Historical European neutrals become belligerents in WW II

[RMcD94]

1) Yes, but if Hitler could not persuade Franco in real life - to the point Hitler himself recognized he'd met an immovable object - than I have a hard time seeing a POD.

Hitler did persuade Franco, on a number of occasions Franco was rejected by Hitler. All of this even with the German delegate to Franco sabotaging Hitler the entire time.

2) The interwar (meaning between WW I and WW II) conflicts between the Turkish Republic and the Kurds reached their high point, from what I can tell, in 1937-38. Recent history, but seems unlikely to have prompted Turkish adherence to the Axis, given how carefully Inonu and company were in 1941-45.

Sure not exclusively but adding division between Turkey and the allies will aid. Like I said say that this stops the French referendum then Turkey can gain in Syria if they join the axis. Especially if vichy France is promoted by Hitler to hold the referendum.

3) True, but all three had geography against them. Ireland and Portugal are open to the Atlantic, and so, Allied support against any move by the Axis.

Exactly, so it's relatively easy for isolated nations to enter the war, either via invasion or isolation resulting in joining the axis to prevent invasion.

The allies aren't likely to invade Portugal or Ireland like they did Iran or would have done to Scandinavia. There's little of strategic value. The Azores perhaps

 

[sparky42]

The allies aren't likely to invade Portugal or Ireland like they did Iran or would have done to Scandinavia. There's little of strategic value. The Azores perhaps

In 1940 the UK actively considered invading Ireland over the Treaty Ports, either a limited attack to take the ports or a larger one (which was what NI's leaders were advocating). And really given the projected losses that could have been avoided had the UK had the ports it's hard to argue that there wasn't strategic value in doing so.

 

[Dave Shoup]

I'm not sure how Portugal could have been in a worse shape economically than Ireland, the Irish economy was pretty much a closed economy with very limited capability in the period (one of the reasons why Finance was more than happy to ensure as little as possible was ever spent on Defence), and Portugal was about 2 and a half times larger in population giving it plenty more capacity (I mean if you look at it in 1950 even Norway has a larger population than Ireland). Along with that Portugal also had what was left of it's territories and the wars that it faced as well which would also have played into military support at the time. As I said in 1949 when Ireland was offered membership of NATO, it was refused over the issue of NI, and the attempt by Dublin to interest the US on a bilateral deal died as well, after that it's hard to see any potential change up until joining the EEC in 73.

Among other strategic issues, the Portuguese had an overseas colonial empire they chose to try and maintain; such efforts are never cheap, in manpower, money, or diplomacy. Eire, despite all the other legacies of a colonial past, didn't have to deal with that, did they?

 

[Dave Shoup]

Depending on how far back you'll allow, a Spain that has a Republican government win the civil war and enacts some leftist policies could be a potential replacement for the Balkan campaign before Barbarossa, particularly if the coup in Yugoslavia is butterflied away.With the Wehrmacht in Spain, Portugal might have to either join the Axis or request British aid now that. There might be an Iberian campaign in addition to the North African one. Turkey would be a fair bit harder. They are on the periphery of Europe and didn't harbor overt revaunchist goals on their neighbors. You'd have to have a more authoritarian and revenge-minded government in control. Perhaps a less successful independence war where Turkey isn't Sevres-ed, but still loses territory to Armenia and a new Kurdistan

Fair, but I was trying to stick with a POD in 1942-43, using US entry as a potential lever. If you go back farther, a lot of potential "allies or enemies?" pathways open up, but I was trying to keep the overall situation as close to the Second World War as we know it.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Hitler did persuade Franco, on a number of occasions Franco was rejected by Hitler. All of this even with the German delegate to Franco sabotaging Hitler the entire time. Sure not exclusively but adding division between Turkey and the allies will aid. Like I said say that this stops the French referendum then Turkey can gain in Syria if they join the axis. Especially if vichy France is promoted by Hitler to hold the referendum. Exactly, so it's relatively easy for isolated nations to enter the war, either via invasion or isolation resulting in joining the axis to prevent invasion. The allies aren't likely to invade Portugal or Ireland like they did Iran or would have done to Scandinavia. There's little of strategic value. The Azores perhaps

As far as Spain goes, setting the conditions for entering the war as beyond the capability of Nazi Germany to deliver, as Franco did, essentially, at Hendaye, makes it clear what Franco's goal was.

 

[sparky42]

Among other strategic issues, the Portuguese had an overseas colonial empire they chose to try and maintain; such efforts are never cheap, in manpower, money, or diplomacy. Eire, despite all the other legacies of a colonial past, didn't have to deal with that, did they?

