Spain enters WW2 on the side of the Allies early 1943

[mitch]

Spain enters WW2 on the side of the Allies early 1943

With the war now turning in the favour of the Allies in all theatres Spain brokers a deal with America to enter the war. The northern border is quickly secured by airborne and air forces from Britain and ground air forces from Africa. How would this change the course of WW2?

D Day?
Southern France invasion?
Italy?

[Xen]

This would take a major policy shift on the part of Franco, he didnt think Spain was ready for war so kept out of it. The allies cared very little about Franco as well. Perhaps there is a coup of some sort that favors the west?

It would be a good base of operations to fly missions over occupied France, especially one for paratroopers to be dropped behind enemy lines on D-Day.

[Wendell]

Maybe something happens that persuades Franco earlier to build up his forces, prompting the Allies to open talks with him. Surely, an agreement could be reached.

[MerryPrankster]

Maybe something happens that persuades Franco earlier to build up his forces, prompting the Allies to open talks with him. Surely, an agreement could be reached.

Hitler was PO'd at Franco for allowing Spanish embassies in occupied countries to liberally issue passports to Jews.

Perhaps he does a threatening demonstration on the border with the Pyrenees, or a Spanish embassy somewhere is raided. Franco concludes that his own liquidation is near and throws in with the Allies.

Or perhaps the Free French offers Franco some African territory after the war.

[Wendell]

Hitler was PO'd at Franco for allowing Spanish embassies in occupied countries to liberally issue passports to Jews.

Perhaps he does a threatening demonstration on the border with the Pyrenees, or a Spanish embassy somewhere is raided. Franco concludes that his own liquidation is near and throws in with the Allies.

Or perhaps the Free French offers Franco some African territory after the war.
I was thinking that, or Rousillon...

[Condottiero]

Although Franco knew he could not enter the war due to the situation after the Civil War, he hoped that the British could offer him Gibraltar as payment. He would have got rid of the pro-nazi elements of his government and have declared enthusiastiacally war over Germany. Recovering Gibraltar would have increased his prestige inside Spain.

The idea of the Rousillon would have also been intriguing and would have also been considered by him as a suitable price...

[mitch]

So most agree that Spain under the right conditions would enter the war on the side of the allies. So what changes to the OTL would happen from Jan 43?

[Hendryk]

There could be a reason for Franco to have Spain join the Allies: if he was led, whether deliberately or unwittingly, to conclude that Spain would be next on the Allies' list after Germany, Italy and the various two-bit pro-fascist regimes in Central Europe. After all his regime did take over with help from Germany and Italy, and whether officially neutral or not, his position may not have seemed that secure. So, ostensibly joining the Allies before the widely expected invasion takes place, he figures, would buy him enough goodwill to remain in power after Mussolini and Hitler have been deposed.

One critical strategic consequence is that the Allies now have a ready foothold on the Continent, and no longer need to plan for a risky landing on the French coastline; instead they can just ferry troops from Britain and North Africa to Spain, and prepare for a crossing of the Pyrénées. This would likely be a two-prong offensive, to take simultaneously Biarritz on the Atlantic coast and Perpignan on the Mediterranean coast, which depending on how early Franco announces his decision, could take place in the summer of 1943. France could realistically be liberated by January 1944, and, with Italy a target of lesser relevance, the Allied forces could focus on the German front, making it on the outskirts of Berlin while the Red Army is still in Poland, making for a noticeably different post-war situation.

[Karlos]

I don't think Franco would risk a war against Hitler before the americans had landed in France. And after that, the allies don't really need him. Other consequence would be the 20-30.000 french resistance fighters who were actually spaniards, veterans from the civil war, most of them communists. They formed the backbone of the french resistance in the south of France and would surely fight against Franco forces if they crossed the border.

[Wozza]

So most agree that Spain under the right conditions would enter the war on the side of the allies. So what changes to the OTL would happen from Jan 43?

No.

It is unlikely that the Allies will offer a good enough deal. The advantages to them are not as large as they should be.

The logistics of deploying a major army in Spain are a complete nightmare. Getting that army over the Pyrenees an even bigger one.
Remember the option of landing is Portugal and going through Spain by force was considered.
This way of doing things is a lot easier than that, but how much?

[Condottiero]

No.

It is unlikely that the Allies will offer a good enough deal. The advantages to them are not as large as they should be.

The logistics of deploying a major army in Spain are a complete nightmare. Getting that army over the Pyrenees an even bigger one.
Remember the option of landing is Portugal and going through Spain by force was considered.
This way of doing things is a lot easier than that, but how much?
A lot easier? Ask Napoleon.

