Spain joins the axis and looses. What happens to it?

Why except those? Wouldn't they deport the Spaniards living there, like how Italians where deported/expelled from Istria and Slovenia?
While there might be some in Morocco who would call for a complete return of all Moroccan territory, those two cities have been effectively Spanish controlled for centuries. Ceuta was taken by Portugal in 1415 and Mellila was taken by the Spanish in 1497, with Ceuta becoming part of the Iberian Union after the Portuguese Succession Crisis of 1580, and eventually becoming more Spanish then Portuguese and even staying with Spain once the Iberian Union dissolved. By 1945, the cities had become Spanish through and through, and any attempt to return them to Moroccan sovereignty is stymied.

I doubt the French would allow those cities to return to Morocco, given the rising dissatisfaction of the Algerians and the resultant Algerian War. If they forced the Europeans out and gave them to Morocco, it would set a bad precedent for Algeria, who would demand the Europeans get out and leave Africa. There might be a referendum to determine their future, but those cities would most likely vote to stay Spanish.

Unlike Istria, there would be WAllied boots on the ground, especially after a successful North Africa campaign and invasion of Spain. The locals will not have a chance to enact any ethnic cleansing, because US troops will be there and will not turn a blind eye to mass murder or forced deportations. Istria was complicated by the fact the WAllies never fully liberated Italy, so the Yugoslav partisans had reached those places long before the Allies did and therefore had free rein.
 

Nick P

Donor
There was no king at that time in Spain.

Good point. Alfonso died in 1941 and Juan Carlos was born just afterwards. That means either having a Queen Regent for 18 years (pretty much as OTL) or finding another chap somewhere in the line of succession, but he could be accused of usurping the throne. A republic seems to be the best option.

If Gibraltar falls as seems likely, what are the chances of the UK claiming a bigger chunk of that area after they get it back? Or would the US insist the British give up the colony?
 
If Gibraltar falls as seems likely, what are the chances of the UK claiming a bigger chunk of that area after they get it back? Or would the US insist the British give up the colony?
Why would the US say to the UK to give up Gibraltar, they did not do that when Hong Kong fell to the Japanese and latter saying, lets hand it over to the Chinese.
 
Unlike Istria, there would be WAllied boots on the ground, especially after a successful North Africa campaign and invasion of Spain. The locals will not have a chance to enact any ethnic cleansing, because US troops will be there and will not turn a blind eye to mass murder or forced deportations. Istria was complicated by the fact the WAllies never fully liberated Italy, so the Yugoslav partisans had reached those places long before the Allies did and therefore had free rein.
Why where eastern countries like the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia rife with deportations and ethnic clensing post war, but not western europe?
 
Why where eastern countries like the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia rife with deportations and ethnic clensing post war, but not western europe?
That's... complicated.

See, by 1939, the worst of the ethnic troubles in Western Europe had pretty much been sorted out. You a Frenchman, a German, a Belgian, a Dutchman or an Italian. The Napoleonic Wars, the Hundred Years War, etc... pretty much ironed out the lines between states and nations, but it was by no means pretty, clean or easy. The Enlightenment, the post-French Revolution waves of Nationalism, etc... had pretty much hit everywhere in Western Europe, solidifying the concept of the nation-state in those countries. People stopped being Normans, Aquitanians, Bretons (no, not a typo), or Gasconians; they were now French. Some kept their cultures and identities, and even languages, but for the most part, they went along with the new system.

Eastern Europe, however, is a much more mixed bag - and I do mean mixed. See, up until 1900, Eastern Europe was under the control of like three or four massive powers; Ottoman Empire, Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, and Russian Empire (as is pretty well-known here on AH.com). These guys were a lot better at suppressing nationalist sentiment for a long time, and unlike the West didn't make it a habit of absorbing lesser minorities into this idea of a nation state and national identity. If you were French, then you were French. If you were Austro-Hungarian, then that meant you were a subject of the Austro-Hungarian monarch, regardless of ethnicity. The "old empires" fought hard to squash any ideals taken from the French Revolution, as the idea of nationalism spreading to Eastern Europe meant the much more fractious ethnic groups would be at each other's throats in a second. And yet by 1918 it was all moot, as these new nations were given their freedom and their countries.

