OT:German imports from Spain/Turkey?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: Orm

The political cost for this operation seems very high to me. Not only declaring war Spain to consider here. There is also the question of Vichy France. Had AH, and Germany, planned for Spain, and Gibraltar, before they begun peace talks with France then passage for an Army going into Spain would, in my humble opinion, not been any real issue for Vichy France. But since they did not, I suspect the Vichy leadership would have strongly objected.

So how would the world react to Germany entering a treaty with France, and break it before the ink dried up. And then, without any cause, advance into Spain. UK might very well have won the war by this, even if it cost them Gibraltar.

FYI, German forces wouldn't need to go through Vichy territory to enter Spain. They had the ability to march through the Bordeaux-Biarritz corridor in the German occupied zone of France.

Thank you. [:)] [&o]

Yes. They could have. I think it was concluded in a previous discussion that just using that corridor was not practical when attempting to blitz through Spain in short time so I did not include this possibility in my post. If this is considered the invasion route, then I will amend my thinking accordingly.

warspite1

Given the disparity in forces, I don't think its not practical, but I do think its far from ideal.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Stalin is not going to lift a finger in the event of a German invasion of Turkey.

Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France.

Given the list above, I doubt that it will be Turkey that causes a complete volte face, if it all it was likely. Stalin's Road to Damascus moment was on June 21st 1941, and he was recovering for quite some time.

warspite1

But you don't know that? And you are basing your view on what happened in the west (Poland aside and that was agreed as part of the NS Pact).

Yes, absolutely Stalin's plan to have the Germans and the Allies fight themselves to a standstill, is looking sick. But that simply makes it all the more important that Germany keeps its nose out of the Straits. What was the outcome of the 'discussions' on the Straits during the NS Pact and afterwards? You seriously believe that Stalin was going to roll over on the Straits question?

Let me be clear - Stalin would not blink in the event of an Axis invasion of Turkey. The straits are neither here nor there in terms of Soviet geo-political considerations at this time - even if they are able to assure free passage, there are multiple challenges for Soviet Black Sea Fleet to operate beyond the Black Sea.

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

Careful lads, you are falling for Francoist propaganda! [:D]

In the aftermath of World War II, the Fascists in Spain deliberately built up the narrative that Franco was the savior who kept the country out of the war through a policy of 'astute caution'. This was both to buoy up domestic support during a tense political period as well as for external consumption as Franco sought to shift the country's alignment with the West. This narrative that Franco was a realist that brilliantly played the Nazis has however effectively been discredited over the past few decades and is no longer considered valid.

For some easily accessible reading on this, check out this link: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213287.pdf

This looks interesting - thanks for sharing!

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Interesting debate. The route into Spain has some serious mountains, limiting the advantage of armor. Italy thought it could take out Greece and had rear handed to them, and then had to be bailed out by Germany, which delayed the invasion of the USSR. Invading Spain would likely add more delay to the USSR invasion. And I am not convinced that the Rock falls if Spain falls. After all Spain has wanted Gibraltar for a long time but the place is a fortress where armor would be largely useless. So an infantry assault against a very well fortified position. That won't be cheap. As for opening up the Black Sea to get naval assets in to pressure the USSR? What naval assets? Germany would not supply the Italian navy with enough oil to operate effectively in the Med, never mind the Black sea. And unless Germany seizes the Vichy fleet there are really not enough German naval assets to matter. Subs in the Black sea are not really going to accomplish much. And the garrison requirements would also hurt. Yugoslavia was a fairly small country and proved to be a significant pain for Germany. Countries with populations of Spain and Turkey would be a serious problem if the people decided to fight.

You may want to look at the contribution of Axis naval assets to the Black Sea campaign. Sevastopol and operations around the Kuban are of particular interest.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Let me be clear - Stalin would not blink in the event of an Axis invasion of Turkey. The straits are neither here nor there in terms of Soviet geo-political considerations at this time - even if they are able to assure free passage, there are multiple challenges for Soviet Black Sea Fleet to operate beyond the Black Sea.

warspite1

But you simply don't know this - and there is nothing to suggest that what you say is true and flies in the face of Soviet(Russian) historic concerns over the region. Indeed when Molotov visited Berlin he tried to press Ribbontrop on the subject of the Straits and the possibility of a Soviet guarantee to Bulgaria (similar to the German guarantee to Romania). The Germans (of course given their own designs) wouldn't commit and without a direct threat at the time (we are still in November 1940) the Soviets let it go. BUT that clearly shows that yes, the straits were very much a consideration at the time and I can't believe you think otherwise.