[Wozza]

A lot easier? Ask Napoleon.

That is why being invited is easier than fighting.

Of course Napoleon did not have railways, let alone aircraft.

no opposition is always a lot easier than opposition anyway!

[mitch]

We managed to land and supply an army in 1812 and get it across the Pyrenees

[Wozza]

We managed to land and supply an army in 1812 and get it across the Pyrenees

Do you think that might have weaknesses as an analogy??:rolleyes:

compared perhaps to the logistics difficulties of the Allies in Normandy in late 1944?

Fundamentally this is an either/or proposition, if the Allies do not secure the passes over the Pyrenees then the whole operation was pointless.

[WFHermans]

It would be most fun if the allies would have offered Franco a slice of southern France. :D Sort of what they did to Poland.
The Gaulle explodes almost with anger, suspected of trying to team up with Germany, then mysteriously getting killed by an "acident" in 1943 like Sikorski in our timeline.

The battle for the Pyrenees would be the same slow slugfest as the battles in the italian mountains were in our timeline.

[Earling]

Doomed from the start.

Unless Franco could somehow muster enough forces to take the passes through the Pyrenees and somehow hold them long enough for significant Allied forces to arrive (so several weeks going on months) the passes shall be fortified in sufficient strength to easilly oppose anything the Allies can deploy against them. It would be Italy all over again. Its highly unlikely the Allies can conceal the build up of several million men in Spain.

On the otherhand it could be a useful distraction for D-day, potentially enabling a swifter break out.

[mitch]

The battle of the Atlantic was still in the balance in 43 so the use of air bases in northern Spain would make a massive difference in the bay of biscay.
Wouldn't some of the forces that attacked Italy just be shifted to Spain. This would result in a shift of divisions from the atlantic wall south. AirBases would allow almost total coverage of France during any invasion in Normandy.
A force in Spain would allow a smaller force to be used in southern Italy with the only aim of forcing the germans to spread forces everywhere. Remember moving forces around without aircover which the Germans would have to do would be difficult plus an attack into southern France would be a real option. As good as the German Army was in 43 to 44 it cannot be in two places at once

[Wendell]

It would be most fun if the allies would have offered Franco a slice of southern France. :D Sort of what they did to Poland.
The Gaulle explodes almost with anger, suspected of trying to team up with Germany, then mysteriously getting killed by an "acident" in 1943 like Sikorski in our timeline.

The battle for the Pyrenees would be the same slow slugfest as the battles in the italian mountains were in our timeline.
Southern France is where one finds Rousillon;)

That said, imagine a Spanish occupation zone in Germany....

[JimmyJimJam]

No.

It is unlikely that the Allies will offer a good enough deal. The advantages to them are not as large as they should be.

The logistics of deploying a major army in Spain are a complete nightmare. Getting that army over the Pyrenees an even bigger one.
Remember the option of landing is Portugal and going through Spain by force was considered.
This way of doing things is a lot easier than that, but how much?

And the Normandy invasion wasnt a complete logistics nightmare?

[Wendell]

And the Normandy invasion wasnt a complete logistics nightmare?
It could have been worse...

[Redbeard]

Kursk is called off and instead a superior German army cross the Pyrenes (sp?) and throws out the allied forces present in Spain and Portugal.

The allies try to stop the German onslaught already at the mountain passes but are outfought by experienced German mountain troops, and once the fighting moves to the plains they are dead meat against the at least as experienced German armour and infantry Divisions. Basically the efficient railway network in Europe can deploy more Germans to Spain than the allies can land and supply by sea. The allies also have to build up airbases from scratch while the Germans can use existing airbases in southern France.

A few years after historians will write that the blow dealt to the Germans at Stalingrad was nulified by the foolhearted British/American operation in Spain loosing the allies more men than the Germans lost at Stalingrad.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Wozza]

Kursk is called off and instead a superior German army cross the Pyrenes (sp?) and throws out the allied forces present in Spain and Portugal.

The allies try to stop the German onslaught already at the mountain passes but are outfought by experienced German mountain troops, and once the fighting moves to the plains they are dead meat against the at least as experienced German armour and infantry Divisions. Basically the efficient railway network in Europe can deploy more Germans to Spain than the allies can land and supply by sea. The allies also have to build up airbases from scratch while the Germans can use existing airbases in southern France.

