I suppose you could get that if the Finns lost the Winter War, but I don't think that's what people have in mind...
Spain, Sweden, and Turkey join the Axis
- Thread starter Rex Romanum
- Start date
- Status
I suppose you could get that if the Finns lost the Winter War, but I don't think that's what people have in mind...
I'm not a member of the party, but yeah, I don't think Turkey, Spain and Sweden can strategically impact US production at all, so USA wins.
Grabbing Gibraltar is fully possible with Spain in the Axis; I fail to see how those three countries increase Tobruk's or Benghazi's port capacity. I will concede that a 'flank' attack from Turkey through Syria to grab either Mideast oil or rear-strike Suez is interesting. But the same logisitical concerns remain; the RN will still enjoy unchallenged command of the sea, and America has plenty of oil.
Not possible. The USA is simply too strong.
Murmansk is iffy for the Soviets then, yes, but the Axis lack the logistics to get to Archangelsk. Leningrad would be a charnel-house; yes the Swedes and Finns take it, no they don't have armies afterward. Just ask Romania about assaulting large Soviet cities.
The 'rebels' in the MidEast hated the Ottomans (Turkey) far more than the ever did the British and French. The Turkish Army is 1940 was about 25 divisions; mostly deployed along the frontiers with the USSR and Greece. While they could redeploy to Syria, how much logistical support do they have, and how much can they move? Not much.
While I don't understand why Portugal would join the Axis, the Med could get very unfriendly to the Allies. Gibraltar would probably fall. Of course, the Horn of Africa is still there, and Gibraltar is not between North America and the UK.
Why? Britain is in essentially the same poisition, even without Egypt, and the USSR faces a few more Axis minors. Neither has the need to surrender, and the USSR doesn't have that option. Both would have contingincy plans for the scenario the OP described (presuming these three countries didn't just wake up and join the Axis for no reason) and be prepared for it.
Now we've entered the realms of logisitical fantasy. An invasion of India though Iran. Wow. The last European to even TRY that was Alexander the Great - and he failed. Good luck Adolph, with THAT overland supply line.
Allright, this last part is just plain nuts. As noted, the UK and USSR ain't leaving. The Sweden+Turkey+Spain production is way, way, way less than Canada's, and doesn't significanty shift the economic balance.
The key to Allied success in WWII is a combination of technology, production, and strategic mobility. Sweden Spain and Turkey do not change this paradigm. Realistically, Spain adds that much more coastlin for the Atlantic Wall to guard.
Mike Turcotte
The Sandman
Banned
Sweden is actually the easiest of the three to draw into the war; just have the Franco-British plan to land at Narvik and then seize the Swedish iron mines get moved up so that it happens before the German invasion of Norway renders it moot. The Swedes won't exactly be comfortable in the Axis, but just rolling over and accepting the invasion of their country and the destruction of one of the pillars of their economy doesn't seem like a viable option to me.
Spain and Turkey are much harder. The Spanish have just come out of three years of civil war, and they aren't in any condition to lend much more than OTL's token support to the Axis cause. Turkey would need to rearm a significant portion of its military, has relatively little to gain, and since the infrastructure in eastern Anatolia was in the main poor to nonexistent they wouldn't actually be that useful as a vector to invade the Caucasus or Iraq.
Honestly, I can't see either of them coming into the war until they're absolutely sure who's going to win (as was the case with Turkey IOTL). So in order to make this work, you probably have to have the Germans knock Britain out of the war sometime in 1940, at which point Sweden has already been dragged in and Spain is likely to jump in so they can make a claim on Gibraltar at the peace talks. Turkey might then go for Mosul, since it doesn't cost them all that much if the Empire is coming apart thanks to the fall of Britain.
Spain and Turkey are much harder. The Spanish have just come out of three years of civil war, and they aren't in any condition to lend much more than OTL's token support to the Axis cause. Turkey would need to rearm a significant portion of its military, has relatively little to gain, and since the infrastructure in eastern Anatolia was in the main poor to nonexistent they wouldn't actually be that useful as a vector to invade the Caucasus or Iraq.
