Franco says yes.

In October 1940 Adolf Hitler met with General Franco to discuss an attack on Gibraltar and Spain’s entry into the war.
Franco skilfully avoided Spain’s entry into the war.
However if Hitler has used the threat of military invasion it is quite possible Franco would have had to give in.
The threat of military invasion plus the seizure and handing over of Catalonia, the Basque country and Spanish North Africa to Vichy France would be part of such a threat.
In this scenario I Franco accepts German demands and the Germans cross the border to begin the attack on Gibraltar.
Germany also changes its strategy from because of this.
As opposed to an attack on the USSR in 1941 Germany will now push a Mediterranean offensive along with Italy in Malta and North Africa.

 

Well for one thing, I think the USA then stops all trade with Franco's Spain...I should look into the amounts that were flowing at that time and include it into your scenario...

 

I'm going to do a bit of research on the numbers of that very thing "urgh", US exports to Spain and the British as well. With the devastation of his just finished Civil War, Franco couldn't very well antagonize the west without a German guarantee of the goods being replaced. Canaris had already informed Franco that Hitler was going to lose in the end, and to make the negotiations as strict as possible. Hitler didn't have the man-power to invade Spain, and didn't have the good to guarantee Franco's need. This is a non-starter as well.

 

My own thoughts Clint, what was in it for Franco...The promise of African territories as well as a return of Gibralter perhaps? But Franco no matter what, was always going to put Spain before Germany...Where did their fuel come from and what amounts. etc. The invasion of Gibralter...what then happens to the Spanish Canary islands...they are bound to be lost then..In fact I even biasdly ..is that a word...think the British would respond by taking them if they could.

Franco has to be 100 percent sure of the outcome before he throws Spain into military adventure, especially since it is not that long since he managed to subdue half his own simmering population...

 

As odd as it sounds, Franco was "dealing from strength" in one respect when he dealt with Hitler. Canaris had forewarned him to be tough and demanding. Franco had to demand the food, oils, coal, and chemicals from Nazi Germany. His nation needed them, and the western governments were supplying them, not Germany, and Germany couldn't.

Here is an interesting little essay on the importation of petroleum products for Spain during the WW2 years, and another reason which impeded Franco from even entertaining the idea of allying with Hitler.

The Allies, Spain, And Oil In World War II

Being so dependent on the west for so much of both his oil and fiber, he couldn’t afford to ally with the Axis openly. Then while about 90% of Spain’s electrical production was coal based, it had almost no coal internally and had to import it as well. Germany needed all the coal it had for the war effort, and could spare none, nor could Italy help in this regard.

So it was generally Britain and in a minor way the US which provided Spain with its coal during the war years.

While Spain grew 75% of its own wheat for domestic consumption in good years, during the war years an ongoing drought both cut grain production and hydroelectric production.

In an odd development, Spain’s grain during the war years was lost to the black market at the rate of nearly 50%, so they were never food stuffs self-sufficient and remained dependent on imports. Some from South America, some from the US, some from Turkey. Even with the imports, and the black market, human consumption of grains fell by nearly 40% during the forties.

 

So with an invasion of Gibralter comes the inevitable emargo..of course we would be enemies....we aint going to feed or fuel em...And then you have the military aspect. I certainly think to make up for the loss of Gibralter then Britian will do its utmost to take over the Canary islands...Something Franco must have on his list of negatives...together with supplying the Baleriacs...and he has his own little Malta...The fleet has not dissapeared from Alexandria...Life for Spain on the Baleriacs would become intolerable. Whats in it for Franco...maybe he gets Gibralter....maybe.

 

A second provblem is the the Brits will start aiding the various anti Facist Spanish groups, encourage several of them to form a government in exile, and send weapons to a Allied friendly Spainish underground. While the USSR could not send weapons the Spanish communists would become more active. After Torch or any other Allied incursion into northwest Africa a 'Free Spain' army could be formed up in Spanish Morroco & eventually used in Europe.

Later after 1942 the long Spanish coast line and many ports create another headache for the German planning the defense of Western Europe. If they leave the defense to Spain it is guaranteed several Spanish ports will be captured in 1943. If Germany sends soldiers and aircraft then some other German defense is proportionatly weakend elsewhere.

2. Possible course of events is: Operation Torch includes attack on Spanish Morroco. Probablly instead of the Western Taskforce target of Algeria. Algeria & tunisia are attacked later after Allied air superiority is established over the Strait of Gibraltar.

