WI Hitler got control of Gibraltar early in war?

The British would likely have lost in North Africa and would have lost Suez Canal. No German invasion of Crete, Malta falls, Allied invasion of Italy would not have happened. No aerial bombing Ploesti oil fields from Italy. Yugoslavia and Greece still under Nazi control, entire Mediterranean sea is under Nazi control. Turkey either strong-armed into cooperation or invaded.

Then what?
 
The British would likely have lost in North Africa and would have lost Suez Canal. No German invasion of Crete, Malta falls, Allied invasion of Italy would not have happened. No aerial bombing Ploesti oil fields from Italy. Yugoslavia and Greece still under Nazi control, entire Mediterranean sea is under Nazi control. Turkey either strong-armed into cooperation or invaded.

Then what?

Why, whatever the Alien Space Bats want next, of course.

Not to be glib, but this has been done a million times on this site.
1. How does Hitler get control of Gibraltar?

That's enormous question. 'Through friendly Spain' is the usual answer, but that doesn't hold water - Franco had no desire to piss off the British (and less desire to piss off the Americans), and Spain's Civil-War ravaged infrastructure was in no shape to support large numbers German troops.

Seaborne invasion is also right out - in point of fact, the Italians and Germans never took Malta, which is 90 miles from Sicily - how do they take Gibraltar which has no Axis territory for hundreds of miles? 'By basing in Vichy North Africa, which after Oran was pissed at the British' is the usual answer. Again, this doesn't hold water. Even if the French allowed this (dubious at best), the Italian Navy (presumably carrying some kind of Axis amphibious unit) was vastly overmatched by the RN.

2. What happens he does?

But let's toss all that out - say Franco is taken over by an Axis-loving ASB, and the German Army moves south. They take some losses taking Gibraltar. Then what?

Well, the British are hurting, no doubt. But how does taking Gibraltar either A) improve the quality of the Italian Army or B) increase the port capacity of either Tobruk or Benghazi? Those were the limitations on taking Suez, not Gibraltar. Additionally, how does this impact the power of the United States or the Soviet Union? Apart from increasing convoy line length, the Germans are still vastly overmatched economically.

Furthermore, by making Spain Axis, there is now that much more coastline to defend from the Anglo-Americans. Yes, Hitler has the Spanish Army on his side now. That makes it worse - more for the Germans to defend. The Italians were better equipped that the Spanish - and got the daylights kicked out them by the British. The Spanish are good for garrison duty and nothing else. Arguably, a US/British landing in southern Spain (around Cadiz) gets them on to the continent in 1942 rather than 1944, and draws German troops from both France and the USSR to contain, meaning the US can land in France even earlier.

The point is this: The United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were fundamentally stronger than Germany and whatever allies Germany could conceivably (or, in this case, inconceivably) recruit. Gibraltar is a vast annoyance, but no more than that.

Mike Turcotte
 
The British would likely have lost in North Africa and would have lost Suez Canal. No German invasion of Crete, Malta falls, Allied invasion of Italy would not have happened. No aerial bombing Ploesti oil fields from Italy. Yugoslavia and Greece still under Nazi control, entire Mediterranean sea is under Nazi control. Turkey either strong-armed into cooperation or invaded.

Then what?

Sorry, but fat chance. Franco had only just won a long and bloody war that left Spain on its knees. There is no way that he would have committed Spain to another war so quickly. He wasn't an idiot - even in Hitler's halcyon days of 1940 Franco didn't commit Spain to the Axis.
 
The British would likely have lost in North Africa and would have lost Suez Canal. No German invasion of Crete, Malta falls, Allied invasion of Italy would not have happened. No aerial bombing Ploesti oil fields from Italy. Yugoslavia and Greece still under Nazi control, entire Mediterranean sea is under Nazi control. Turkey either strong-armed into cooperation or invaded.

Then what?

Most convoys - including the one bringing the forces for Operation Compass - went round the Cape anyway. Gibraltar was a very useful base, but it wasn't essential for the defence of Suez.
 
in point of fact, the Italians and Germans never took Malta, which is 90 miles from Sicily
Never took, in this case, =\= could never have taken. They were perfectly capable of it, they just didn't.
Well, the British are hurting, no doubt. But how does taking Gibraltar either A) improve the quality of the Italian Army or B) increase the port capacity of either Tobruk or Benghazi? Those were the limitations on taking Suez, not Gibraltar.
Actually, the limitation was Malta, and the fact that RN units based out of Malta sunk most of the supplies bound for the Afrika Korps.
Arguably, a US/British landing in southern Spain (around Cadiz) gets them on to the continent in 1942 rather than 1944
No, they would land in friendly Portugal and march inland. Unless the Germans decide to blitzkrieg Portugal, which leaves them EVEN MORE coastline to defend.
 