What complicated matters was how these empires allowed for freedom of travel within their borders. Russians, Czechs and Germans moved into Polish lands during the long Partitions of Poland, Romanians were allowed into the Carpathians, Serbs/Croats/Slovenes were allowed into historically Italian lands under Austrian rule. What this meant was there were now massively mixed populations, making partitioning lands along ethno-nationalist lines incredibly difficult. The Hungarians found their country reduced to a third or a quarter its former size as territory was given to the Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Romanians, and what have you because of the now-sizable ethnic groups forming the majority of the population there - and occasionally acts of petty revenge by the victorious Entente.

By 1939, the issues had not been sorted out, so Hitler made plenty of ammunition in using German claims with large sections of German people trapped in foreign lands. It didn't help that Poland (and other nations) engaged in Polandization programs that forced the populace to conform to the Polish (or what have you) majority. When WW2 ended, the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia went "Right, we're not going to have Germany stir any more shit in future, so any Germans still in our lands are getting the boot and leaving NOW." Yugoslavia did the same with the Italians in their territories, and Tito quashed the ethnic issues and the assorted atrocities under show trials and pretending that everything was hunky-dory now*. In the process, any other 'undesired' ethnic groups were told to be obedient or GTFO, mostly to tie up any loose ends. There were no mass slaughters like what the Germans did, of course, it was just forced evictions and confiscations.

An example of this pre-WW2 was the Turkish War of Independence. Anatolia may have been Turkified over the centuries, but the coastline remained largely Greek even under centuries of Ottoman rule. When the Entente gave the Greeks all their historic territory, and they proceeded to kill or evict as many Turks as possible. Ataturk revolted against the weak and useless Sultan, rallied his forces, and turned the tide, forcing the Greeks off the mainland, and forcing the Greeks to evict their remaining Greek population from what is now the western Turkish coastline. Greece still held the islands, but the Turks made sure that what they now held was Turkified - including the newly rechristened Istanbul, just to remove any trace of its former Greek heritage.

* - and in case you missed it, no, burying everything under a level of denial merely postponed the issue, didn't solve it. Ten years after Tito died, Yugoslavia exploded in a mess of ethnic hatred and racial violence.

EDIT: Just to clarify a mistake, I realize the German Empire wasn't formed until 1871, but up until the Napoleonic Wars it was under the domain of the ailing Holy Roman Empire and generally was a Germanic entity throughout. Yes, the myriad states in it had a bit of freedom, but overall, the HRE was an entity holding Central Europe together by a throne rather than by ethnicity, though it did help that a large part of its territories were German ethnic.

Hell, just by looking at this map, it's easy to see where the 1871 German borders stand in comparison to the HRE of 1789 (at the cusp of the French Revolution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png
 
Last edited:
Spanish Morocco, minus Ceuta and Melilla, is placed under French control, probably strapped to French Morocco.
I could actually see them losing Ceuta and Melilla as well, being added to a Morocco that was under French protection as you write.


Spanish Sahara is probably placed under French control. Possibly split between Morocco and Mauritania.
I suppose the question is would they want it? IIRC Italy continued to govern their Somali territory as a UN Trust Territory, if there's not an economic advantage to someone taking over the colony I could see similar happening there.

Another question is whether Morocco was claiming the area as their rightful territory at the time or if that came later? If they were then I could see Spain being deprived of the area above the 26th parallel north, it being bolted on to Morocco, and Spain being left with the remainder.
 

iVC

Donor
I can also see modern alt-rights unable to pretend that Falangism and Nationalism are great ideas and so on and so on.
 
I see. Basically, eastern europe was much patchier. Perhaps Ceuta and Melila could be considered "unpatched" areas that needed to be ironed out? And if not deportations, then maybe forced "de Hispanification" of these cities, like how Alcase Lorraine was intensley de Germanized.

Another question is whether Morocco was claiming the area as their rightful territory at the time or if that came later? If they were then I could see Spain being deprived of the area above the 26th parallel north, it being bolted on to Morocco, and Spain being left with the remainder.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be given the whole territory
 
I see. Basically, eastern europe was much patchier. Perhaps Ceuta and Melila could be considered "unpatched" areas that needed to be ironed out? And if not deportations, then maybe forced "de Hispanification" of these cities, like how Alcase Lorraine was intensley de Germanized.
The fly in this particular ointment is that the WAllies were white folk, so they're not going to hand over a European city to a bunch of brownskins. It's an ugly truth, but it's there (read up on the Free French forces and the Liberation of Paris sometime). Plus, unlike Kemal Ataturk's successful revolt, the Moroccans had no leaders or forces capable of evicting the Spanish out of those cities, even after independence; hell, they were still a sort-of colony themselves at the time, divided between the Spanish and French territories.