Honestly, I can't see either of them coming into the war until they're absolutely sure who's going to win (as was the case with Turkey IOTL). So in order to make this work, you probably have to have the Germans knock Britain out of the war sometime in 1940, at which point Sweden has already been dragged in and Spain is likely to jump in so they can make a claim on Gibraltar at the peace talks. Turkey might then go for Mosul, since it doesn't cost them all that much if the Empire is coming apart thanks to the fall of Britain.
It seems to me that there is a slight possibility of the UK suing for peace if Spain joins the war and manages to take Gibraltar in early summer of 1940, and Churchill does not get the PM spot, although that would require an earlier POD (on the other hand, so would Spain joining the war most likely). In that case, US logistical and industrial superiority doesn't really matter, as it won't be joining a war that's already over. It seems likelier that the UK will stay in the war however.
Don Grey
Banned
axis still loses it just takes longer so germany might get nuked. All this does is have germany take the baku oil fields and you increase the size of the soviet horror show. I dont know about sweden but spain had just come out of a costly civil war and franco wasnt stupid he would make outlandish demands that could never be met and if met make more. Turkey is however the least likely to join as ataturk specificaly said not to join the next great war and people are forgeting greeks and armenian horribly ravished anatolia. Turkey just did not have the any intention of joining another war.
The Turks wouldn't want war because the Turkish Republic was explicitly anti-Ottoman; Ataturk's politics was explicitly non-interventionist and anti-imperial; the Republic believed in national self-determination and non-intervention. The entire military and state ethos was one of armed neutrality.
While the political shock would be staggering, none of this changes the strategic situation of the war.
Sweden, Turkey, and Spain have very little ability to project power, and their participation in the war will have negligible results.
Spain may get Gibraltar, but loses its entire colonial empire. Spanish Morocco, the Canaries, and probably Majorca are all lost in return. Plenty of British bases now available in the western Mediterranean. The Axis don't gain any advantage other than some nice airbases in a forward position, but those planes still need to be moved from somewhere else - so what aren't they bombing if they are in Spain?
In addition, the likely reason Spain would join the Axis would be if Hitler agreed to give French possessions to Spain. If so, almost all of French colonial Africa declares for the Free French. If done too early, it is almost a given that France never signs an armistice and continues to fight and completely eliminates the Vichy state. (If Spain's entry causes Portugal to declare for the Axis as another poster stated, again all that means is Portugal loses its colonial possessions, especially the Azores, very quickly.)
Turkey will create some difficulty in the Middle East, but basically has too inferior an army to really create trouble. It's major use would be to serve as a base to attack the Soviet Caucasus.
Sweden offers very little. Some additional troops to attack the Soviets on the northern front.
None of this changes the war fundamentally although during the war there would be a lot more scares.
Even if we assume that Sweden and Turkey joining the Axis doesn't cause Stalin to be smarter, the extra forces available to the Axis against the Soviets still don't knock the Soviets out of the war. Attacking in the mountainous Caucasus is going to be horrendous. Even if bolstered by some German mountain divisions, the Turks aren't going to seize Baku.
Even if we assume a stunning defeat in the north, losing Leningrad or even Murmansk isn't going to knock the Soviets out of the war. There is still Archangel for the arctic convoys, and most support is being sent by the Indian Ocean/Persian or Vladivostok routes. The Soviets will be beat up a bit more, and have more ground to gain. But all a Soviet delay does is mean the Western Allies liberate more territory that historically went to the Soviets.
Once the US gets into the war, Hitler has a large coastline he can't adequately defend. If French Africa hasn't already declared for Free France, then Torch still happens. If French Africa is part of the Allied cause, then November 1942 might see American and British landings on Spain with the intention of holding a base south of the Pyrenees. No matter how much the Americans still need to learn, the US and UK will pound Franco's army into oblivion very quickly.
