Franco join the axis in early June 1940

Would losing Gibraltar even shut down the straits? It's a rock with a small town on it, and capturing the rock is not the same thing as capturing the Royal Navy units based there which are the actual force that controls the strait. Presumably evicting the RN from Gibraltar would just revert its strategic importance to what it was before the English acquired it, which is to say none as without the most powerful navy in the world it's just a rock with a small town on it.
 
Also, Italy with a slightly larger population had over three times the tonnage of Spain.

The other problem is what ports are going to be used? Gibraltar is blocking most of them. There are some on Spain's Atlantic coast but I presume the RN would be active there.
Gibraltar won't be blocking any of them. See Post 37.
The Chiefs of Staff considered in October and November the requirements of the fortress for sustaining a long siege and approved the estimate of the Governor (Lieutenant-General Sir Clive Liddell) that supplies for six months should be held. Discussions took place with him in London in January; it was clearly understood that in the event of a land attack the use of the naval base would have to be given up. The Governor also pointed out the inadequacy of Gibraltar as a base for contraband control.
 
Last edited:
Would losing Gibraltar even shut down the straits? It's a rock with a small town on it, and capturing the rock is not the same thing as capturing the Royal Navy units based there which are the actual force that controls the strait. Presumably evicting the RN from Gibraltar would just revert its strategic importance to what it was before the English acquired it, which is to say none as without the most powerful navy in the world it's just a rock with a small town on it.
Yes it would because the coast artillery at Gibraltar which included seven 9.2" guns controlled the straits too so capturing the rock will stop the British from shutting the straits down. Meanwhile the coast artillery that the Spanish had on both sides of the straits will make it impassable to British warships.
 
Yes it would because the coast artillery at Gibraltar which included seven 9.2" guns controlled the straits too so capturing the rock will stop the British from shutting the straits down.
Would seven 9.2" guns be sufficient to accomplish that goal? That's a reduction of 50% from the 14 deployed there durring WWI.

the coast artillery that the Spanish had on both sides of the straits will make it impassable to British warships.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Gibraltar, it's a small rock which wouldn't interfere with Spain's fields of fire.
 
According to the Aeroflight website there was a firm called INDUSTRIJA AEROPLANSKIH MOTORA AD (factory of aircraft engines) which was formed in 1927 and built Gnôme-Rhône engines under licence.

I have found a book online about the Do17 in Yugoslav service which says that IAM built Gnôme-Rhône 157 K-14NO engines for them.
Interesting. Romanians used K14 in their IAR-80. Wonder why Yugoslavians didn’t try to gonthis way considering unavailability of better engines for their fighters. On other sidenRomanians were well aware of engines shortcomings and later on were trying to get their hand on BMW 801, with which estimated speed would be some 600 KM/h. But Germans were unable to provide.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Could Franco decided to join the axis in early June 1940 in the hopes of making some quick gains

Would this encourage Britain to make peace

How would this impact world war 2

  • Sure, people do dumb things all the time.
  • Yes since UK lose Gibraltar. Malta will be lost/abandoned. etc.
  • WW2 would not look anything like OTL WW2. France may not sign the peace treaty on time. Even if France does, the Germans may spend so much time mucking around in Spain that we don't get Barbarossa on time. If we do get Barbarossa, it might look a lot different. Changes USA strategy when it enters the war. Probably keeps Italy in the war til the end. etc.
 
Would seven 9.2" guns be sufficient to accomplish that goal? That's a reduction of 50% from the 14 deployed there durring WWI.
I don't know. However, I have had enough arguments/discussions about it in other threads on the subject to give Gibraltar's coast artillery the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Gibraltar, it's a small rock which wouldn't interfere with Spain's fields of fire.
That wasn't what I meant.

I mentioned the Spanish coast artillery to make the point that it cuts both ways. If Axis naval forces won't be able to transit the straits because of the British coast artillery at Gibraltar the British won't be able to send aid to Gibraltar because of the Spanish coast artillery in the area.

