Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Spain had joined the Axis?

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by PzJgr, Jan 3, 2001.

Tags:
  1. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    Let us look at it another way then 12.5 million Germans served in the German army in world war 2 compared to 8.3 million in the US army.
    Alone there is no way the USA could heave defeated Germany.
     
  2. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,989
    Likes Received:
    699
    The British and Americans at the time seemed to consider it fairly important to keep Russia in the war.......conversely Stalin was adamant about the need for Lend-Lease, a second front, and maximum effort from his western partners. I don't recall anyone who actually had to fight the war insisting that they could do it without their allies.
     
  3. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    Several people here claim the USA could have won the war alone.
     
  4. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,908
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Location:
    Alabama
    Hoss, I'm not predicting either way, nor do I really care.

    I am pointing out that Herr Schnicklgruber had a fetish for numbers that was out of sync with reality, such that the argument over the comparative numbers of variably-sized units does not hold water when one claims that a larger number of similarly named formations is superior to a smaller number of another, when the sizes of each are not even comparable. (How 'bout that $10 sentence!)

    I'm not in this thread to discuss the merits of victory one way or the other, but rather to keep the discussion from putting the Nazis on the moon.

    Regardless, Fat Man and Little Boy trumps everything else.
     
  5. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    BritishEmpire, While Germany may have armed 12.5 million men, How many of them where of fit fighting calibre and how many where not even of age or even way past there prime?

    You state (likely correctly) that the German formations would be fully equipped for a war with the US, How ever have you put any thought into them being equipped with what weapons? The shock of the Eastern front caused the Germans to bring out new weapons far sooner then they would have had they not been up against the threat of the T-34's. Thus the Tiger tanks, Panther's and a whole list of other big and small weapon systems could very well still be on the drawing board.

    With out being at war with Russia then many of these divisions would simply cease to exist, One thing that hampered Germany in WWII was that they never fully committed there industry 100% to war, Many factories right up till the end where producing basic home wares and decorations, Remove the threat of war with Russia and there weapon's production too would slide. So they may very well have 2.5 million trained and well equipped men, But as you your self say the US had 8.3 million so either way you cut it the US where able to produce more fit and capable soldiers then Germany.

    You may ask how would they and so many men and there equipment, But what you need to also look at is who would have aerial superiority? Germany of the US, If the US then there landing's would go off likely similar to that of what occurred at Normandy. You must also look at the disposition of the German troops, Could very well and always is a weak spot to exploit if you can find it.

    In any case Slipdigit makes the best argument of all of us, The Yanks had the bomb's and Germany didnt.. Drop a few and you wont need Hitler surrendering, He troop's would be making him surrender.
     
  6. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    I doubt the atom bomb would make Hitler surrender either.
    The terror bombing of German cities failed to achieve that.
     
  7. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    And the US only had this many because it was at war too.
    If the USA was at war with Germany alone then German manpower and production would reflect this.
    You cant have it both ways.

    With no war in the East they would face a mass of German airpower plus dozens of Panzer Divisions.

    The terror bombing of German cities did not make the Germans surrender so the atom bomb would not likely do so.
    Of course that is if it can be delivered in the face of German Airpower not committed to the East.
    Then how long would it be before the Germans developed their own weapon.
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Why? The Germans did defeat France,which had more men than Germany?
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Terror bombing:I expected that,but,the chairman of the BAFA forgets to mention that Adolf started the whole thing.
     
  10. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    What is your problem with that description?
    "Allied air bosses have made the long awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror bombing of great German population centres as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's doom."
    British Air Commodore Colin Mckay Grierson.
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    This should be reas as follow:the allied air bosses took the decision to reply to the german terror bombing,with their own bombing
     
  12. British-Empire

    British-Empire Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    3
    Is British Air Commodore Colin Mckay Grierson not a "nazi fan boy" or what ever you call people who use the term "terror bombing" then?
     
  13. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    BE, Why do you assume that Hitler and the rest of them would not surrender due to the Atomic bomb's if they did not surrender due to the terror bombing? Does it not come don to a similar case for Japan? They them selves suffered heavy bombing, In some cases worse bombings in a single run due to factor's involved (incendiary bombs, wooden houses) yet the only thing that caused the Japanese to surrender was the Atomic bomb and I think we can all agree that the average Japanese was more fanatical and willing to die then the average German.

    Unless you can show me the Japanese Emperor was pushing to surrender due to the terror bombings before the nukes came along then you Sir, Have lost this part of the argument =).

    Cheers, von_noobie
     
  14. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    Which Axis airfields?


    They also thought that the British would capitulate, the Soviet resittance would collapse within a couple of months and that the US soldiers could never put up an effective fight against the Wehrmacht.

    They had very little understanding of the logistics of maintaining overseas positions.

    What Axis airpower exactly?

    Really?
    Dhaka, as in the capital city of Bangladesh?
    That's going to be quite an impressive feat!

    Or do you mean Dakar, capital of Senegal? ;)

    The primary limiting factor during the war was NOT "amount of planes", it was number of aircrews, and when basing in Africa or other areas outside of Europe it was also dependant on infastructure & logistics.

    But as for the "number of planes" keep in mind that in 1941 that Britain & Canada outproduces all 3 Axis powers COMBINED.


    It's a bit confusing as we have two separate "Franco/Spain joins the Axis" threads.

    If I understood correctly Franco agrees to Hitler's proposal in Oct 1940 and plan to attack British interests in Gibraltar & elsewhere in early 1941?

    Nope, they still have to pass through the British blockade, and the British are not likely to allow a massive troop lift to the Canaries, as the British will be alerted by theeir intelligence (and by Enigma) about what the Nazis plan to do.

    Spanish shipping was never truly "neutral" as in unfettered ability to ship goods to/from Europe. The British wouldn't permit them to import war materials, nor food or fuel except exactly what would be needed for domestic Spanish consumption.
     
    belasar likes this.
  15. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Shipping wise wasn't Portugal being out of the war better for the Germans due to the fact they where used to import certain materials they needed which they wouldnt have been able to get if they where part of the Axis..

    So BE, Your unfounded belief that Portugal would join would simply aid the Allied war effort by crippling German production in certain area's due to loss of important resources.

    Also cant remember where but didnt elements within the KM state that they them selves would not be able to support the Canaries long term due to lack of shipping as well as ships to protect them.
     
  16. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    This of course also takes no notice of British/Allied submarines who would find this supply route to be their own "Happy Time".
     
  17. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,908
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Location:
    Alabama
    I can fix that. Which one do y'all want closed?
     
  18. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    Hi Slipdigit, there is another thread "Franco says yes", http://www.ww2f.com/what-if-other/30698-franco-says-yes.html

    Perhaps the best would be to merge the two threads? (All basically the same topic)
    There are some good posts earlier on in this older thread, while most of the Franco thread is recent. :)
     
  19. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Franco Says Yes has some excellent rebuttal arguments, but what they are rebutting is nonsense so I would elect that one for a closure.
     
  20. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,908
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Location:
    Alabama
    The problem is that the post were made in each thread at around the same time. They would be intermingled, making it hard to follow.

    The rest of you need to speak up.
     

Share This Page