The postwar world will be different of course. Turkey will either become totally Sovietized or at least lose its eastern half as the Soviets make an expanded Armenia. A return to the Spanish Republic. More non-Communist countries in Eastern Europe. A very tortured postwar history in Sweden as people wonder what the government was thinking.
Sweden, Turkey, and Spain have very little ability to project power, and their participation in the war will have negligible results.
Spain may get Gibraltar, but loses its entire colonial empire. Spanish Morocco, the Canaries, and probably Majorca are all lost in return. Plenty of British bases now available in the western Mediterranean. The Axis don't gain any advantage other than some nice airbases in a forward position, but those planes still need to be moved from somewhere else - so what aren't they bombing if they are in Spain?
In addition, the likely reason Spain would join the Axis would be if Hitler agreed to give French possessions to Spain. If so, almost all of French colonial Africa declares for the Free French. If done too early, it is almost a given that France never signs an armistice and continues to fight and completely eliminates the Vichy state. (If Spain's entry causes Portugal to declare for the Axis as another poster stated, again all that means is Portugal loses its colonial possessions, especially the Azores, very quickly.)
Turkey will create some difficulty in the Middle East, but basically has too inferior an army to really create trouble. It's major use would be to serve as a base to attack the Soviet Caucasus.
Sweden offers very little. Some additional troops to attack the Soviets on the northern front.
None of this changes the war fundamentally although during the war there would be a lot more scares.
Even if we assume that Sweden and Turkey joining the Axis doesn't cause Stalin to be smarter, the extra forces available to the Axis against the Soviets still don't knock the Soviets out of the war. Attacking in the mountainous Caucasus is going to be horrendous. Even if bolstered by some German mountain divisions, the Turks aren't going to seize Baku.
Even if we assume a stunning defeat in the north, losing Leningrad or even Murmansk isn't going to knock the Soviets out of the war. There is still Archangel for the arctic convoys, and most support is being sent by the Indian Ocean/Persian or Vladivostok routes. The Soviets will be beat up a bit more, and have more ground to gain. But all a Soviet delay does is mean the Western Allies liberate more territory that historically went to the Soviets.
Once the US gets into the war, Hitler has a large coastline he can't adequately defend. If French Africa hasn't already declared for Free France, then Torch still happens. If French Africa is part of the Allied cause, then November 1942 might see American and British landings on Spain with the intention of holding a base south of the Pyrenees. No matter how much the Americans still need to learn, the US and UK will pound Franco's army into oblivion very quickly.
The postwar world will be different of course. Turkey will either become totally Sovietized or at least lose its eastern half as the Soviets make an expanded Armenia. A return to the Spanish Republic. More non-Communist countries in Eastern Europe. A very tortured postwar history in Sweden as people wonder what the government was thinking.
I doubt Franco would do this. He knew how weak his country was after the civil war and war would probably cause republicans to come back out of the woodwork financed by the British.
Also I doubt Franco would go for bits of Mainland France. Southern France has lots of Basques and Catalans who he didn't like and he wanted to keep Spain as one nation with the Castillians as a majority and adding a couple of million pissed off French/Occetians wouldn't help that.
You would also have to deal with the British and Gibralter, Spain is very vunarable to attack from the sea and the Spanish army was probably at one of its weakest points and the country was unstable as the republicans were still around
The other thing that nobody has talked about (that I have noticed) is logistics and production. Basically Span and Turkey are resource sinks for at least the first two years they are in the Axis. They are in horrible shape for military production and Span is importing on the order of 60% of its food. So...Germany is going to have to make that up, plus enough to equip the Spanish and Turkish forces to levels where they are useful for modern warfare.