Why, whatever the Alien Space Bats want next, of course.

Not to be glib, but this has been done a million times on this site.

1. How does Hitler get control of Gibraltar?

That's enormous question.

It's not: the same way Wehrmacht + Luftwaffe of 1939-1942 took Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia (rather difficult terrain) and Greece (a few mountains are known to be there too).

Americans), and Spain's Civil-War ravaged infrastructure was in no shape to support large numbers German troops.
Not even leaving just soil and sky by retreating Russians somehow stopped the Germans around Smolensk or near Moscow (or later Soviets going in the opposite direction). Spain would have been much easier, just as southern countries that Nazies historically took over quickly were.

To me it seems like you're milling over plausible impressions instead of technical and counter-intuitive facts that history has demonstrated.


Seaborne invasion is also right out - in point of fact, the Italians and Germans never took Malta, which is 90 miles from Sicily - how do they take Gibraltar which has no Axis territory for hundreds of miles?
The same way they have actually taken Crete?

But not even taking Malta would have been necessary. All that they would have to do would be the same thing that Americans in the Pacific did by skipping some islands held by Japanese: deny them supplies first by making sure supply ships are not around and, pound their airfields and then you render them powerless in way other than local defense so they can be just left there starving. Americans in the Pacific had it harder for obvious reasons, all that Germans had to do was corking up Gibraltar first, weakening flow of supplies to the British in the Mediterranean, then corking up Suez Canal.


'By basing in Vichy North Africa, which after Oran was pissed at the British' is the usual answer. Again, this doesn't hold water. Even if the French allowed this (dubious at best), the Italian Navy (presumably carrying some kind of Axis amphibious unit) was vastly overmatched by the RN.
Screw Italian navy - remember what happened to RN under Stuka attacks around Crete? Same thing.

In conditions of either aerial superiority or lack of effective fighter opposition even obsolete biplanes could massacre powerful navy at will - see Swordfish at Taranto or disabling Bismarck (or not all that much more capable Nakajima BN-5 over Pearl Harbor). When Swordfish planes attacked Tirpitz in transit in the Atlantic later, not a single plane survived, all were shot down by fighter cover. An the Nazies in early stages of WWII had just that: air superiority, which cost RN in Mediterranean so dearly.

Again, you're going for plausible hunches. Plausible hunches sometimes work but very often they don't, the same way most generals before WWI thought "oh it would be just another bar brawl lasting several months".

2. What happens he does?


Well, the British are hurting, no doubt. But how does taking Gibraltar either A) improve the quality of the Italian Army or B) increase the port capacity of either Tobruk or Benghazi?
Nope. But that would render both near irrelevant: it's all about relative power. British weakened by say 50% in effective combat capacity by reduced logistics makes Axis twice more powerful in relation to the British, with Axis staying precisely as it were before.

Those were the limitations on taking Suez, not Gibraltar. Additionally, how does this impact the power of the United States or the Soviet Union? Apart from increasing convoy line length, the Germans are still vastly overmatched economically.
In the long run yes. In the short run, had Nazies managed to get to Baku from the south and at least destroy it if not take it over for their own benefit, this would have denied SU 70% of domestic oil. A similar thing could have happened that happened later to Germans: perfectly good tanks and self-propelled guns abandoned or easily killed bc of lack of fuel.

Furthermore, by making Spain Axis, there is now that much more coastline to defend from the Anglo-Americans.
Please. Defending coastline requires implicit or explicit assumption of defensive stance and enemy having strategic initiative. As long as Nazies had the initiative, defending coastline was no issue, and when they went on the defensive, adding Spanish coastline to the sum of coastline in France to Netherlands to Germany to Denmark would not be increasing much the trouble they already had, had they?

Yes, Hitler has the Spanish Army on his side now. That makes it worse - more for the Germans to defend.
Screw defense. If you can't be on the offensive until you get the enemy demolished, you're screwed anyway.