A few years after historians will write that the blow dealt to the Germans at Stalingrad was nulified by the foolhearted British/American operation in Spain loosing the allies more men than the Germans lost at Stalingrad.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

No way!
the German infantry divisions are really not going to be useful due to the heat and poor infrastructure. the horses are not going to have a good time.
Airpower and firepower will hold the Germans at bay.
The Allies will be deploying an experienced core of forces with plenty of room for manoeuvre.

[Tom_B]

Hitler was very impressed with the Blue Division and its commander General Munoz Grandes, which in turn was an ardent admirer of Hitler. Hitler expressed the opinion that Munoz Grandes would make a better leader than Franco, who always complained was difficult to deal with (I think he once compared dealing with Franco to having teeth extracted).

Franco's political antenna eventually picked up on these signals and replaced Munoz Grandes. Now the POD is he's not replaced and Hitler tries to set sort of Spanish coup up and it fails and Franco in a huff joins the Allies. The interesting question is whether the coup is simply a instantaneous misfire or the sort which causes a split in the Falangists so Franco's joining the Allies essentially results in another Spanish Civil War.

Lastly Spain was an important source of tungsten for the Germans who used tungsten carbide in their AP ammo. The Allies eventually pressured Spain to cut back tungsten exports OTL but in this scenario it could quickly go to zero.

Tom

[mitch]

So you think that you can move 100k to 200k troops across from the east front all the way to the west, don't you think that the Americans and British Airforces might come into play.

Also trying to push armour through the mountains great idea as tanks make the best road blocks and the logistics train being forced through a narrow area is a fighter / bombers dream.

And

What gave the defenders (Germans) a huge advantage in Normandy was the countryside, flat wideopen plains in Spain work for the Allies. Look what the German Airforce did in 41.

And to hold the passes in the mountains during the build up of forces in northern spain well I think you could hold them with the 101st and 82nd

Once large enough blocking forces are in place you can go to town on the subs in the bay, destroyers working under air cover can hunt them in there back garden. You can also destroy the harbours and refit yards for them.

You open up extra beaches for landing a fullscale invasion that the Germans must defend against lots more troop in fixed positions.

[Redbeard]

As late as December 1944 the Germans could by railway unseen deploy 24 Divisions for Wacht am Rhein.

By 1943 allied airpower will only only be a fraction of that of 1944, especially as there are no good long range escorts available. The Germans still have fuel and better and closer airbases.

Allied land forces will by 1943 be dreadfully inexperienced compared to German East Front veterans and with inferior tactics and doctrines. By 1943 allied logistics over sea can't compete with German ditto by rail.

The mountain passes between France and Spain can be occupied by German troops in a moment but are very far from any allied main base. Even if the allies had transports by 1943 to land two airborne Div (I doubt so) it would be an operation bound to failure as it will have to go into enemy territory without effective fightercover. Even with fightercover airlanding a big number of troops in mountainious terrain is extremely difficult, if not suicidal- even if there wasn't a single enemy around.

Once into the open plain German doctrine and training will prove far superior to 1943 allied ditto. German Infantry Divisions did OK in the very hot and dry Russian summer (sweatty but effective). In Russia the main problem of thye infantry Div. was their slow speed, but in the relatively confined area of Spain that is a much smaller problem. Poor Spanish infrastructure will be much tougher for the bulky allied Divisions generally requiring much more supplies to be effective.

Deploying naval forces close to German airbases and far from allied will be very hazadous, as the Germans at this time possessed effective guided anti-ship weapons.

The best hope for the allies will be a major and successful Soviet offensive, but here calling off Kursk/Citadelle probably is the best service you can do the German cause. Even if the German forces deployed to Spain (essentially some of those that in OTL attacked at Kursk) suffer similar losses in Spain, they will inflict far heavier losses on the enemy compared to OTL Kursk. So short of a major Soviet breakthrough in mid 1943, this is likely to be a major German advantage. And how much of an allied advantage is a Soviet breakthrough really?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Wozza]

By 1943 allied airpower will only only be a fraction of that of 1944, especially as there are no good long range escorts available. The Germans still have fuel and better and closer airbases.

The Allies can operate easily in southern Spain


Allied land forces will by 1943 be dreadfully inexperienced compared to German East Front veterans and with inferior tactics and doctrines. By 1943 allied logistics over sea can't compete with German ditto by rail.
Tell that to the Africa Korps.
The Allies managed Italy, Spain is easier for them logistically.
I dread to think what Spanish railways were like at this time.