3. Free Spanish Army with Allied reinforcements lands in Spain in mid to late 1943. Objective is to draw off German strength ensure security of the Mediterranian entry, and to eventually eliminate the Facist government of Spain.

4. 1944 Allied invasion of North West Europe (Overlord) cuts off Spain and leads quickly to the collapse of its Facist government.

5. Allies may not cause Italy to surrender in 1943. To provide a army for attacking Spain Operation Husky would have to be scaled down. This would still clear the Mediterrainian sea route to Suez, so the shorter term stratigic objective of the Allies would be met. Instead the Italian population would remain on Axis territory and drain Germanys resources rather than US resources.

I see the whole thing as a wash for the Allies. For Germany it is a unaffordable distraction and potiential stratigic sinkhole.

 

Spain would be a drain on German economic resources but its strategic value is huge.
The Western Mediterranean will be Axis hands.
German U-Boats will be able to operate from Morocco and the Canary Islands (if held).
The amount of airpower and military equipment distribution may well postpone the invasion of the USSR till 1942 allowing the Germans to concentrate on North Africa for another year.
The dispatch of two more Panzer Divisions to Libya (4 being the most it can logistically take) or even just sending a third in 1941 may well be enough to tip the balance in Egypt allow an early re-capture of Tobruk and the capture of Alexandria.
This would mean the British pull the majority of their forces back to Palestine.
An attack into Palestine would be very difficult for the Germans even with 4 Panzer Divisions but if at this point Turkey could be brought on board that would change everything and allow the Middle East to be taken all in time for Operation Barbarossa in May 1942.

 

In both directions. It increases the amount of coastline that needs defending to a considerable degree for instance. Then there are the political implicatoins. How happy will France and Italy be with the deal required to get Franco in the game?

The Canaries can't be held. Morrocco probably can't be held past mid 43.

Or not. If you have a theater where logistics are limiting what you can do shipping more logisitically intensive units doesn't help the situation.

 

Italy will be pleased with Franco's entry into the war as Mussolini visited Franco in Feb 1942 and tried to get him in the war.
It will help Italy in the Eastern Med if the Western Med is closed.

France will be less pleased and may well think Franco has been offered territory.
Which of course wouldnt be given till after the war.
But with German troops in Spanish Morocco they are not likely to go over to the allies.
Besides the fact that they could be compensated with British territory in West Africa if the issue was raised.
Or even Waloonia in Europe.

The Canary Islands can be held with air support from Morocco.

4 Panzer Divisions to North Africa was based on the German own logistical maximum estimate that they could supply in Libya.
It is enough to achieve victory there.

 

Look what Franco was asking for and compare it to what Italy wanted. There was a significant overlap from what I recall.

Why do you think it wouldn't be given until after the war? Also given how porus the Spanish military and governement seem to have been with respect to intel what makes you think that the French wouldn't know what the terms were before things were even signed?

Really? How. Take a good look at a map. Take a good look at the naval assets available to both sides (consider what happens in late 41 as well). Look at how little success the LW had early war vs RN warships at speed with a decent amount of AA ammo. Even without air cover.

In Libya is not in Egypt.

That's very debateable. Remember there's a deadline as well. Even if they take Egypt can they hold it after 42? I doubt it.

 

I think you are getting confused with Vichy France.

To avoid diplomatic problems with France.

Like Crete eh? or Malta?
I think it is you who needs to look at a map by the way.

For the basis of the invasion of Egypt.
They did not plan to put 4 Panzer Divisions there for show.

The allies at this point would have to attack Morocco or attack Egypt from Sudan.
The first would be a very hard task with Axis air assets and subs in the area and the second a logistical nightmare.

 

From what I recall Italy, France, and Spain all had conflicting enterest in North Africa and/or the Med.

Why would Spain go along with it? Hitler after all didn't have a very good reputation for living up to his agreements.

Indeed like Crete and Malta. Given the number of missions flown the amount of damage done to RN ships off Crete that were combat ready and at speed was pretty minimal. Much of the damage was done to vessels that were either out of or almost out of AA ammo, overloaded with troops, or stopping to help other ships. Likewise at Malta a good deal of damage was done to ships in harbor was it not?

