Spain, Sweden, and Turkey join the Axis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hkelukka

Banned
And, people, keep in mind that Sweden had been at peace and well managed for about a 100 years with a massive capital stockpile that could be used in re-armanent prior to joining similar to how Finland re-armed in the 1940-1941.

The army it had at peace time is another matter entirely compared to what would have happened if they went apeshit like Finland did and spent every penny they could spare in their military. A great Scandinavian spirit that pushes Sweden and Finland into a joint front against the SU will see Sweden spending massive amounts of money on a crash-rearmanent program. Money that Sweden has that countries like Turkey or Spain dont have.
 
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.
A) You are assuming that the Great War would go as OTL in an Admiral Essen scenario. If Sweden had joined of its own volition, that may have been a reasonable assumption, but the Essen Scenario will have other repercussions.
B) The link between the Essen Scenario and the 'Let's Reuse The Name Of Something From A Comic, Despite That There Were Native Parties That Would Fit Better' Party rising and taking over the government is, frankly, in need of significantly more elucidation than "somehow".
 

Don Grey

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.

This could work but it is a stretch.

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.

The greeks were genocidal in there aspiriations to creat megala idea. A better showing would have millions of turks liquadated which would make turkey weaker thus even more of drain on the axis. In an attempt to get revenge they could would wipe out the greeks and hitler wouldnt care hell he might send some SS to asist and show them how its properly down. If greece ever gets occupied by axis like in the otl it would be ass bad as what happend to the jews that is if the greeks and armenians have left the muslims with a leg to stand on. I think this is just making ww2 an even worse horror show of then it already was. The greeks dont have the population and reasource to maintain and protect large holding in asia minor and because of geopghraghy any smaller one such as just holding on to symyrna would get over run quite fast even if it wasnt for mustafa kemal. To push them back the entente would have to to go for total war agains what remaind of the ottoman empire marching deep into the harsh interior of anatolia ,which the entente did not want to as public wanted an end to war and they no longer had the means. And if they do, do that it makes turkey even less then a rump state which makes them even more of drain on axis. I think Hkelukka makes more sence is it more belivable and easyer to accomplish but i still firmly belive axis lose. Spain gets of lucky by just western occupation while turkey and finland and swedden gets abosrbed by the soviet empire wholely or partialy. either way very bad deal for turkey and sweden.

To get turkey in a entente you must make ww1 less costly and as well as the independence war or buttle fly the independence war. Since turkey has been seriously wounded to a point there still licking there wounds they became very anti-interventionist anti-irredentist anti-war. while in turth mustafa kemal and the nationalist originaly wanted western thrace some of teh eagean island northern iraq azerbeyjan and persian azerbeyjan. But givent he current conditions and there state at the time they just wanted an ende to the wars.
 
Last edited:
What else would you call a Nordic fascist party?
National Gathering/Unification. Other than that, it would tend to depend on which Nordic country is in question - for obvious reasons, Neo-Swedish People's League fits well for Sweden, not so well for Denmark or a pan-Scandinavian/Nordic movement.
 
You sir, are incorrect!

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.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There were several rebellions and rebellious factions calling for independence against the Ottoman Empire long before WW1. Egypt tried becoming independent and almost succeeded, but became a protectorate of the UK.

If there was no wish for independence, how do you explain all the arabs that rebelled during WW1?
There was serious ethnic tensions between turks and arabs, mostly because the arabs were treated like second-class citizens for centuries.

If you do not believe me, please look it up.
 
What else would you call a Nordic fascist party?

You would call it something that makes sense? "Norsefire" makes no sense in Swedish, as there is no commonly used equivalent of "norse", as in a separate word for the people living in Scandinavia in the viking era, in Swedish (nordmän exists, but is neither widely known nor used). Neither does it fit the naming scheme of existing parties, both minor and major, at the time. Party names were and are usually descriptive, including a central ideology and a word like "party" or "union" or similar.

The major parties at the time were the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party, The General Electoral League/National Organization of the Right, Farmer's League, The Liberal People's Party, The Socialist Party, The Communist Party of Sweden.