The mountain passes between France and Spain can be occupied by German troops in a moment but are very far from any allied main base. Even if the allies had transports by 1943 to land two airborne Div (I doubt so) it would be an operation bound to failure as it will have to go into enemy territory without effective fightercover. Even with fightercover airlanding a big number of troops in mountainious terrain is extremely difficult, if not suicidal- even if there wasn't a single enemy around.

Indeed, but the realistic option is a landing in Southern Spain like in Southern Italy, the situation will be comparable, only without the extremely narrow frontage.

Once into the open plain German doctrine and training will prove far superior to 1943 allied ditto. German Infantry Divisions did OK in the very hot and dry Russian summer (sweatty but effective). In Russia the main problem of thye infantry Div. was their slow speed, but in the relatively confined area of Spain that is a much smaller problem. Poor Spanish infrastructure will be much tougher for the bulky allied Divisions generally requiring much more supplies to be effective.

The amount I hear about German training and doctrine, you think they'd have managed to win the war. Spain is really not all that confined, the Allies will be able to outflank the Germans and the infantry will then be in trouble against the more mechanised allied army. Yes the Allies will have problems, they will plod through Spain, that is why I think the operation pointless.

Deploying naval forces close to German airbases and far from allied will be very hazadous, as the Germans at this time possessed effective guided anti-ship weapons.

The Allies successfully land in Sicily and Italy, the British even do that stupid landing in the Aegean successfully.

The best hope for the allies will be a major and successful Soviet offensive, but here calling off Kursk/Citadelle probably is the best service you can do the German cause. Even if the German forces deployed to Spain (essentially some of those that in OTL attacked at Kursk) suffer similar losses in Spain, they will inflict far heavier losses on the enemy compared to OTL Kursk. So short of a major Soviet breakthrough in mid 1943, this is likely to be a major German advantage. And how much of an allied advantage is a Soviet breakthrough really?

Will the Germans call of Kursk? That is the question. Even if they do they are left with a broad front of Spain (personally I would pull back to the Ebro and then build defence lines back to the Pyrenees. I am not sure tha situation is so different to OTL Italy.

[mitch]

Hitler would never call off any attack in the East he hated slavs and russians.
In 1943 it is the battle of the Atlantic that hang in the balance it was the only thing that kept W/C up all night. If Spain had agreed the use of Northern Spain for the Allies there by freeing up airbase that would allow round the clock coverage of the bay and SW approaches you are telling me that the Allies would have turned it down.
I can just see FDR and WC looking at each other and saying no too hard might get hurt. Get real the Americans would have moved hell and high water to shift huge resources even diverting material from the Pacific even if it cost ground out there
Remember the priorities for the Allies and AMERICA:
Germany first
Germany Second
Japan Third
The American Subs were doing the real damage out in the Pacific look at the stats. It also gets starlin off the backs off W/C and FDR he finally sees that the wstern allies are serious
As soon as America came into the War they wanted to get at the Germans in Europe (France or low countries). If you take the fight to the U boats less ships sink more supplies get through.

At the same time Americans british get more battle training in under one command. If you don't get through the mountains you still have a large German force out of position so when the axe does fall in May / Jun 44 more Germans trapped.

And if the Railways in Spain were in bad condition they would have fixed them thats what army engineers do if they are told to.

[Tom_B]

Hitler would never call off any attack in the East he hated slavs and russians.

I disagree with this bit of banaility. Please read the following:

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Kursk.htm

[mitch]

I disagree with this bit of banaility. Please read the following:

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Kursk.htm

So you are saying that FDR and WC would have declined the chance to put forces on the ground in Spain??
And
Are you saying that the Germans would have moved huge forces to Spain from the East front or would they shift forces from France??

So Tom, assume the offer from Spain (Franco) in this time line is given to FDR in exchange for Debt relief etc would the Allies refuse it. In fact you play FDR look at the situation in the Atlantic, Med, North Africa and East Front and make a call?

[Wozza]

I disagree with this bit of banaility. Please read the following:

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Kursk.htm

I sympathise with the principle of what you are saying here, but, this link has:

a) At least one spelling mistake.

b) A reference to a spy ring called 'Lucy' which, as I understand it, did not actually exist.

It is also, like much of the historiography of the Eastern Front overwhelmingly from the German point of view. There was me thinking the winners wrote history. Inevitably this focus on German strategy reduces the other players to passive actors and gives a misleading impression of the potential for counterfactuals. It is a recurrent theme of the WW2 PODs on this site.

That is one of the reasons I actually like this thread, it analyses Allied potential strategic options.

There is also the important point that it is always easier to re-fight a battle as the loser, you know exactly what NOT to do.