The Italians were better equipped that the Spanish - and got the daylights kicked out them by the British.
And so the contest between Germans and the Allies in North Africa was not that one-sided in favor of Allies. Had they not had support of RN or severely weakened RN and above all, supply ships in the Mediterranean, in all likelihood the British would have been defeated.

The Spanish are good for garrison duty and nothing else.
Still valuable if you can get that: use them to keep North Africa, or say France, pinned down, freeing up some Germans to do the fighting or production?

The point is this: The United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were fundamentally stronger than Germany and whatever allies Germany could conceivably (or, in this case, inconceivably) recruit.
Of course. Which is why the only shot at winning that Nazies ever had were limited to the time when they still had relative advantage: 1938-1942.


Gibraltar is a vast annoyance, but no more than that.

Mike Turcotte
Nope. This would have changed lots of other variables, see e.g. here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110801014241/http://www.johnreilly.info/spain.htm

That was different (pre-1938) configuration of course, still pivotal.
 
Last edited:
Most convoys - including the one bringing the forces for Operation Compass - went round the Cape anyway.

Interesting! Do you have some good sources on that? (not questioning that actually, just interesting how it went)

Gibraltar was a very useful base, but it wasn't essential for the defence of Suez.
I beg to differ here: could bigger RN warships get through Suez Canal? But with it too, losing Gibraltar would have denied RN entry from the West of the Mediterranean. With Greece taken over, and aerial control of Crete by Nazies as it were, RN might have been hard pressed at both the west and east of Mediterranean, with entire Italian navy such as it was, perhaps being able to match Malta.

There are only two choke points in Mediterranean after all: Gibraltar and Suez. Losing the easier one in the West might very well have meant Allies losing the other.
 
Interesting! Do you have some good sources on that? (not questioning that actually, just interesting how it went)

You didn't know that.
In other words, you simply don't know the issue you're trying to discuss. No offense intended here, it's just a statement of plain fact.

Consider this: reading comes before writing. Even old threads in this very forum would be of help. If you're willing to read something more serious, you can start with the official British history, The Mediterranean and the Middle East, by Ian S.O. Playfair.
 
Gibralter

A Glider or Airborne assault was out of the question unless the Germans
had Spanish bases, Franco demanded oil rescources and armaments that Germany could not provide in return for entering the conflict. Without Spanish
participation it's unfeasable.
 
A Glider or Airborne assault was out of the question unless the Germans
had Spanish bases, Franco demanded oil rescources and armaments that Germany could not provide in return for entering the conflict. Without Spanish
participation it's unfeasable.

how about a treaty during the spanish civil war that guarantees the nazis some airfields in the future in exchange for a hand full more panzer Is?
 
Interesting! Do you have some good sources on that? (not questioning that actually, just interesting how it went)

I beg to differ here: could bigger RN warships get through Suez Canal? But with it too, losing Gibraltar would have denied RN entry from the West of the Mediterranean. With Greece taken over, and aerial control of Crete by Nazies as it were, RN might have been hard pressed at both the west and east of Mediterranean, with entire Italian navy such as it was, perhaps being able to match Malta.

There are only two choke points in Mediterranean after all: Gibraltar and Suez. Losing the easier one in the West might very well have meant Allies losing the other.

The Compass convoy went round the Cape, that's covered in one of Churchill's histories. That was done out of fear of Italy; later the ease at which the RN forced convoys through to Malta lead them to realise that Italy wasn't actually that threatening, and the Tiger convoy of May 1941 went straight through from Gibraltar to Suez, losing only one ship to a mine. It seems from Wiki that some other convoys went from Gibraltar to Piraeus around this time too.

After that, it seems that the only convoys trying to force the Sicilian Narrows are the Malta ones. These generally went through okay until late 1941, after which they suffered severe losses (e.g., Harpoon, Vigorous, Pedestal). Certainly the materiel for second El Alamein came round the Cape, and one of the prime drivers for the invasion of Sicily was to open the Med and therefore avoid the inefficient route round the Cape (also Churchill I think).

I don't know what the capacity of Suez was, but the QEs don't seem to have had any problems transiting.

Van Creveld's "Supplying War" makes a good argument that the fundamental problem preventing a successful attack on a well-defended Alamein line was the lack of ability to transport supplies from Tripoli to the front - it's such a long way! While ports like Benghazi and Tobruk were closer, they didn't have the capacity and were too easily interdicted, IIRC.