Real national-socialist and fascist parties at the time in Sweden had names like "National socialist People's party of Sweden", "Swedish National Socialist Party" or "Sweden's National socialist worker's party".

edit: Vidkun Quisling's Norwegian fascist party was called Nasjonal Samling, or National Gathering/National Unity.

A name like Norsefire is pure fantasy.
 
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.

Sorry, I had/have about 10 minutes to answer. There was no single Arab revolt yes, however there were several nationalistic revolts that happened in what is now Egypt, Iraq and Syria in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Ottoman Turks were not a particularly nice set of Imperial masters, they continued to function like it was the 12th/13th century right up until the early 20th century. Very few of the "man on the street" middle-easterners would really have wanted the Ottomans back if offered the chance in the early 1940s. They wanted no outside masters and the Ottomans were seen as just as much outside masters as the British, and at least the British were willing to talk about leaving. The Ottomans had been there for over 500 years and if they came back they were likely to not leave.
 

Don Grey

Banned
Sorry, I had/have about 10 minutes to answer. There was no single Arab revolt yes, however there were several nationalistic revolts that happened in what is now Egypt, Iraq and Syria in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Ottoman Turks were not a particularly nice set of Imperial masters, they continued to function like it was the 12th/13th century right up until the early 20th century. Very few of the "man on the street" middle-easterners would really have wanted the Ottomans back if offered the chance in the early 1940s. They wanted no outside masters and the Ottomans were seen as just as much outside masters as the British, and at least the British were willing to talk about leaving. The Ottomans had been there for over 500 years and if they came back they were likely to not leave.


I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There were several rebellions and rebellious factions calling for independence against the Ottoman Empire long before WW1. Egypt tried becoming independent and almost succeeded, but became a protectorate of the UK.

If there was no wish for independence, how do you explain all the arabs that rebelled during WW1?
There was serious ethnic tensions between turks and arabs, mostly because the arabs were treated like second-class citizens for centuries.

If you do not believe me, please look it up.

I have no idea where the hell you guyz are getting this from. Look it up is not an asnwer i coudl just as easly tell you the same. If your relying on victorian era bais history then were going to hjave problams. The egyption rebelion was not one of nationalism and teh arabs didnt see the ottomans as turkish. Call an ottoman a turk you would likely get slapped in the face for insulting the man. The arabs didnt rebel in ww1. oh for god sakes how man time as this been repeated in this board. the attemps of one sherif that wanted to be king with a handfull of mercenaries does not consitued a nationalist rebelion not to mention if you had called what you call an arab today an arab during the ottoman era again you would slapped in the face for insulting him. There was absolutly no ethnic tention between arabs an turks. Ethnic nationalism didnt effect the muslims at the time. The concepts of what is a turks and arab wasnt the same back then. and no the arabs were never treated as second class citizen. They were considered mohammed people and arabic was one of the langauges of the ottoman empire.

The least privalged class of the ottoman empire were the turks considered nothing but backwards redneck anatolian peasents.

You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

mowque

Banned

Let's go through this again.

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.
What units exactly are transferring? Surely the Germans would LOSE troops in having to now guards Spain and, in your mind, Portugal.

I agree that Canary Islands would be a pain but the British would take them before the Germans would have a chance to enforce it. Even in OTL.."During the Second World War, Winston Churchill prepared plans for the British seizure of the Canary Islands as a naval base, in the event of Gibraltar being invaded from the Spanish mainland." It was a discussed option and would be enacted quickly, probably with Portuguese help.

Turkey offers the Axis a real shot of taking the Suez.
How? You haven't explained how a Turkey that is hated by the Arabs (and the Vichy French), bordered by a now angry USSR, and with a terrible rail network, is going to cross the Mesopotamian desert.

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.
This is the best point, but do these too cities really matter? And taking such massive targets will effectively destroy the Swedish forces.

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.
Yes, it was on the ropes in OTL, but how does this help take Moscow, or convince the Russians to give up? As long as you have the SS butchering people, you only increase there will. And Russia doesn't get any smaller, or the Russians any less formidable fighters.