That's my point, Portugal had other considerations that shaped it's military, where as for Ireland we never had such issues and the relationship with the UK either at the start with their restrictions on the military (ie keeping the Naval side to themselves) or the conflicted build up suggestions from the UK and of course then the Anglo-Irish governmental issues.

 

[Dave Shoup]

That's my point, Portugal had other considerations that shaped it's military, where as for Ireland we never had such issues and the relationship with the UK either at the start with their restrictions on the military (ie keeping the Naval side to themselves) or the conflicted build up suggestions from the UK and of course then the Anglo-Irish governmental issues.

I was speaking more to the point about Portugal's strategic and economic position being worse (in the sense that they had a much larger strategic area to be concerned about); Eire's was the defense of the republic's territory in the air and on land, and potentially its coastal waters; Portugal had (rationally or not) a much larger area of strategic interest, even (with the Azores, Madeira, etc.) within the Atlatic area, much less Africa, India, and the Pacific.

Eire's strategic interests were much more limited, but the republic was still in the position of having to consider neutrality or active participation. Given the sinkings of Irish Pine in 1942 and Irish Oak in 1943, the Republic certainly had enough in terms of causus belli to join the Allies, not unlike the incidents that led to the Brazilian and Mexican declarations of war. Given the above, and a fairly substantial army by 1943-43, it certainly seems the legal/diplomatic and military issues were in place, if the political will had been.

 

[sparky42]

Eire's strategic interests were much more limited, but the republic was still in the position of having to consider neutrality or active participation. Given the sinkings of Irish Pine in 1942 and Irish Oak in 1943, the Republic certainly had enough in terms of causus belli to join the Allies, not unlike the incidents that led to the Brazilian and Mexican declarations of war. Given the above, and a fairly substantial army by 1943-43, it certainly seems the legal/diplomatic and military issues were in place, if the political will had been.

Maritime sinkings were never going to affect Irish politics or international relations, end result of the '22 treaty was the birth of a "blindness" for lack of a better word regarding naval matters that to this day is still active within politics, government departments and even in the DF itself. Even if all of the hulls the state had bought into service had been lost by Axis action it wouldn't have changed things.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Maritime sinkings were never going to affect Irish politics or international relations, end result of the '22 treaty was the birth of a "blindness" for lack of a better word regarding naval matters that to this day is still active within politics, government departments and even in the DF itself. Even if all of the hulls the state had bought into service had been lost by Axis action it wouldn't have changed things.

Understood. Just looking for potential PODs. Obviously, as long as the Allies navies were holding their own in the Battle of the Atlantic, Eire was not going to collapse, but if they were not, the situation might have changed.

 

[sparky42]

Understood. Just looking for potential PODs. Obviously, as long as the Allies navies were holding their own in the Battle of the Atlantic, Eire was not going to collapse, but if they were not, the situation might have changed.

Again I'd have to disagree, this is the Government who thought buying MTB's were a solid investments (or what they could get) and even post war barely invested in buying 3 Flower class hulls. The mindset just wasn't there as the UK had made naval matters their area of control post Independence. At best you'd have increased friction between London and Dublin (as London didn't care about Irish hulls anyway)

 

[Dave Shoup]

Again I'd have to disagree, this is the Government who thought buying MTB's were a solid investments (or what they could get) and even post war barely invested in buying 3 Flower class hulls. The mindset just wasn't there as the UK had made naval matters their area of control post Independence. At best you'd have increased friction between London and Dublin (as London didn't care about Irish hulls anyway)

Oh, understood. My point was that if the Allied navies were not holding their own in the Battle of the Atlantic, Eire would presumably either a) become a battlefield, at which point its pretty much all moot; or b) would be starved economically (I'd presume Eire could feed itself in an extremity, but fuel and manufactured goods were be off the table), but the Allies wouldn't care at that point.

Which kind of gets back to the "it's good to have friends, and friendship is a two-way street" state of mind, but it seems that never quite was enough in the period under discussion...

 

[sparky42]

Oh, understood. My point was that if the Allied navies were not holding their own in the Battle of the Atlantic, Eire would presumably either a) become a battlefield, at which point its pretty much all moot; or b) would be starved economically (I'd presume Eire could feed itself in an extremity, but fuel and manufactured goods were be off the table), but the Allies wouldn't care at that point.

Which kind of gets back to the "it's good to have friends, and friendship is a two-way street" state of mind, but it seems that never quite was enough in the period under discussion...