I have no idea why you are talking about the Black Sea Fleet operating beyond the Black Sea? Why have you raised this? Are you suggesting the straits are important to the Soviets because they are desperate for the Black Sea Fleet (such as it is) to go haring around the Eastern Mediterranean?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

You may want to look at the contribution of Axis naval assets to the Black Sea campaign. Sevastopol and operations around the Kuban are of particular interest.

warspite1

I've read a bit on this subject - not as much as the Baltic - but enough to make your questioning of my question unsatisfactory as an answer. What are the Germans getting out of Black Sea operations from Turkey such that the Germans would be:

- willing to attack Turkey but not defeat her with all that means in terms of losses, in terms of time lost, in terms of political reaction (and the very real possibility that Soviet oil and resource under the NS Pact is switched off)
- willing to risk disruption of Turkish resources (Chromium being the main one) from Turkey to Germany
- willing to leave Ploesti vulnerable to attack from Turkish airbases
- willing to drain manpower resources for Barbarossa and weaken concentration of force (which was weak for the south in any case) by having a whole army group in Turkey

This grand plan doesn't seem coherent.

And remember too that, depending on Hitler's decision over Vichy that you believe he would be willing to make, Germany could now have enemies from Turkey, through Syria and down to Egypt. So far from this 'Blitz through Spain and Turkey' assisting the German cause, it appears to be rapidly making things worse for no good reason....

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Let me be clear - Stalin would not blink in the event of an Axis invasion of Turkey. The straits are neither here nor there in terms of Soviet geo-political considerations at this time - even if they are able to assure free passage, there are multiple challenges for Soviet Black Sea Fleet to operate beyond the Black Sea.

warspite1

But you simply don't know this - and there is nothing to suggest that what you say is true and flies in the face of Soviet(Russian) historic concerns over the region. Indeed when Molotov visited Berlin he tried to press Ribbontrop on the subject of the Straits and the possibility of a Soviet guarantee to Bulgaria (similar to the German guarantee to Romania). The Germans (of course given their own designs) wouldn't commit and without a direct threat at the time (we are still in November 1940) the Soviets let it go. BUT that clearly shows that yes, the straits were very much a consideration at the time and I can't believe you think otherwise.

Other than Stalin's consistent behaviour, up to and even after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the thrust of Soviet foreign policy since the Munich Agreement.

Are they a consideration? Yes.

Is it the line in the sand that Stalin is going to war over? Absolutely not. Stalin is not going to war over Turkey.

Given his behaviour in June/July 1941 you could even argue that Stalin was not going to war until he accepted the reality of his position.

[fcooke]

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

[RangerJoe]

Except that the Soviet Union at that time was transferring tanks and other weapons to Turkey.

Warspite1, should I invite someone from the General Thread to chime in on this?[8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Let me be clear - Stalin would not blink in the event of an Axis invasion of Turkey. The straits are neither here nor there in terms of Soviet geo-political considerations at this time - even if they are able to assure free passage, there are multiple challenges for Soviet Black Sea Fleet to operate beyond the Black Sea.

warspite1

But you simply don't know this - and there is nothing to suggest that what you say is true and flies in the face of Soviet(Russian) historic concerns over the region. Indeed when Molotov visited Berlin he tried to press Ribbontrop on the subject of the Straits and the possibility of a Soviet guarantee to Bulgaria (similar to the German guarantee to Romania). The Germans (of course given their own designs) wouldn't commit and without a direct threat at the time (we are still in November 1940) the Soviets let it go. BUT that clearly shows that yes, the straits were very much a consideration at the time and I can't believe you think otherwise.

Other than Stalin's consistent behaviour, up to and even after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the thrust of Soviet foreign policy since the Munich Agreement.

Are they a consideration? Yes.

Is it the line in the sand that Stalin is going to war over? Absolutely not. Stalin is not going to war over Turkey.

Given his behaviour in June/July 1941 you could even argue that Stalin was not going to war until he accepted the reality of his position.

warspite1

I think you have completely mis-understood the situation - but then I can say how Stalin would react with no more certainty than you. So let's assume, for the sake of moving on, that you are right and Stalin - even when faced with the loss of the straits and Germany acting completely outside of the spirit of the NS Pact, does nothing. Please explain how your limited invasion of Turkey makes any sense in cause of the German defeat of the Soviet Union?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Except that the Soviet Union at that time was transferring tanks and other weapons to Turkey.

Warspite1, should I invite someone from the General Thread to chime in on this?[8|]

warspite1

No. Please don't. Although at least he thought a Turkish blitz was the way to go and not some invasion of a small portion of Western Turkey that completely screws the Germans for no purpose.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

You may want to look at the contribution of Axis naval assets to the Black Sea campaign. Sevastopol and operations around the Kuban are of particular interest.

warspite1

I've read a bit on this subject - not as much as the Baltic - but enough to make your questioning of my question unsatisfactory as an answer. What are the Germans getting out of Black Sea operations from Turkey such that the Germans would be:

- willing to attack Turkey but not defeat her with all that means in terms of losses, in terms of time lost, in terms of political reaction (and the very real possibility that Soviet oil and resource under the NS Pact is switched off)
- willing to risk disruption of Turkish resources (Chromium being the main one) from Turkey to Germany
- willing to leave Ploesti vulnerable to attack from Turkish airbases
- willing to drain manpower resources for Barbarossa and weaken concentration of force (which was weak for the south in any case) by having a whole army group in Turkey

This grand plan doesn't seem coherent.