[mitch]

I sympathise with the principle of what you are saying here, but, this link has:

a) At least one spelling mistake.

b) A reference to a spy ring called 'Lucy' which, as I understand it, did not actually exist.

It is also, like much of the historiography of the Eastern Front overwhelmingly from the German point of view. There was me thinking the winners wrote history. Inevitably this focus on German strategy reduces the other players to passive actors and gives a misleading impression of the potential for counterfactuals. It is a recurrent theme of the WW2 PODs on this site.

That is one of the reasons I actually like this thread, it analyses Allied potential strategic options.

There is also the important point that it is always easier to re-fight a battle as the loser, you know exactly what NOT to do.

Thank you at last someone with the right mind set for a site like this.
Sorry about the spelling mistake will try and do better.

People need to stop looking back just put yourself at that point in time with no knowledge of the future JUST TAKE THE POD and TAKE IT FROM THAT POINT.

The reason why I picked this as a POD is I love the Peninsular Campaign in the early 1800’s and wanted to see how a campaign in 1943-45 would workout.
So lets go back to Jan 1943:
Spain after a bitter Civil War and in huge debt, have some how come to an arrangement mainly with America to help rebuild the Country. The terms of this agreement can be anything, it doesn’t matter assume it has happened.
Spain agrees to the following:
Airbases to help secure Air Superiority over France attack the U Boat’s in port or out as far as possible into the Southwest Approaches and allow bombing missions from Spanish territories.
A build up of ground forces to help protect Spain from attack.
Spain will only use its forces to defend its territories. (Probably with modern American Equipment)

So time to put yourself at this POD 3 years into the War.

How would Hitler, WC, Stalin and FDR react.
What happens on the Eastern Front?
Do you still go for a knockout punch on Italy?
The Southern France Front?
The changes to the Atlantic Sea Battle 43-44?
Would the Pacific Campaign suffer?
Normandy, which plans were just starting to be put together any changes?
Would this POD set back the Allies or would the war end in 44?
Over to you all.

[mitch]

My apologies should have included the following with the above post:

What reaction would happen as well in Portugal and how would that change things?

[Glen]

Hitler was very impressed with the Blue Division and its commander General Munoz Grandes, which in turn was an ardent admirer of Hitler. Hitler expressed the opinion that Munoz Grandes would make a better leader than Franco, who always complained was difficult to deal with (I think he once compared dealing with Franco to having teeth extracted).

Franco's political antenna eventually picked up on these signals and replaced Munoz Grandes. Now the POD is he's not replaced and Hitler tries to set sort of Spanish coup up and it fails and Franco in a huff joins the Allies. The interesting question is whether the coup is simply a instantaneous misfire or the sort which causes a split in the Falangists so Franco's joining the Allies essentially results in another Spanish Civil War.

Lastly Spain was an important source of tungsten for the Germans who used tungsten carbide in their AP ammo. The Allies eventually pressured Spain to cut back tungsten exports OTL but in this scenario it could quickly go to zero.

Tom

This is a promising one.

Or Franco could tumble onto a German fostered plot at the 11th hour and there could be a purge, lots of arrests in the middle of the night and summary executions, etc.

So, now Franco no longer has a Germanophile wing to curry favor with, and he has seen what the Germans think of him. So he enters secret negotiations with the Allies, and then they start pumping in troops to Spain. Maybe even no Italy front. The airpower and conditions should be enough to stall a German advance into Spain while Allied troop strength builds.

As for pulling troops off Kursk, don't know. Hitler had an obsession with the Russian front at this point. Could he pull it away?

And if the Allies left Patton sitting in England, the General Staff might be convinced that this is a massive diversion on the Allied part, and that they are still planning to come over the Channel.

[Glen]

I disagree with this bit of banaility. Please read the following:

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Kursk.htm

Nice link.

Why wouldn't they respond in precisely the same manner to Spain as they did Sicily? IE, don't call off the Battle of Kursk, and send instead the same forces to France that they IOTL sent to Italy?

[bill_bruno]

I agree with the poster who didn't see a Spanish DoW before Allied landings in France. The Tunisian campaign didn't end until May 1943 and the Sicilian landings took place in June. Hard to see Franco throwing in with the Allies prior to that. I also don't see the Allies giving up the mainland Italy landings (and Italian surrender) to go into Spain.

Spanish support would likely be more covert. Intel monitoring of German traffic in Biscay, perhaps selling resources (iron, coal, copper). I certainly don't see the UK giving up Gibraltar.