Like Dieppe irrelevant to the point, which once again was that there is no way for the Axis to break the RN’s blockade of Europe, and Spain does not change this. If Germany could have broken the blockade with air power they would have tried. Much as they tried to use aircraft to help blockade the UK, and that was a failure.
How does Spain being an Axis power impact the war?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
At Dieppe the RAF had bases in Britain, how do they get to the coast of Spain, or the Atlantic Islands?
German air power went East in early 1941, and never came back. The RN blockade of Europe was supported by naval bases. Spain entering the war costs the British the use of Gibraltar and creates massive problems in the mid Atlantic. People are so hung up on the idea that the Allies are almost certain to win the war in the end that they dismiss anything that would make it harder getting there. Losing Gibraltar also makes the fall of Malta more likely, which makes the situation in the Mediterranean more difficult to. The Allies lurched from one crisis to the next till the second half of 1943, when it was clear they would win, and even then there were many hard fought battles to come.
cardcarrier
Banned
I thought your question was when did Germany break a blockade in ww2. And the answer is they did at Crete leros and Tripoli (spring 42). All three of those blockades where broken exclusively by German air power and in the first two cases very heavy losses to the royal navy
Dodecanese campaign - Wikipedia
These are the coal imports for Italy, Portugal and Spain for the period 1929-45 from Pages 482 and 483 of International Historical Statistics, Europe 1750-1993, fourth edition by B.R. Mitchell.
And these are the petroleum imports for Italy, Portugal and Spain for the Period 1929-45 from Pages 491 and 492 of the same source.
Unfortunately, it doesn't have any information for Spain for the years 1940-44 which is exactly the information that we want. My other source, the British Geological Survey world mineral production reports says that the information for 1936-44 was not available either.
Edit 25.07.22
This is the coal production of Italy, Portugal and Spain for the years 1929 to 1945 according to International Historical Statistics Europe 1750-1993, Fourth Edition, by B.R. Mitchell...
For the record (and according to the same source) Spain's average annual coal production in the years 1946-93 was:
- 1946-55 - 12.9 million metric tons (11.4 million tonnes Hard Coal and 1.5 million tonnes Brown Coal).
- 1956-65 - 15.7 million metric tons (13.3 million tonnes Hard Coal and 2.4 million tonnes Brown Coal).
- 1966-75 - 14.2 million metric tons (11.3 million tonnes Hard Coal and 2.9 million tonnes Brown Coal).
- 1976-81 - 23.2 million metric tons (12.3 million tonnes Hard Coal and 10.9 million tonnes Brown Coal). During this period.
- Total Coal production rose 14.7 million tonnes to 35.8 million tonnes.
- Hard Coal production rose from 10.5 million tonnes to 14.7 million tonnes.
- Brown Coal production rose from 4.2 million tonnes to 20.9 million tonnes.
- Total Coal production rose 14.7 million tonnes to 35.8 million tonnes.
- 1982-85 - 39.8 million metric tons (15.7 million tonnes Hard Coal and 24.1 million tonnes Brown Coal).
- 1986-93 - 34.4 million metric tons (14.5 million tonnes Hard Coal and 19.9 million tonnes Brown Coal).
Last edited:
This is Spain's output of Main Cereal, Potato, and Sugar Beet Crops from 1929 to 1945 from Page of 308 of the source that I used in Post 65.
Wheat production in 1940 was half of what it had been in 1935. It increased to 72% in 1941 and 85% in 1942. It fell to 73% in 1943 then went up to 88% in 1944 and finally there was a big fall to 53% in 1945 which is nearly as bad as 1940.
Wheat production in 1940 was half of what it had been in 1935. It increased to 72% in 1941 and 85% in 1942. It fell to 73% in 1943 then went up to 88% in 1944 and finally there was a big fall to 53% in 1945 which is nearly as bad as 1940.
FWIW according to Raeder no it couldn't. That is, according to this paragraph from Page 434 of Grand Strategy, Volume II.
Although Raeder didn't mention Madeira and the Azores in his report to Hitler I think it can safely be assumed that what he wrote about the Cape Verdes and Canaries also applied to Madeira and the Azores.
Edit
For what they're worth these are the distances in nautical miles to the Atlantic Islands from Lisbon, the main Spanish naval bases in the Atlantic, and the nearest British naval bases according to the calculations that I made using Ports.com.
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
In theory it sounds good for the Axis in practice Spain is in a bad way from the civil war and for this and other reasons will be at best a distraction for the allies and a resource sink for the Axis*. And once the USSR is invaded expect to see Spanish civil war 2.0 only this time with western power officially backing the anti-Franco side.