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.
How does this change North Africa? The logistics haven't changed. Also, there will be the usual Operation Ironclads and the like. And a Germany distracted with Spain, Turkey and Sweden might have a different success in Greece and the Balkans.

Where the SU has lost Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad and by the 1943 spring is facing a three directional push towards Moscow.
Yeah, how about no?

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.

None of the allies fix the main strategic problems facing the Nazi war machine, in regards to these two enemies. Not to mention, the USA will only support the UK even more.


P.S. My first AH thread was on this same subject.
 
Last edited:
Sweden - is there a benefit to the Axis having Sweden as an ally? They were already selling the Germans all the raw materials they wanted. You might get a few divisions of Swedish troops to help back Finland against Leningrad, but is it enough to make a difference? Even if Leningrad did fall, what strategic difference does it make to the outcome of the war given what would later happen at Stalingrad and Kursk? Sweden joining the Axis would be like Ireland joining the allies.

Spain - well as we all know Spain was a nation that had just enjoyed 3 years of highly destructive civil warfare. Their infrastructure was buggered, they had an experienced but war weary and poorly equipped army, a navy vastly inferior to the RN, and plenty of republicans at home that would gladly cause problems for the regime with British backing. It is also very dependant on not only food imports but oil imports from the US, which would very quickly dry up and would add an additional drain to the stretched German supplies.

However they do have the strategic bonus of holding both sides of the entrance to the Med. Britain's hold over Gibraltar is tentative at best. The Germans had several plans throughout the war to pass through Spain and take Gibraltar. Even with the guns of the RN it's difficult to see Britain holding onto the rock long term. This loss coupled with the ever increasing difficulty of running the blockade into the med makes supplying Malta, Cyprus and the BEF in Egypt this way more difficult if not impossible in the long term, potentially jeopardising these.

Of course the flip side to this is Britain pushed Italy back across Africa largely because they were inept, and it took the Germans to reinforce them to balance the two armies. Germany isn't going to be able to spare any more forces once they've invaded the USSR, so it remains for Spain to back Italy up. Regardless, Britain can still back it's Egyptian army up via the India ocean and the Suez canal if necessary.

The canary islands would become important as a potential submarine base for the axis to raid British shipping, or for the the British as a key stop on the convoy route. There'll be a rush after Spanish entry between the Germans wishing to reinforce and the British wanting to take the islands, although given the topography they could be difficult to hold long term.

However as long as Britain can achieve the key objectives of holding the middle east and taking the Canaries, once America enters the war there's only one winner. Spain offers extra man power and resource but it also means more territory to defend, and Spain is a much better "soft underbelly of Europe" for the Allies to invade than the narrow, mountainous Italian peninsular.

As for Turkey, well they didn't have much of an army or infrastructure. Any additional forces moving into the Balkans or through the Caucasus in support of Axis invasions is going to be negligible, the former as it would fall anyway, the latter as it is mountainous with poor links leaning to long supply lines, and at the end of it is Stalingrad. Throwing a few hundred thousand Turkish troops into the slaughter is only likely to lead to early Turkish withdrawal.

The only real benefit for Turkey other than claiming some spoils from Greece is an invasion of the middle east. Aside from the issues that would arise with their purported allies Vichy France, the British forces in the region might well still prove too strong for them. Nonetheless the combination of Turkey attacking from the north, Italian forces attacking across north Africa back by both German and now Spanish forces, and the logistical issues caused by the loss of Gibraltar and the closing of the entrance to the med could lead to an Axis victory in the middle east.

Of course the strategic value of this is questionable - the chances of being able to drive through Iran into India are slim, supplying an army over that length of difficult terrain would be nearly impossible. Threatening Russia through the Caucasus makes little difference - the Germans still managed to take Stalingrad without this added route, holding the middle east wouldn't stop the Red Army encircling them and crushing the 6th Army. The real bonus would be oil, the Axis would have lots, and the impetus would be on the Allies to take the region back.