The Naval Weapons website says that Spain purchased eighteen 15" guns from Vickers between 1929 and 1935. According to the Wikipaedia page:
  • 8 defended Ferrol and A Coruña in Galicia in NW Spain;
  • 4 defended Cartagena the main Spanish naval base in the Mediterranean;
  • 6 defended Port Mahon on Menorca one of the Balearic Islands.
2 of the guns in Galicia were moved to Punta Paloma to cover the Atlantic approaches to the straits in October 1941. I have a map that shows the arcs of fire of the Spanish cost artillery in the straits area in 1942. Tangier was within range of the 15" guns at Punta Paloma.

According to the Wikiapedia page 10 of the 18 guns are still in situ.

I don't know how many of them were in the Strait of Gibraltar in 1940, but Spain's coast artillery included 12" guns salvaged from the dreadnoughts España and Jaime I. The 1942 map also shows a battery of 2 Vickers 12" guns (possibly salvaged from España or Jaime I) at Punta Camorro. There is a short video of the battery on Youtube and it looks like a British 12" gun turret.
 
Interesting. Romanians used K14 in their IAR-80. Wonder why Yugoslavians didn’t try to gonthis way considering unavailability of better engines for their fighters. On other sidenRomanians were well aware of engines shortcomings and later on were trying to get their hand on BMW 801, with which estimated speed would be some 600 KM/h. But Germans were unable to provide.
I didn't write the last sentence of Post 35 very well. It should have been.
I have found a book online about the Do17 in Yugoslav service which says that IAM built 157 Gnôme-Rhône K-14NO engines for them.
 
A piece of information about the state of the Royal Navy in the summer of 1940.

According to Anthony Preston in An Illustrated History of the Navies of World War II the total of British destroyers had fallen from 184 to 171 between September 1939 and September 1940 as only 21 mew ships had replaced the 34 sunk. Furthermore nearly half of the strength was under repair as a result of damage of one sort or another.

AFAIK of the operational destroyers, roughly: 40 were with the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow; 30 were in the English Channel; 20 were with the Mediterranean Fleet; and 10 at Gibraltar with Force H. Which comes to a total of 100, when the roughly 90 destroyers were available.
 
Then all Spain becomes is one more coast-line the Axis has to defend, while they already evidently can't defend the French coast, and Hitler's original calculus re: Sea Lion and Barbarossa remains intact.
 
You would also need to have people willing to trade with Spain in the Americas. Two problems I see here Britain is buying heaps and it did use its commercial and diplomatic muscle to stop NAZI Germany from trading as well as it is military eg in Turkey it brought big in raw materials to deny Germany the good and the other is the US pressure which would do the same.
 
Last edited:
To be honest I don't know. However, we did have a what of Argentina joins the Axis thread earlier this year and my suggestion was inspired by that.

Argentina was in some ways the reverse of Spain.
  • It was at that time (AFAIK) the 10th richest country in the world;
  • It could feed itself;
  • It was self-sufficient in oil (2.4 million long tons of crude oil were produced in 1938 and this increased to 3.5 million long tons in 1943);
  • It had a good railway system;
  • And the Argentine Navy had 2 dreadnoughts, 3 modern submarines, 3 modern cruisers and 12 modern destroyers.

Which would be an event triggering American's anxiety.
 
Which would be an event triggering American's anxiety.
A valid point, but would it trigger American action? There is a lot of difference between feeling anxious about something and doing something about it.

OTOH might more nations joining the Axis make isolationism more popular in the USA? More people might think the British are a lost cause. There might be more opposition to the destroyers for bases deal and Lend Lease because it would be useless to send aid to the side that looks like it's going to loose anyway. More people might want to avoid involvement in someone else's war.

In any case I think Argentina joining the Axis as a consequence of Spain joining the Axis is very unlikely.
 