So IMO, losing Gibraltar and Malta makes it much easier for Italy to hold Libya, but doesn't really help her get to Suez. In any case, since you can close the Med at Sicily, what's the military point in taking Suez anyway (questions of morale and politics notwithstanding)? There's still another choke point at Aden before you can get naval units into the Indian Ocean, and the oil fields of the Gulf are across many hundreds of miles of trackless desert.

Gibraltar is attractive as a base for attacking convoys going round the Cape - but only if Spain isn't in the Axis, because if she is in the Axis then you can, well, just neutralise Gibraltar with artillery and use Spain and her Atlantic islands as a base instead - unless the UK has grabbed the Azores or Canaries to replace Gibraltar, for which I believe there was a contingency plan. But if Spain isn't in the Axis, then you're only getting to Gibraltar by invading her, forcing her into a British alliance and giving the UK the bases in the Azores and Canaries to replace Gibraltar anyway! :p

TBH, I'm not sure what is less attractive to Hitler - having to send fuel and food to Axis Spain, or having to fight another campaign in Allied Spain and giving the UK some very valuable mid-Atlantic bases to help with Atlantic convoy escorting.
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ here: could bigger RN warships get through Suez Canal?
Most definitely, hells you could sail the Yamato up there with room to spare, never mind anything in the British arsenal.

With Greece taken over, and aerial control of Crete by Nazies as it were, RN might have been hard pressed at both the west and east of Mediterranean, with entire Italian navy such as it was, perhaps being able to match Malta.
Except not. The closest point in Africa from Crete is about 300 km, wider than the English Channel at its widest, and Crete is pretty mountainous, thus a pretty poor place to try to build up air power.

There are only two choke points in Mediterranean after all: Gibraltar and Suez. Losing the easier one in the West might very well have meant Allies losing the other.
Except not, because the Germans never managed to take Egypt, and wouldn't have, even with Malta not continually screwing up their convoys.

And what is it with all these ruddy "let's make Nazi Germany do better" threads anyway?
 
Last edited:
The Compass convoy went round the Cape, that's covered in one of Churchill's histories. That was done out of fear of Italy; later the ease at which the RN forced convoys through to Malta lead them to realise that Italy wasn't actually that threatening, and the Tiger convoy of May 1941 went straight through from Gibraltar to Suez, losing only one ship to a mine. It seems from Wiki that some other convoys went from Gibraltar to Piraeus around this time too.

After that, it seems that the only convoys trying to force the Sicilian Narrows are the Malta ones. These generally went through okay until late 1941, after which they suffered severe losses (e.g., Harpoon, Vigorous, Pedestal). Certainly the materiel for second El Alamein came round the Cape, and one of the prime drivers for the invasion of Sicily was to open the Med and therefore avoid the inefficient route round the Cape (also Churchill I think).

The convoys forced through the Mediteranean were matters of conveince of the moment & not of stratigic importance. From June 1940 to August 1943 over 95% of the cargo destined for Egypt or 'east of Suez' went by other routes. Taking the cargo ships around Africa was certainly less efficient, adding a month to the time at sea on the average. Despite the many actions the Brits took to reduce the inefficencies.

Gibraltar was usefull as a refueling station and anchorage for British fleets covering the Central Atlantic. If it is lost to them then a major incentive exits to acquire similar ports elsewhere. From early on the British had wanted to acquire bases in the Azores. For the first few years keeping Portugal nuetral was more important than such bases, so the political actions were 'soft' in this regard. With Gibraltar is lost the matter of the Azores becomes urgent and Portuguese nuetrality or cooperation less important. Odds are a British seizure of the Azores would swiftly follow Gibraltars loss.

If Spain has participated one way or another in this action and loses its status as a Nuetral the consequences for Germany are bad. Put that last in capitol letters: BAD. First & most important is Spain imported a critical portion of its food, oil, and several other important items from north and south America. In this case the British blockade extends completely to Spain. Blockade runners would be entirely unable to make up the difference and Spains population would be instantly subject to severe food rationing. Beyond that the Spanish, and probably Portuguese economies collapse. There is very little Germany can do about this. Neither food nor oil existed in German hands in any quantity that could save the Iberian population from catastrophic shortages. There is nothing good in this for Germany what with pro Allied and communist groups revolting, the threat of Allied landings, the loss of Spain & Portugal as a nuetral conduit for the import of critical items from the Americas. Bottom line is the capture of Gibraltar is in most cases a stratigic catastrophe for the Axis.