As for taking Gibraltar there is the little problem of the Spanish transport system being completely trashed (OTL it was not rebuilt to pre-Civil war levels until the mid 1950s). Trying to support a full scale assault on Gibraltar is a non-trivial exercise needing several divisions, several artillery brigades and several dozen squadrons of air support. The fort there was a very hard target, supporting that level of army over Spanish roads w/o improving the roads means that quite a bit of Spain will be going hungry if they don't finish quickly - which is frankly unlikely. This could very quite possibly kick of round 2 of Spanish Civil war. There are lots of reasons that Franco stayed out of the Axis - he knew all of this and didn't want to risk kicking of that second round of the war.
As for Turkey, the Arabs really really didn't like the Ottomans - which is what they saw Turkey as. They are likely to see any attempt by Turkey to attack the Middle East as an attempt to regain the Ottoman Empire and wow - you will see the Arab Nationalists switching sides back to the Allies as fast as you can say "Ottoman Empire" none of them, and I mean none of them want the Empire back. And they will not believe a word that the Turks say about not wanting the Empire again, too much history there, and it hasn't been long enough since the Ottomans were "The Empire" in the middle east in the early 1940s to have anyone forget. There are still people alive who fought the Ottomans in WWI alongside the British at that time.
Then lets talk about the Turkish transport infrastructure. Frankly it makes Spain's look good even after the SCW. You might, maybe, possibly be able to support a single non-mechanized army either the Middle East or in the Caucasus through Turkey. You couldn't support both. It would take several years of major effort to upgrade this. And if I were Turkey I would be asking for this as part of the agreement to join...
So you have
1) A drain on German resources to feed Spain.
2) A drain on German resources to Arm Spain and Turkey.
3) A possible new Spanish Civil war if Germany jumps in to take Gibraltar before upgrading the Spanish transport infrastructure, or a delay while they do upgrade the infrastructure (that points the British to exactly what the Germans are doing...).
4) A drain of German resources to upgrade Turkish transport infrastructure - or you can't make use of the wonderful land routes you have just gotten.
5) You just pushed the Arab Nationalists you were supporting against the British to switch back to the British by bringing the "Ottomans" in on your side.
I think there are more negatives than positives...
As for taking Gibraltar there is the little problem of the Spanish transport system being completely trashed (OTL it was not rebuilt to pre-Civil war levels until the mid 1950s). Trying to support a full scale assault on Gibraltar is a non-trivial exercise needing several divisions, several artillery brigades and several dozen squadrons of air support. The fort there was a very hard target, supporting that level of army over Spanish roads w/o improving the roads means that quite a bit of Spain will be going hungry if they don't finish quickly - which is frankly unlikely. This could very quite possibly kick of round 2 of Spanish Civil war. There are lots of reasons that Franco stayed out of the Axis - he knew all of this and didn't want to risk kicking of that second round of the war.
As for Turkey, the Arabs really really didn't like the Ottomans - which is what they saw Turkey as. They are likely to see any attempt by Turkey to attack the Middle East as an attempt to regain the Ottoman Empire and wow - you will see the Arab Nationalists switching sides back to the Allies as fast as you can say "Ottoman Empire" none of them, and I mean none of them want the Empire back. And they will not believe a word that the Turks say about not wanting the Empire again, too much history there, and it hasn't been long enough since the Ottomans were "The Empire" in the middle east in the early 1940s to have anyone forget. There are still people alive who fought the Ottomans in WWI alongside the British at that time.
Then lets talk about the Turkish transport infrastructure. Frankly it makes Spain's look good even after the SCW. You might, maybe, possibly be able to support a single non-mechanized army either the Middle East or in the Caucasus through Turkey. You couldn't support both. It would take several years of major effort to upgrade this. And if I were Turkey I would be asking for this as part of the agreement to join...
So you have
1) A drain on German resources to feed Spain.
2) A drain on German resources to Arm Spain and Turkey.
3) A possible new Spanish Civil war if Germany jumps in to take Gibraltar before upgrading the Spanish transport infrastructure, or a delay while they do upgrade the infrastructure (that points the British to exactly what the Germans are doing...).