Long term I still see an allied victory. The Germans aren't going to be able to win a war of attrition against the USSR the same as Japan isn't going to win a war of attrition against the USA. Germany still needs to starve out Britain to knock them out of the war as they can't invade by sea, and even with the canaries this isn't that much more likely to happen.
 
You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.

No need for language of that sort, and my source is not from Wikipedia.
What is your source, I'd really like to know.
Here is mine: http://www.arabsahistory.com/

A really detailed and good book written by an expert of arab history.
I really recommend it, it's a good read.
 
I have no idea where the hell you guyz are getting this from. Look it up is not an asnwer i coudl just as easly tell you the same. If your relying on victorian era bais history then were going to hjave problams. The egyption rebelion was not one of nationalism and teh arabs didnt see the ottomans as turkish. Call an ottoman a turk you would likely get slapped in the face for insulting the man. The arabs didnt rebel in ww1. oh for god sakes how man time as this been repeated in this board. the attemps of one sherif that wanted to be king with a handfull of mercenaries does not consitued a nationalist rebelion not to mention if you had called what you call an arab today an arab during the ottoman era again you would slapped in the face for insulting him. There was absolutly no ethnic tention between arabs an turks. Ethnic nationalism didnt effect the muslims at the time. The concepts of what is a turks and arab wasnt the same back then. and no the arabs were never treated as second class citizen. They were considered mohammed people and arabic was one of the langauges of the ottoman empire.

The least privalged class of the ottoman empire were the turks considered nothing but backwards redneck anatolian peasents.

You two guys understanding of the ottoman empire is so ass backwards i dont even know how to fix it.This is what happens when you study ottoman history from wikipedia.

Interesting, I didn't look on Wikipedia or online at all this is based on my reading over the last few decades. Not a quick lookup, I actually find your read on this completely backwards and am wondering where you got your information. There were ongoing tensions in EVERY empire that was built in the middle ages, the Ottomans just lasted longer. Some of the Arabs were privileged, some of the Turks were privileged. When I say "Turks" I was referring to the country of Turkey which in the minds of the Arabs in the 1940s would very easily take the place of "Ottomans" as the invaders. You are pointing to WWI, I mentioned WWI in passing. Most of the rebel movements that I talked about happened between 1860 and 1913 and there were (If I recall correctly) 6 of them in different parts of the Ottoman empire. Completely separate from the issue of WWI and the British supported rebels.

You seem to think the Middle East would welcome Turkey with open arms, I disagree. Do you have any evidence beyond saying that my understanding is backwards?
 
In order for sweden to join the axis the british would have to beat the germans in invading norway. If this allied invasion would result in sweden going axis there is a very distinct chance that churchill would never become PM of britain, the butterflies of this are big. there could be a british PM that is somewhat more tempted to negotiate in a later stage.
2nd a allied invasion of norway (and consequently swedens iron producing area) would make it more difficult for roosevelt to aid the british because this invasion would offset the political effects of the invasion of poland, i could imagine that a few more politicians in the us would lean towards isolationism.
So lets say the british invasion occurs before april 9th 1940, the more before that date (the invasion of denmark was on the 9th) the more butterflies. I could imagine no invasion of denmark because sweden is now in the axis. If this would influence fall gelb i don't know, but after getting sweden on their side they might operate slightly more political than strategic and bypassing the netherlands like they did in 1914.
What could sweden influence, like another poster suggested they could be very helpful in conquering the kola peninsula and with it murmansk, which would makegetting lendlease (if it even exists in this scenario) to the ussr.
In otl stalin was almost at the brink of giving up, and being enveloped from the north too could just be the straw that broke the camels back.
 
The Egyptian nationalist party "Wafd" advocated independence from foreign rulers, and not too long after several similar movements had risen in other middle eastern terriotories.
How is that not dissent towards the "Sublime Porte" in Istanbul?