The documents I've seen relevant to 4 Panzer Division in North Africa don't mention supporting them in Egypt. Indeed there was a rule of thumb in the Wehrmact that supporting a division over 300 miles from it's rail head became very difficult to impossible. Alexandria is well past that. Also consider that the purpose of the German units in NA was to protect Libia, it would seem reasonable then that the support estimate was based on that consideration.

How much strength is the LW going to have in Morocco? Remember it's needed elsewhere as well. In any case the first move would be to take the Canaries. The allies could then base substantial air assets there to cover the landings in Morocco. As for attacking Egypt, if it has fallen which is very questionable, attacks can come from both the East and the South. The allies have a signifificant edge in shipping and can use the Indian Ocean and ajoining bodies of water for logistical purposes.

 

Which conflicting interest does Spain have with Italy? and how is Germany intending to interfere with these?

Because the alternative would be war.

Indeed like Crete and Malta. Given the number of missions flown the amount of damage done to RN ships off Crete that were combat ready and at speed was pretty minimal. Much of the damage was done to vessels that were either out of or almost out of AA ammo, overloaded with troops, or stopping to help other ships. Likewise at Malta a good deal of damage was done to ships in harbor was it not?

Could you post these documents here?
The Germans had very little use of rail to any extent in Libya all logistics movement was by road and sea.
Von Thoma estimated 4 Panzer Divisions would be needed for an offensive action into Egypt and 1 to defend Libya.

The allies would have to take the Canary Islands first then hold them.
It would become another Malta.

As for attacking Egypt from Sudan.
Supplies would have to come from Port Sudan and up the Nile Valley which is a great distance over very poor ground.

 

Italy wants some of France's colonial possesions, so does Spain, France obviously wants to hold onto them. All three of them want Germany to decide in their favor.

Which may be better long term than going along with Germany. In fact history rather illustrated the truth of that.


Indeed like Crete and Malta. Given the number of missions flown the amount of damage done to RN ships off Crete that were combat ready and at speed was pretty minimal. Much of the damage was done to vessels that were either out of or almost out of AA ammo, overloaded with troops, or stopping to help other ships. Likewise at Malta a good deal of damage was done to ships in harbor was it not?

It will take me a while to find them again but I will do so when I can. In the mean time here are a couple of documents worth examining:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
Logistics and the Desert Fox
Great Generals Study Logistics - The History Forum
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA293267

Exactly. That's one reason they didn't plan on doing more than defend Lybia.

Taking them wouldn't be hard. They had an overwhelming naval force and if they throw in 3 or 4 carriers they have a very good chance of gaining air superiority for the critcal times of the invasion. It's possible that this would mean no invasion of Guadalcanal though.

What if the force moves up the Red Sea coast?

 

Ill ask again Which conflicting interest does Spain have with Italy?

 

It will take me a while to find them again but I will do so when I can. In the mean time here are a couple of documents worth examining:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a220715.pdf
Logistics and the Desert Fox
Great Generals Study Logistics - The History Forum
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA293267

Now you should read them as the figures are clear that 4 Panzer Divisions could be supported.
Work it out yourself from above.

What?
How would a Royal Navy carrier supported mission with Fairy Swordfish defeat Axis airpower in the Canaries and Morocco and more to the point how on earth would this effect Guadalcanal?

Lets be sensible now.

 

???? What's clear is that the support for the AK as it existed historically was inadequate. Romel was only able to do what he did do because he captured significant supplies and trucks. PLS state anywhere in those sources it implies 4 Panzer divisions could be supported in Egypt.

???? Why would they send Swordfish for CAP? How it might affect Guadalcanal is the US forces sent there could if the Europe first strategy required it be used in the Atlantic instead. I thought that was obvious.

 

What's clear is that the support for the AK as it existed historically was inadequate. Romel was only able to do what he did do because he captured significant supplies and trucks. PLS state anywhere in those sources it implies 4 Panzer divisions could be supported in Egypt.

Have you not looked at the figures you just provided me?
Just do a quick calculation and you will see im right.

They send what they had available at the time.
As for the USA it wont even be in the war yet.
By the time the USA enters Morocco and the Canaries will have had a year of Axis build up.

This is getting very frustrating having to educate you on each and every part of the war.

Read through this as a start Timeline of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it will cover all the basics and then we can have a serious discussion based on standard knowledge of the subject.

 

Support for the AK was adequate