4) A drain of German resources to upgrade Turkish transport infrastructure - or you can't make use of the wonderful land routes you have just gotten.
5) You just pushed the Arab Nationalists you were supporting against the British to switch back to the British by bringing the "Ottomans" in on your side.
I think there are more negatives than positives...
History, up until 1918 the Ottoman Empire (which was the precursor to modern Turkey) controls all of the Middle East and ruled as a traditional Empire. Large parts of the early 20th century before WWI involved the Turkish core of the Ottoman empire putting down nationalist movements in parts of the empire. Just because they share a religion did not make them friends, the Ottomans and the Arabs and the Persians historically really didn't get along very well.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=210914
I tried an Axis Spain in this thread. But everyone agreed it was very bad for the Axis.
I tried an Axis Spain in this thread. But everyone agreed it was very bad for the Axis.
Hkelukka
Banned
Sorry for the long post! 
The reason most people fail to see why Sp-Sw-Tu joining would be a major boost is that they are used to the 1944 ww2 situation, not the 1940-1942 ww2 situation.
IF the war stretches to 1943-44 then yes, the US production numbers are going to have a serious effect on the war, and potentially eventually turn it into an axis defeat.
But until the increased US production starts having a serious effect on the European theather, thats not the real question is it.
The real question is how long do you give the Axis powers to fortify Europe before the US enters the war, and just how determined the US is to slug it out.
We know in hindsight that as long as the going was good, the US would stay in the war. So, lets then safely say that the US is unlikely to accept a peace unless left entirely alone, and at which point it would be NK-SK style "peace"
The real effect of Spain joining is the shortening of the Axis defensive perimeter from the entire Med coastline to just the E-med coastline. Since no Allied amfb convoy would try to run the two blockades(gib/sicily). Gib falling is irrelevant as long as the function of Gib can be filled without Gib itself. In other words. IF you use airpower to firstly force the fleet away from Gib (or turn it into one giant one-sided sinking match if the UK tries to hold onto the naval presence in Gib for months) you can effectively blockade both Gib and the entire W-med
The presence of Gib would of course inhibit axis shipping through the straits as well, but that is of far lesser importance since its possible to unload cargo anywhere in Spain-France and move it overland to any Spanish-French Med city and reload there. It would be a logistics hassle but still, hardly a major setback.
It would be entirely possible for the Axis to ignore the Spanish railroad infra and use the port system. It might not be pretty but it can be done.
So, Spain joining secures the entire W-Med from any allied invasion until either Sicily or Africa falls to the Allies.
The only really threathened Spanish area would be the Canaries. And if you have ever been to those islands, you'll agree when I Say, good luck in trying to mount a succesful amfb operation against a Axis military that is determined to hold onto the islands. In 1943-44 it might be possibly but absolutely not in 1941 or 42. The UK simply doesn't have the naval power required to both project aerial superiority and secure the landing zones against the massive German response that would follow any attempt. And you don't start island hopping if you got a land border with the Axis, which the UK would have.
The next question is if Spain closes the W-Med and Turkey joins is it enough to force the UK out of the Suez. The UK Would make it the fight of its life but it might not be enough. It would go on for months but if it doesn't work for the UK, then its game over.
Because the occupation of the Suez would allow every single axis unit in the med to be moved to E-Front, no need to garrison anything in the med anymore. Combined with the now entirely secure South-European industry that the UK just can not hit. There goes the Ploesti oil raids and the constant threat of air attacks against Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and so on.
While Turkey and Spain are both militarily relatively small, the impact they can have IF they both focus on 1 thing at a time is massive.
Spain will be able to render W-Med inaccesible to the allies, and it will be able to hold onto the Canary islands well into the 1943 giving the UK a serious headache. Especially if Germany stationes 200 or so dive bombers for anti-convoy duty with secondary emphasis on attacking any invasion fleets.