Interesting, I didn't look on Wikipedia or online at all this is based on my reading over the last few decades. Not a quick lookup, I actually find your read on this completely backwards and am wondering where you got your information. There were ongoing tensions in EVERY empire that was built in the middle ages, the Ottomans just lasted longer. Some of the Arabs were privileged, some of the Turks were privileged. When I say "Turks" I was referring to the country of Turkey which in the minds of the Arabs in the 1940s would very easily take the place of "Ottomans" as the invaders. You are pointing to WWI, I mentioned WWI in passing. Most of the rebel movements that I talked about happened between 1860 and 1913 and there were (If I recall correctly) 6 of them in different parts of the Ottoman empire. Completely separate from the issue of WWI and the British supported rebels.

You seem to think the Middle East would welcome Turkey with open arms, I disagree. Do you have any evidence beyond saying that my understanding is backwards?

Also, seconded.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

Sweden joining the CP in WW1 means no WW2 as we know it. Unless one assumes the Russians ignore the Swedes and the Swedes are purely passive, it has large impacts on WW1. There have been several threads on what the Swedes do, and how the Russians and UK counter react. Below is what i consider pretty safe in most POD.

1) Russians send extra forces to Finland compared to OTL, 2-4 corp, 6-14 divisions.

2) Russia was in the middle of a complicated mobilization plan in 1914. When the order to start moving the first extra divisions to Finland, there will be fewer forces either against Ottomans (least likely), A-H, or Germany. Whichever power faces the weaker Russian Army will do better than OTL.


A) Ottomans - Least likely since Russia stripped off many units anyway in OTL. But if this does happen, the Ottomans stabilize the Russian Front in 1914/1915, and it is not the festering sore of OTL. By the end of the war, this will have butterflies in Iraq and Palestine. Turkey, perhaps even the surviving Ottoman Empire, will be radically different.

B) A-H: Possible, but a little less likely than Germany. A-H does not come near as close to collapse. Italy entering the war becomes much more questionable. A-H does not lose so much of its skilled troops early and its units are much, much better throughout the war. Better A-H units mean higher Russian casualties, means Russia does not fall apart in exactly the same way. Lenin may remain a very, very obscure historical figure.

C) Germany - More since some units were pulled out of Finland to reinforce 1st and 2nd Army. Germany does not have near as much pressure to pull units from Western front, and the whole war looks different. Many, Many moving parts, flocks of butterflies.

D) Russia does not send 4th Army to Poland, but uses part of it to reinforce Finland. Most likely in my opinion due to way war plans were setup. You get a little bit of B, little bit of C. Flocks of butterflies.

 
So lets say the british invasion occurs before april 9th 1940, the more before that date (the invasion of denmark was on the 9th) the more butterflies. I could imagine no invasion of denmark because sweden is now in the axis.
I can't see it. Both the Germans and the British knew the strategic importance of Norway. If Germany held it then it gave them key ports that would enable them to get into the north sea and raid allied shipping. If the British held it then it enabled the allies to flank Germany and threaten the supply of Swedish iron ore. If Britain (and France) launch a full invasion of Norway, the Germans are not going to rely on Sweden to fight the allies, nor are they going to rely on amphibious landings as OTL due to the strength of the RN. They're going to make certain. Denmark fell without a fight OTL, the Germans knew they'd steamroller through, there's no reason for them to bypass the Danes.
 

Don Grey

Banned
No need for language of that sort, and my source is not from Wikipedia.
What is your source, I'd really like to know.
Here is mine: http://www.arabsahistory.com/

A really detailed and good book written by an expert of arab history.
I really recommend it, it's a good read.