For extra irony, the Moroccans weren't particularly averse to Franco's rule. In fact, several Moroccan units were some of Franco's best country forces, fighting the Republicans during the Civil War. Then again, it was a case of either fighting for the conservative Franco, or fighting for the atheist socialists who kept trying to force their unwelcome ideas on everyone.

The only reason Ceuta and Melilla would be removed from Spanish sovereignty is either because the Spanish did Bad Stuff(TM) in North Africa as the Germans did in Eastern Europe, or because those cities remaining in Spanish hands would be regarded a security threat to the region (unlikely). In either case, they'd end up under UN trusteeship or French custody. It would take quite a bit before Morocco would be allowed to take them back.
 
Good point. Alfonso died in 1941 and Juan Carlos was born just afterwards. That means either having a Queen Regent for 18 years (pretty much as OTL) or finding another chap somewhere in the line of succession, but he could be accused of usurping the throne. A republic seems to be the best option.

If Gibraltar falls as seems likely, what are the chances of the UK claiming a bigger chunk of that area after they get it back? Or would the US insist the British give up the colony?

Actually the father of Juan Carlos, Don Juan is alive in 1941. The reason he was passed over for his son was that he was deemed too liberal in Franco’s eyes. In this situation a restored monarchy in the person of Don Juan is a better option for Spain than an unstable republic.
 
WWII might be considered to have started during the Spanish Civil War with the phase of the Second Sino-Japanese War before 1939 also being considered part of it.
 
The fly in this particular ointment is that the WAllies were white folk, so they're not going to hand over a European city to a bunch of brownskins. It's an ugly truth, but it's there (read up on the Free French forces and the Liberation of Paris sometime).
Didn't the actions of the Nazis discredit such overt racism?
 
Didn't the actions of the Nazis discredit such overt racism?
It took a while, let's be honest. The USA didn't want black soldiers to serve except in rear echelon and support roles, lest they get the combat skills to become more dangerous in future, yet with the mounting casualties, they were forced to accept black GIs for the Battle of the Bulge, and still maintained a racist view of the Japanese as "murderous savages". Similarly, while the Japanese-Americans were eventually let out of the internment camps, they got little compensation and lost their homes and businesses in the process. While the Holocaust was known even by 1944, it took a while for its full depth to be revealed and for the impact to be realized.

Part of the reason the whole Civil Rights Movement happened was because of the increased numbers of African-American servicemen, who were expected by the nation to serve then go back to segregation quietly. Needless to say, after being told they were fighting for freedom against the Japanese and Germans, that rung hollow for the black community, increasing the number of activists and protesters. Hell, the Civil Rights movement ostensibly gave the African American community full rights, yet issues of rights and race continue to this day.

Plus, there was this perspective about Western vs Eastern civilization. Spain was a decayed empire having lost all its glory and standing, and yet by virtue of being a Western civilization it was deemed better than the Arabs and Berbers of North Africa, who had regressed greatly in the seven centuries since the Abbasid Empire's fall. Morocco was a client/colony of two European empires (and thus inferior), so handing over Europeans to be ruled over by camel-riders would have been deemed insulting at the time.

Plus, even if overt racism was discredited, it doesn't prevent the WAllies from disguising their prejudice with other excuses.

To give another idea how discrimination was rampant among the WAllies in WW2, a lot of inmates at the death camps were homosexual, whether male or female. They were identified with pink triangles and placed with rapists and sexual deviants, while lesbians were marked with black triangles. The moment the WAllies liberated the camps and figured out the meaning of the symbols, they sent the gay men right back in to serve time in Allied prisons.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gay-prisoners-germany-wwii/

Granted, race and sexual orientation were different issues even back then, but it just shows we're dealing with a very different time back then. It wasn't nice or pretty, and we're lucky the Allies were better than the Nazis, in that they at least paid lip service to civil rights and such. And they got better over time.
 
Another thing, Spain won't be available for ex-Nazi's to go to. So Skorzney and his cronies will probably go to Argentina instead...
 
Spain loses all uits remaining colonies, including Ceuta and Melilla.
Catalonia and the Basque Country get their independence, despite France fuming on the issue.
A referendum is held, and the country eventually reverts to republican rule once and for all, entering NATO in 1949 (the left having been mostly exterminated by Franco before and during the war).
 
Top