms of obstacles at all, nor the wider diplomatic consequences.

warspite1

I think Vichy considerations weighed very, very heavily. But before all that, there is the rather key question of whether Hitler could have taken the massive leap that is declaring war on Spain. Of course he didn’t take that route in real life and its pretty much impossible, to me at any rate, that there are circumstances in which he would have been persuaded to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The political cost for this operation seems very high to me. Not only declaring war Spain to consider here. There is also the question of Vichy France. Had AH, and Germany, planned for Spain, and Gibraltar, before they begun peace talks with France then passage for an Army going into Spain would, in my humble opinion, not been any real issue for Vichy France. But since they did not, I suspect the Vichy leadership would have strongly objected.

So how would the world react to Germany entering a treaty with France, and break it before the ink dried up. And then, without any cause, advance into Spain. UK might very well have won the war by this, even if it cost them Gibraltar.

FYI, German forces wouldn't need to go through Vichy territory to enter Spain. They had the ability to march through the Bordeaux-Biarritz corridor in the German occupied zone of France.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I suppose it's important to define what we mean by invasion regarding Spain - is it a coerced "invitation" to deal with Gibraltar or an outright invasion? That changes the dynamic substantially.

warspite1

It's a blitz through Spain. As per real life, Spain says no to Germany's offer (although the person proposing the strategy believes that Franco could have had his mind changed....) and Hitler decides to invade the country, and the regime that German blood was spilled to install, just the previous year.

Simples

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I suppose it's important to define what we mean by invasion regarding Spain - is it a coerced "invitation" to deal with Gibraltar or an outright invasion? That changes the dynamic substantially.

warspite1

It's a blitz through Spain. As per real life, Spain says no to Germany's offer (although the person proposing the strategy believes that Franco could have had his mind changed....) and Hitler decides to invade the country, and the regime that German blood was spilled to install, just the previous year.

Simples

I don’t know exactly what the rest of this person’s views are to respond to them, but he is not wrong about the Franco bit. Franco was a huge Germanophile who was halfway towards joining the war on the Axis side even before the Hendaye negotiations. Spanish demands to join the war on the German side were for military and economic assistance and for colonial concessions, most notably in French Morocco and around Oran. I could go into much more detail on this if interested, but essentially the Germans chose to not accept these demands since they believed that, given significant Spanish military and economic weaknesses, it was not worth the risk of alienating Vichy to gain Spanish belligerence.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Franco made demands he knew the Germans could not meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Careful lads, you are falling for Francoist propaganda!

In the aftermath of World War II, the Fascists in Spain deliberately built up the narrative that Franco was the savior who kept the country out of the war through a policy of 'astute caution'. This was both to buoy up domestic support during a tense political period as well as for external consumption as Franco sought to shift the country's alignment with the West. This narrative that Franco was a realist that brilliantly played the Nazis has however effectively been discredited over the past few decades and is no longer considered valid.

For some easily accessible reading on this, check out this link: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213287.pdf

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Interesting debate. The route into Spain has some serious mountains, limiting the advantage of armor. Italy thought it could take out Greece and had rear handed to them, and then had to be bailed out by Germany, which delayed the invasion of the USSR. Invading Spain would likely add more delay to the USSR invasion. And I am not convinced that the Rock falls if Spain falls. After all Spain has wanted Gibraltar for a long time but the place is a fortress where armor would be largely useless. So an infantry assault against a very well fortified position. That won't be cheap. As for opening up the Black Sea to get naval assets in to pressure the USSR? What naval assets? Germany would not supply the Italian navy with enough oil to operate effectively in the Med, never mind the Black sea. And unless Germany seizes the Vichy fleet there are really not enough German naval assets to matter. Subs in the Black sea are not really going to accomplish much. And the garrison requirements would also hurt. Yugoslavia was a fairly small country and proved to be a significant pain for Germany. Countries with populations of Spain and Turkey would be a serious problem if the people decided to fight.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The political cost for this operation seems very high to me. Not only declaring war Spain to consider here. There is also the question of Vichy France. Had AH, and Germany, planned for Spain, and Gibraltar, before they begun peace talks with France then passage for an Army going into Spain would, in my humble opinion, not been any real issue for Vichy France. But since they did not, I suspect the Vichy leadership would have strongly objected.

So how would the world react to Germany entering a treaty with France, and break it before the ink dried up. And then, without any cause, advance into Spain. UK might very well have won the war by this, even if it cost them Gibraltar.

FYI, German forces wouldn't need to go through Vichy territory to enter Spain. They had the ability to march through the Bordeaux-Biarritz corridor in the German occupied zone of France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I don't know - the Rock is quite 'solid' so I don't think arty/airpower would be very effective. And then the Germans would have to take out the monkeys as well. In fairness the monkeys are pretty friendly, so likely not a problem.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805