I can just as easly provide sources and unlike a book parroting half truths which has been parroted befor is not that convincing and it being a best selling book is laughable. the conception of arab nationalist revolt was cemented during the cold war when pan-arabisim was trendy. So thus like nationalist movements they look back at history from the gogles of nationalism to justify there current reality and state then there is the cult of lawrance. The arabs died by the thousands trying to defend what was left of the empire against the invading powers there were also incidences such the Senussi movement when arabs (proper term would muslims) out side of the empire like in egypt with the senussi movment tried there best with what little they had to support the empire. This concept of arabs being treated as second class is also insutling as it was the arabs after the conquest of memluks that turned the turks and ottoman empire into sunni orthodoxy along with that arab culture music food langauge had far more of an effect on the empire then then turkish/turkic culture ever did.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4283869 this is just one off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism only became significant after the Ottomans lost World War 1. Although I don't think that by the 40's, the Arabs would welcome Turkish invaders, to say that there were "many" revolts against the Ottoman authorities in majority Arab lands that were motivated by nationalism is just plain wrong. The only significant Arab revolt of the period (Mehmed Ali in Egypt was Albanian, not Arab, and was not leading a nationalist revolt) was the Arab revolt in World War 1, and the vast majority of participants in that were not inspired by nationalism, but simply looking for opportunities to loot.

There is also the fact that many times more Arabs fought in the Ottoman army in World War 1 than against it. They did not receive bad treatment from the Ottoman Empire, as they were quite loyal as subjects. After 500 years of rule, by a power who, lets not forget, was headed by the Caliph, the Arabs had no reason to doubt the Ottoman Empires status as their legitimate government, especially when they were actually better in many regards then most modern day governments. For example, when dealing with their Shia minorities in Iraq, instead of oppression and sometimes murder that many modern Arab governments use, the Ottomans instead tried a policy of inclusion, that went as far as renovating the shrines of Imam Ali and Hussayn.

In regards to the rest of the thread, I doubt any of them would join. Turkey and Spain are just too threatened by the United Kingdom. Whilst Turkey could make some not-so-lucrative initial gains in the Middle East, the British could easily defend the important parts, and when the inevitable counter-offensive begun, the Turks would only have a chance at defending themselves if they gave up their gains and focused only on mountainous Anatolia.

Spain, as has been pointed out, has recently come out of a brutal civil war, and is in no position to fight a war on this scale. Simply put, any rewards they could gain from it would not be worth the enormous risks, as well as the extra strain it would put on Spanish society.
 
To put this on another rail instead of harking back and forth - I would like to remind you to consider that the OP sees these nations entering the Axis after the Fall of France but before the invasion of Greece. If I read this as the Italian invasion of Greece, then we are in the summer of 1940, at a point of time when Britain virtually stands alone and itself has very little possibilities to act or react in short term. France has fallen and Vichy is established. And the Soviet Union is a firm and valuable ally of Germany.

That means the OP intensifies the avalanche of Nazi-successes from 1938-40. Contrary to what we know about the high improbabilities of final Nazi-victory, contemporaries at that point of time were not so convinced. For everybody with De Gaulle's or Churchill's optimism you might find a sceptic and a defeatist. For a drastic example, take a look at ambassador Kennedy's opinions on Britain. If e.g. Churchill doesn't become PM, but someone else who finds himself simply unable to project the image of an ultimately victorious Britain, leaders all over Europe might have an even worse impression of the situation (I am not talking the cliché of Halifax rolling over).

A nation raising it hands to ally with Berlin at this point of time would not anticipate five years of apocalyptical warfare, but some token business against a soon negotiating Britain - and a place on the right side. OTL Franco was smart to realize the actual situation. If he had joined the Axis at Hendaye and Spain got smacked in 1942, today's historians would judge that he could have known better, but that his mistake was understandable.

If Germany at this point of time manages diplomatic coups (ASBish POD: rain brains on those Germans responsible for making up a European diplomatic strategy) which bring Sweden, Turkey and Spain into their camp [however improbable that is, but let us assume, as this is the premise], this might also encourage Yugoslavia to join the Axis as it pondered to do (I also deem Portugal as less probable, though if Franco joins, Salazar might go along). That again could have butterflies on the Greek situation.

An intact Yugoslavia, able to deal with Communist partisans on its own, that is an asset for Germany. A shorter, earlier, or maybe avoided war in Greece - that is an asset for Germany.

Won't be enough to bring Britain to the negotiating table, won't be enough to destroy the Soviet Union. But it might make it all a tougher nut to crack. Hard to gauge how the second half of the war would go under these circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top