In the end the same ASB techniques that allowed the Axis to capture Gibraltar can be used by the Allies to recapture in in 1942 or 1943, so the Axis gain even less of war winning importance.
 
And what is it with all these ruddy "let's make Nazi Germany do better" threads anyway?

I blame to much television & bad history documentaries.

The Axis WI can be interesting as theoretical exercises in stratigic or operational studies, but often they are poorly presented at the start, and usually degenerate into quibbling over bad information, or the extent of ASB participation.
 
The British would likely have lost in North Africa and would have lost Suez Canal. No German invasion of Crete, Malta falls, Allied invasion of Italy would not have happened. No aerial bombing Ploesti oil fields from Italy. Yugoslavia and Greece still under Nazi control, entire Mediterranean sea is under Nazi control. Turkey either strong-armed into cooperation or invaded.

Then what?


Is there a purpose why the Germans should pay more attention to the whole of the Mediteranean in the first place? It simply was not their choice in the OTL as all attention was on Eastern Europe especially, where the Germans wanted to get rid of the only true evil (from their point of view), the Communist USSR. As Russia does not border the Mediteranean Sea, why bother about it? Germany had its hands alreayd full with the Eastern Front itself, so could not dispatch large forces for unlogical adventures elsewhere. We have seen what consequenses the withdrawel of two Army Corpses from the Eastern Front had, when Hitler decided it was time to conquer his former ally Italy in 1943. It resulted in a Red Army superiority in numbers, which the Wehrmacht never could undue again.
 
Gibraltar was usefull as a refueling station and anchorage for British fleets covering the Central Atlantic. If it is lost to them then a major incentive exits to acquire similar ports elsewhere. From early on the British had wanted to acquire bases in the Azores. For the first few years keeping Portugal nuetral was more important than such bases, so the political actions were 'soft' in this regard. With Gibraltar is lost the matter of the Azores becomes urgent and Portuguese nuetrality or cooperation less important. Odds are a British seizure of the Azores would swiftly follow Gibraltars loss.

If Spain has participated one way or another in this action and loses its status as a Nuetral the consequences for Germany are bad. Put that last in capitol letters: BAD. First & most important is Spain imported a critical portion of its food, oil, and several other important items from north and south America. In this case the British blockade extends completely to Spain. Blockade runners would be entirely unable to make up the difference and Spains population would be instantly subject to severe food rationing. Beyond that the Spanish, and probably Portuguese economies collapse. There is very little Germany can do about this. Neither food nor oil existed in German hands in any quantity that could save the Iberian population from catastrophic shortages. There is nothing good in this for Germany what with pro Allied and communist groups revolting, the threat of Allied landings, the loss of Spain & Portugal as a nuetral conduit for the import of critical items from the Americas. Bottom line is the capture of Gibraltar is in most cases a stratigic catastrophe for the Axis.

I would add to your proposal about the Azores and your correct remark about Spain's entry in the war, that there is an alternative/supplement to the Azores: the Canaries. If Franco made the big, uncharacteristic mistake of jumping down the fence on the Axis side, then the Canaries are fair game and the British have standing plans and even, at some times, standing forces set aside for that.
 
how about a treaty during the spanish civil war that guarantees the nazis some airfields in the future in exchange for a hand full more panzer Is?

First, it's exactly the kind of thing Franco would not touch with a 3-foot pole. His platform was fighting the Reds because, among many other evils, they had meddling strangers come over into Spain. Franco on the one hand was happy to receive armaments and sundry supplies; on the other hand he barely tolerated sizable foreign units fighting on his side, and totally loathed in particular the Italian ones, who were entirely too big and noticeable for his liking. Indeed, the Italians did try to set up the Baleares as an unofficial Iceland of their own, and they had to backtrack quickly. Also, franco definitely did not overestimate the Pz I. So no, he won't buy.

Second, foreign military bases of a combatant might still let you remain neutral - for as long as the other combatant is willing to turn a blind eye to that. Generally that happens because the other combatant either can't do anything about that, or because keeping you neutral is more in his interests than considering you hostile because of the enemy bases (which, as you'll remember, would be a violation of Hague V 1907 as soon as those airplanes take off).
 
Top