Some distances calculated from the Air Miles Calculator website...
368 miles Norwich to Hamburg
383 miles Norwich to Kiel
516 miles Norwich to Berlin

137 miles Plymouth to Brest
418 miles Plymouth to Bordeaux

495 miles Plymouth to Bilbao
532 miles Plymouth to La Coruna the nearest airport to Ferrol the main Spanish naval base in NW Spain
686 miles Plymouth to Madrid
697 miles Plymouth to Barcelona
888 miles Plymouth to Cartagena the main Spanish naval base in the Mediterranean
949 miles Plymouth to Jerez the closest airport to Cadiz the main Spanish naval base in SW Spain

396 miles from Bordeaux to La Coruna
624 miles from Bordeaux to Jerez

625 miles from Malta to Menorca
768 miles from Malta to Barcelona
857 miles from Malta to Cartagena
1,031 miles from Malta to Madrid
1,146 miles from Malta to Jerez the nearest airport to Cadiz

815 miles Gran Canaria to Jerez

1,336 miles Freetown to Gran Canaria
1,987 miles Freetown to Jerez​
 
Last edited:
I would say that it's very likely that France wouldn't go for the Vichy deal and fight on from Africa, considering what Franco wanted OTL.

Also, regarding Argentina, it's in the backyard of the US, so it's very likely that some kind of action would've taken place.
 
...
How much trade did the US conduct with Germany durring WWII? How much US-German trade was there in WWI for that matter?

It fell off, there was a effort to circumvent the blockade via neutral nations, like Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy, ect... That dwindled as German cash and credit became scarce, the British Navigation Certification system took hold, and the neutrals were occupied by Germany.

... Also US neutrality laws of the 1930s prohibited trade with belligerent nations, and I doubt FDR was going to make an exception for Spain (especially given that he'd made exceptions for the British and French)....

Congress rewrote the Nuetrality Acts in late 1939 to allow doing business with belligerent nations. This was expressed as the "Cash and Carry" policy. Germany was legally free to purchase as much war material as anyone in the US. That was necessary to get approval from pro Germans, Anglophobes, and other opposition to altering the Nuetrality Acts. Roosevelt, the Warhawks, interventionists, & others were comfortable with this as they knew: 1. nazi Germany lacked cash & credit for its war economy. 2. the Allied blockade would further restrict imports from the US. 3. Buercratic interdiction of German exports occurred, delay in export documents ect...

Ending the previous Neutrality Acts had a favorable effect on the US economy. France and Britain were cash flush and had perfect credit in 1939 & immediately placed large orders for war materials and opened negotiation for afar more. This massive influx of cash and credit lines lifted the US out of the lingering Depression.
 
Congress rewrote the Nuetrality Acts in late 1939 to allow doing business with belligerent nations. This was expressed as the "Cash and Carry" policy. Germany was legally free to purchase as much war material as anyone in the US. That was necessary to get approval from pro Germans, Anglophobes, and other opposition to altering the Nuetrality Acts. Roosevelt, the Warhawks, interventionists, & others were comfortable with this as they knew: 1. nazi Germany lacked cash & credit for its war economy. 2. the Allied blockade would further restrict imports from the US. 3. Buercratic interdiction of German exports occurred, delay in export documents ect...
Wasn't one of the provisions that the buyer had to move the equipment with their own merchant fleet rather than US flagged ships?

edit: and anyways, Spain was flat broke with all its gold reserves appropriated by the Soviets, so Spain still can't buy US war materials.
 
Last edited:
I would say that it's very likely that France wouldn't go for the Vichy deal and fight on from Africa, considering what Franco wanted OTL.
I'm in two minds about that because AFIAK Mussolini expected to annex Savoy, Nice, Corsica and Tunisia in the peace treaty IOTL, but that didn't stop France going for the Vichy deal.

OTOH would the prospect of loosing Roussillon, Morocco and part of Algeria to Spain ITTL, make the French think, "If we take the Vichy deal, what's left for us?" Furthermore Mussolini might want the part of Algeria that Franco didn't want ITTL.
 
Top