So, Spain provides a incredibly good Anti-Convoy base in the Atlantic, and frees the entire W-Med from axis having to garrison any of it. In exchange for requiring food imports and possibly some help with its atlantic wall. IF it can actually spare units its a slight bonus, the main effect being the Gib-Med-Canary
Same applies to Turkey, militarily mostly irrelevant its position allows it to play a key strategic role. The UK position in the Mid-East at about the first battle of El-Alamein was precarious. The addition of even one fully armored German corps in Iraq supported by luftwaffe from its Turkish airbases and with what ever secondary turkish land units that can be spared would be a serious problem. Add to that the already brewing anti-UK sentiment in the middle east and the possibility of German armies swooping in, the situation might be entirely un-managable for the UK.
It's impossible to say with certainty but judging by the military situation after Rommel was sent to Africa, the addition of losing the Gib and Axis forces advancing south through the mid-east the UK might actually lose its middle-east holdings.
Once again, this is mostly relevant because it allows the axis units to redeploy from the E-Med to either Eqypt-Sudan border or the E-Front. Even if they later lose the Suez again, it is possible to destroy the channel so entirely that it will take months if not years to open again.
While both Turkey and Spain are militarily relatively small on their own, the opportunities to the axis that they provide, are massive indeed.
Swedens major commitment would be in resource production for its axis partners, such as food. But it could mobilize about 400.000-1.200.000 million men of various quality between 1940 to 1945 while being at peace. Certainly not a massive amount but well motivated and lead, could flip the favor in a few major engagements, not enough on their own but still, quite good.
It all depends on the POD that is used to allow the three to join.
The following might be accetable:
Winter war escalates and Sweden joins the war, later the two join the axis in later 1940 or early 1941. Followed by both having a massive re-armament similar to what Finland had in 1940.
Franco dies during the SCW and the new guy in charge is pro-axis instead of pro-neutrality and eyes the war looking for a good opportunity to join. Spends 1-2 years after SCW to fortify its atlantic coast, prepare to invade gib and fortify Canary and expand the airbase and ports there.
Turkey is a bit more difficult so I cant really say.
---
TLR:
Spain secures W-Med and allows axis units there to transfer to the E-Front.
Spain offers Canary islands to the Axis for U-Boat and Dive Bomber use.
Spain shortens the Axis defensive perimeter from the W-Med to simply the Spanish atlantic Coast.
Turkey offers the Axis a real shot of taking the Suez.
Sweden offers the Axis a increased food + resource production and enough extra force to take both Leningrad and Murmansk when combined with the inherent increase in the Finnish desire to fight.
The three combined would allow such a additional deployment of force against the SU in 1942 that even the vaunted Red army would be on the ropes.
In 1942 you might be looking at a situation where the UK has not won a major engagement in the war other than BoB and has lost every major land engagement with the Axis from the start of the war.
Where the SU has lost Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad and by the 1943 spring is facing a three directional push towards Moscow.
The UK would be very hard pressed to stay in the war and by 1943 spring the USSR might not be alive in any real way outside of Moscow and Siberia.
The reason most people fail to see why Sp-Sw-Tu joining would be a major boost is that they are used to the 1944 ww2 situation, not the 1940-1942 ww2 situation.
IF the war stretches to 1943-44 then yes, the US production numbers are going to have a serious effect on the war, and potentially eventually turn it into an axis defeat.
But until the increased US production starts having a serious effect on the European theather, thats not the real question is it.
The real question is how long do you give the Axis powers to fortify Europe before the US enters the war, and just how determined the US is to slug it out.