Energy supplies were already crippled by the decision of the UK from memory (depending on your stance either, prioritising their own needs or alternatively trying to "encourage" Dublin to join by economic damage), there were some small deals done to ease issues post 43 but again the relationship was "rocky". As for manufactured goods, again not to be too blunt but this is 1940's Ireland, the economy is still tiny and relatively backward compared to many of the European nations, manufactured goods is still going to hurt but not hugely.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Energy supplies were already crippled by the decision of the UK from memory (depending on your stance either, prioritising their own needs or alternatively trying to "encourage" Dublin to join by economic damage), there were some small deals done to ease issues post 43 but again the relationship was "rocky". As for manufactured goods, again not to be too blunt but this is 1940's Ireland, the economy is still tiny and relatively backward compared to many of the European nations, manufactured goods is still going to hurt but not hugely.

Understood. Thanks.

 

[sparky42]

Understood. Thanks.

Sadly I think you'd pretty much need 1920's PODs to change how things played out, either that or Sealion. As I've said in another site, basically nobody would want to have the circumstances that gave birth to the Irish military and Governmental policy if they could chose to avoid it.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Sadly I think you'd pretty much need 1920's PODs to change how things played out, either that or Sealion. As I've said in another site, basically nobody would want to have the circumstances that gave birth to the Irish military and Governmental policy if they could chose to avoid it.

Understood.

Given where you are, what would you think about a larger "Irish" formation in the British Army, presumably with the intent of giving a "home" for volunteers and making a deeper connection (to the British advantage, of course; its a cynical play) between the NI/UK/"British" populations and the Eire/Republic/"Irish" population?

As it was, the British - upon Churchill's direction - created the 38th "Irish" Brigade in January, 1942, with a brigade headquarters formed from the infantry training organization and three battalions, 1st Royal Irish Fusiliers, 2nd London Irish Rifles, and (initially) 6th Inniskillings, replaced by the 2nd Inniskillings in 1944. The 1st RIR and 2nd RIF were both regular battalions, the 2nd LIR a former territorial battalion. The initial brigade commander was Morgan John Winthrop O'Donovan, MC (The O'Donovan), and he was followed by Nelson Russell (Antrim-born) so there was a point being made... the formation patch was kind of obvious, as well.

The brigade was used to build up the 1st Division in 1941-42, transferred to the 6th Armoured Division in June, 1942, and served as such in North Africa and Italy, with a distinguished record, and as part of (most of the the time) the 78th Division, which despite the high number was a largely regular division.

So, granted that "Irishness" was a matter of self-identification by a large degree in the British Army by this point, but: there were still four "Irish" infantry regiments in the British Army lists (Irish Guards, Royal Inniskilling Fusilers, Royal Ulster Fusiliers, and Royal Irish Fusiliers; each would have had at least two regular battalions in 1939, and with various territorial and wartime activations), and well as the London Irish Rifles from the Territorial Army, I think there were at least 12 "Irish" battalions that saw active service outside of the UK in 1939-45.

Given enough willingness to transfer battalions around, presumably the British could have concentrated 10 infantry battalions and a cavalry/recce regiment (North Irish Horse, presumably) to form a full infantry division on the standard organization (three brigades of three battalions, plus an infantry machine gun battalion), it would have been possible - if it was a matter of policy - to reactivate one of the three WW I era "Irish" divisions (10th, 16th, or 36th) for WW II. (The actual WW II 36th Division was not "Irish" and given the "Ulster Division" sobriquet from WW I, maybe not a good choice.) The 10th and 16th were both activated in 1914, and each had their own political background...

So if Churchill orders the 10th "Irish" Division to be reactivated early in (say) 1942, largely from exiting units, and they can be reshuffled, what are your thoughts on how that would be perceived in Ireland (north and south)?

 

[sparky42]

So if Churchill orders the 10th "Irish" Division to be reactivated early in (say) 1942, largely from exiting units, and they can be reshuffled, what are your thoughts on how that would be perceived in Ireland (north and south)?

Might have some impact in the North though I could be wrong, doubt it would have much impact one way or the other in Ireland, the historical units were disbanded post Independence so it wouldn't have much connection.

 

[Dave Shoup]

Might have some impact in the North though I could be wrong, doubt it would have much impact one way or the other in Ireland, the historical units were disbanded post Independence so it wouldn't have much connection.

Could have reactivated the pre-1922 regiments if that was seen as being an aid to recruitment ... and there were Irishmen from Eire who had demonstrated their opposition to Fascism in a variety of fields before 1939, as well.

 

[sparky42]

Could have reactivated the pre-1922 regiments if that was seen as being an aid to recruitment ... and there were Irishmen from Eire who had demonstrated their opposition to Fascism in a variety of fields before 1939, as well.

It most likely wouldn't have had much radical change I'd say, might even have hurt some of it.

 

[Dave Shoup]

It most likely wouldn't have had much radical change I'd say, might even have hurt some of it.

Hurt in what way?

 

[sparky42]

Hurt in what way?

Depending on how the old units were viewed in the Free State post Independence recreating them could impact numbers joining up.