Don't get me wrong it would be another factor to deal with but it certainly won't be decisive and l'm not even sure it would even be a net benefit to the Axis long term.
*for instance if Germany has to bail out Spain it can't bail out Italy as much as it did
Don't get me wrong it would be another factor to deal with but it certainly won't be decisive and l'm not even sure it would even be a net benefit to the Axis long term.
*for instance if Germany has to bail out Spain it can't bail out Italy as much as it did
Last edited:
In threads of this type one of my arguments is that the Spanish naval bases of Cadiz and Ferrol were closer to the trade routes (especially in the South Atlantic) than the captured French bases on the Bay of Biscay.
I've tested my theory by using Ports.com to calculate the distances from Brest, Bayonne, Ferrol, Cadiz and Las Palmas to Halifax, New York, Port of Spain, Freetown, Natal, Buenos Aires and Cape Town.
This was the result.
Then I re-arranged it like this.
Ferrol is about one day's sailing at 10 knots closer to Halifax and New York than the Biscay ports, but it's only a reduction of 5-10%.
OTOH (and not altogether unsurprisingly) Cadiz is about 3 days closer to Port of Spain, Freetown, Natal, Buenos Aires and Cape Town. Las Palmas is even better with a reduction of 6 days at 10 knots. Furthermore, the reductions are bigger as percentages of the journey times from the Biscay Ports. In the case of Freetown there's a 25% reduction from Cadiz and a 50% reduction from Las Palmas. The reduction in the time taken to reach Natal is reduced by 16% from Cadiz and 32% from Las Palmas.
I've tested my theory by using Ports.com to calculate the distances from Brest, Bayonne, Ferrol, Cadiz and Las Palmas to Halifax, New York, Port of Spain, Freetown, Natal, Buenos Aires and Cape Town.
This was the result.
Then I re-arranged it like this.
Ferrol is about one day's sailing at 10 knots closer to Halifax and New York than the Biscay ports, but it's only a reduction of 5-10%.
OTOH (and not altogether unsurprisingly) Cadiz is about 3 days closer to Port of Spain, Freetown, Natal, Buenos Aires and Cape Town. Las Palmas is even better with a reduction of 6 days at 10 knots. Furthermore, the reductions are bigger as percentages of the journey times from the Biscay Ports. In the case of Freetown there's a 25% reduction from Cadiz and a 50% reduction from Las Palmas. The reduction in the time taken to reach Natal is reduced by 16% from Cadiz and 32% from Las Palmas.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
But if Spain is out front in the Allies' faces, even if getting its own face smashed in, how do the Allies even have the access, or spare resources, to even be pressing Italy so hard it needs a bail out? Spain has all sorts of needs making it a liability, but in 1940 and 1941 and even into 1942, Britain has very little in the cupboard to use to menace Spain and exploit its vulnerability, and very little in the right places. By late 1941 and 1942, outright shortages of British supplies, forces, and gear may not be the issue they are in summer and autumn 1940, but the UK is probably by then dealing with Japan ripping it a new Far Eastern a$$h0le.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
The battle was getting rolling back to Greek territory finally, the Greeks were on the path to be attrited down. The German and Bulgarian partication just made it a good bit less expensive and speedier for the Italians.
FireCrispyHistory
Banned
Now I am seeing things about "Land border with Gibraltar". My question is, What if Spain joined the Allies?
I don't see any reason for Spain join ot Allies if then Germany is not agressor.
Or another way would be Republicans winning the civil war and then it joinst to Allid war efforts after D-Day or at least when Paris is liberated.
A successful Nationalist coup or abbreviated Spanish Civil War would have been of direct help to Italy too. The military aid that Mussolini gave to Franco could have been used to re-equip the Italian armed forces. The disadvantage is that they would have had less or no combat experience.
Admr Raeder was a conservative and conventional strategist who felt burned by the loses in Norway. The British would in fact not have control of the seas around the Atlantic Islands. The British would be sailing far from home bases into waters where the Luftwaffe would control the air, and U-Boats would be patrolling the waters. The operation would be carried out with mostly air mobile troops, not shipborne like in Norway. German aircraft would be using the local airfields to defend the islands and threaten Allied shipping off West Africa. That would force the British to reroute conveys further westward into the mid-Atlantic lengthening their supply lines and making it more difficult for destroyers to escort them because of range issues.
thaddeus
Donor
if Spain retained their gold reserves, they might have a decent sized air force and uboat fleet? my understanding their contacts around the world provided intelligence to the Axis side?