We know in hindsight that as long as the going was good, the US would stay in the war. So, lets then safely say that the US is unlikely to accept a peace unless left entirely alone, and at which point it would be NK-SK style "peace"
The real effect of Spain joining is the shortening of the Axis defensive perimeter from the entire Med coastline to just the E-med coastline. Since no Allied amfb convoy would try to run the two blockades(gib/sicily). Gib falling is irrelevant as long as the function of Gib can be filled without Gib itself. In other words. IF you use airpower to firstly force the fleet away from Gib (or turn it into one giant one-sided sinking match if the UK tries to hold onto the naval presence in Gib for months) you can effectively blockade both Gib and the entire W-med
The presence of Gib would of course inhibit axis shipping through the straits as well, but that is of far lesser importance since its possible to unload cargo anywhere in Spain-France and move it overland to any Spanish-French Med city and reload there. It would be a logistics hassle but still, hardly a major setback.
It would be entirely possible for the Axis to ignore the Spanish railroad infra and use the port system. It might not be pretty but it can be done.
So, Spain joining secures the entire W-Med from any allied invasion until either Sicily or Africa falls to the Allies.
The only really threathened Spanish area would be the Canaries. And if you have ever been to those islands, you'll agree when I Say, good luck in trying to mount a succesful amfb operation against a Axis military that is determined to hold onto the islands. In 1943-44 it might be possibly but absolutely not in 1941 or 42. The UK simply doesn't have the naval power required to both project aerial superiority and secure the landing zones against the massive German response that would follow any attempt. And you don't start island hopping if you got a land border with the Axis, which the UK would have.
The next question is if Spain closes the W-Med and Turkey joins is it enough to force the UK out of the Suez. The UK Would make it the fight of its life but it might not be enough. It would go on for months but if it doesn't work for the UK, then its game over.
Because the occupation of the Suez would allow every single axis unit in the med to be moved to E-Front, no need to garrison anything in the med anymore. Combined with the now entirely secure South-European industry that the UK just can not hit. There goes the Ploesti oil raids and the constant threat of air attacks against Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and so on.
While Turkey and Spain are both militarily relatively small, the impact they can have IF they both focus on 1 thing at a time is massive.
Spain will be able to render W-Med inaccesible to the allies, and it will be able to hold onto the Canary islands well into the 1943 giving the UK a serious headache. Especially if Germany stationes 200 or so dive bombers for anti-convoy duty with secondary emphasis on attacking any invasion fleets.
So, Spain provides a incredibly good Anti-Convoy base in the Atlantic, and frees the entire W-Med from axis having to garrison any of it. In exchange for requiring food imports and possibly some help with its atlantic wall. IF it can actually spare units its a slight bonus, the main effect being the Gib-Med-Canary
Same applies to Turkey, militarily mostly irrelevant its position allows it to play a key strategic role. The UK position in the Mid-East at about the first battle of El-Alamein was precarious. The addition of even one fully armored German corps in Iraq supported by luftwaffe from its Turkish airbases and with what ever secondary turkish land units that can be spared would be a serious problem. Add to that the already brewing anti-UK sentiment in the middle east and the possibility of German armies swooping in, the situation might be entirely un-managable for the UK.
It's impossible to say with certainty but judging by the military situation after Rommel was sent to Africa, the addition of losing the Gib and Axis forces advancing south through the mid-east the UK might actually lose its middle-east holdings.
Once again, this is mostly relevant because it allows the axis units to redeploy from the E-Med to either Eqypt-Sudan border or the E-Front. Even if they later lose the Suez again, it is possible to destroy the channel so entirely that it will take months if not years to open again.
While both Turkey and Spain are militarily relatively small on their own, the opportunities to the axis that they provide, are massive indeed.
Swedens major commitment would be in resource production for its axis partners, such as food. But it could mobilize about 400.000-1.200.000 million men of various quality between 1940 to 1945 while being at peace. Certainly not a massive amount but well motivated and lead, could flip the favor in a few major engagements, not enough on their own but still, quite good.
It all depends on the POD that is used to allow the three to join.
The following might be accetable:
Winter war escalates and Sweden joins the war, later the two join the axis in later 1940 or early 1941. Followed by both having a massive re-armament similar to what Finland had in 1940.
Franco dies during the SCW and the new guy in charge is pro-axis instead of pro-neutrality and eyes the war looking for a good opportunity to join. Spends 1-2 years after SCW to fortify its atlantic coast, prepare to invade gib and fortify Canary and expand the airbase and ports there.
Turkey is a bit more difficult so I cant really say.
---
TL
R:Spain secures W-Med and allows axis units there to transfer to the E-Front.
Spain offers Canary islands to the Axis for U-Boat and Dive Bomber use.
Spain shortens the Axis defensive perimeter from the W-Med to simply the Spanish atlantic Coast.
Turkey offers the Axis a real shot of taking the Suez.
Sweden offers the Axis a increased food + resource production and enough extra force to take both Leningrad and Murmansk when combined with the inherent increase in the Finnish desire to fight.
The three combined would allow such a additional deployment of force against the SU in 1942 that even the vaunted Red army would be on the ropes.
In 1942 you might be looking at a situation where the UK has not won a major engagement in the war other than BoB and has lost every major land engagement with the Axis from the start of the war.
Where the SU has lost Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad and by the 1943 spring is facing a three directional push towards Moscow.
The UK would be very hard pressed to stay in the war and by 1943 spring the USSR might not be alive in any real way outside of Moscow and Siberia.
Don Grey
Banned
History? that pretty vogue.Thats not even an answer. The proper answer is your making asumptions realying on half-turths. There was no turkish core. And there was no "Arab revolt" in a fashion victorian history discribes it as. Your confiusing the deliousional dreams of imperial grandure that one hashmate sherif hand with a hand full of bedouins that were promised land money and title. Ottomans only put down christian nationalist movements there was no arab nationalist revolt that the ottomans put down. More arabs died in the med east fighting for the ottoman caliph then against him.
Last edited:
Don Grey
Banned
Mustafa kemal built quite a bit of infrastructer in anatolia from roads brigdes to rails. How ever still not on par with say the soviets. I dont know why turkey would join the axis when they didnt even join the allies while they had figured out they would win. Turkey's sole perpose of the time was rebuilding there nations. They also required no land as as ww1 greeks and armenians seriously depopulated anatolia to a point the idea of lebansraum would be laughable. Only way turkey joins the axis is stalin goes of the deep and and tries a mass invasion of turkey. And this will only get you a finland-like turkey. Not realy in axis nations but just doesnt want to be absorbed by the soviets.
Hkelukka
Banned
Only reason would be, far as I can tell, if the Arabic population of the Mid-East are far more succesful in their revolts and instead of opting for nationalism, they opt for a return of the arabic/muslim unified nation/kaliphate, modeled after Germania.
So, assume that Turkey is slightly less isolationist, but not by much, the Iraq revolts and the general area are far more volatile, and the people in the area beg to be re-admitted into unified Arab state lead by turkey.
Assume that the UK then cracks down hard on said revolts, as they did historically and the SU is somewhat stronger in its demand for Kars and that Germany offers Turkey control over the middle-east again, and offers Vichy France a return of several French core areas such as return of Paris in exchange for Syria-Lebanon being handed over to Turkey.
ITs a stretch but its not impossible.
Regarding a scenario where Turkey would join the axis.
How about something to do with the Greco-Turkish war after ww1 ? Bad luck, infighting and stupid mistakes on the Turkish side, a better showing by the greeks and much, much more support from the British, all leading to Greece keeping a foothold in Anatolia and a revanchist Turkish regime that hates Greece and Britain with a passion.
Sweden joins Central Powers in WWI because of Admiral Essen, then joins Axis in WWII because somehow the Norsefire Party becomes a real thing and takes over the government.
Turkey and Spain both joined the Axis in Shattered World, someone rebut that timeline.
Turkey and Spain both joined the Axis in Shattered World, someone rebut that timeline.
- Status