And remember too that, depending on Hitler's decision over Vichy that you believe he would be willing to make, Germany could now have enemies from Turkey, through Syria and down to Egypt. So far from this 'Blitz through Spain and Turkey' assisting the German cause, it appears to be rapidly making things worse for no good reason....

The advantage is that the Axis have unfettered access to the Black Sea, can embark on much more ambitious naval operations and can take full advantage of the Soviet Black Sea ports.

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

Battleships get much of the attention, but sometimes the coastal (and even riverine!) operations have their role too.

It's not about the size of the units commitment, but the geography that matters.

A larger Axis naval commitment to the Black Sea likely means a quicker surrender in the Crimea, and massively simplifies the logistical situation for units along the coast.

The importance of the Axis being able to use riverine traffic on the Dnieper and Don is diminished by the fact that they'll inevitably freeze in winter, but for the critical summer months that's a key transportation route in a very low infrastructure area.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea. But:

- oil is a problem (as you indicated) - where is this all coming from - remember it was also suggested that the Italians sail into the Atlantic as a result of the loss of Gibraltar.
- the Italian Navy wouldn't sail into the Eastern Mediterranean even with German air support. Why are they now going to sail through the Eastern Mediterranean to sail into the Black Sea?
- What is this short range force actually going to do?
- And who is protecting the convoys to North Africa while they are in the Black Sea?


Certainly an interesting amount of oil used just for one round trip - and that is the direct route - chances are they would head up the coast to Romania and then across.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Except that the Soviet Union at that time was transferring tanks and other weapons to Turkey.

Warspite1, should I invite someone from the General Thread to chime in on this?[8|]

warspite1

No. Please don't. Although at least he thought a Turkish blitz was the way to go and not some invasion of a small portion of Western Turkey that completely screws the Germans for no purpose.

Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Except that the Soviet Union at that time was transferring tanks and other weapons to Turkey.

Warspite1, should I invite someone from the General Thread to chime in on this?[8|]

warspite1

No. Please don't. Although at least he thought a Turkish blitz was the way to go and not some invasion of a small portion of Western Turkey that completely screws the Germans for no purpose.

Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

No. Please don't. Although at least he thought a Turkish blitz was the way to go and not some invasion of a small portion of Western Turkey that completely screws the Germans for no purpose.

Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

It wouldn't be just the political leadership but also the military leadership - not to mention the average Turk with a rifle. Then there are the political and diplomatic ramifications in and with with other muslim countries.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

It wouldn't be just the political leadership but also the military leadership - not to mention the average Turk with a rifle. Then there are the political and diplomatic ramifications in and with with other muslim countries.

warspite1

I just don't get the idea of attacking a country with the express purpose of not defeating it, with all that means. And why? So you can sail a few Italian ships into the Black Sea - even though in so doing they would be leaving their own convoys to North Africa in the lurch, spending oil they haven't got, and taking operational actions that they refused to do in real life.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea.

What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea.

What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

Modern or not, they would still shoot big shells that go "BOOM!"

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

No. Please don't. Although at least he thought a Turkish blitz was the way to go and not some invasion of a small portion of Western Turkey that completely screws the Germans for no purpose.

Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

What a silly thing to say.

Diplomatic pragmatism - a nation on the fringes of Europe which has seen significant decline and possessing (at best) a military force of WW1 vintage is attacked by a Central European power that has military hegemony over Europe. Support from allied nations is likely to be limited at best (given the UK has other pressing commitments and the material needed for the Turkish army would be extensive).

In that environment, sticking out a long, protracted and damaging war makes little sense when compared to a negotiated peace that gives time for both extensive rearmament and the potential for the balance of power to shift.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea.

What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

Modern or not, they would still shoot big shells that go "BOOM!"

Yes, but the problem is getting into a position to fire those big shells. With a speed of 22 knots, it may be deadly but it is far from swift.

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

You may want to look at the contribution of Axis naval assets to the Black Sea campaign. Sevastopol and operations around the Kuban are of particular interest.

warspite1

I've read a bit on this subject - not as much as the Baltic - but enough to make your questioning of my question unsatisfactory as an answer. What are the Germans getting out of Black Sea operations from Turkey such that the Germans would be:

- willing to attack Turkey but not defeat her with all that means in terms of losses, in terms of time lost, in terms of political reaction (and the very real possibility that Soviet oil and resource under the NS Pact is switched off)
- willing to risk disruption of Turkish resources (Chromium being the main one) from Turkey to Germany
- willing to leave Ploesti vulnerable to attack from Turkish airbases
- willing to drain manpower resources for Barbarossa and weaken concentration of force (which was weak for the south in any case) by having a whole army group in Turkey

This grand plan doesn't seem coherent.

And remember too that, depending on Hitler's decision over Vichy that you believe he would be willing to make, Germany could now have enemies from Turkey, through Syria and down to Egypt. So far from this 'Blitz through Spain and Turkey' assisting the German cause, it appears to be rapidly making things worse for no good reason....

The advantage is that the Axis have unfettered access to the Black Sea, can embark on much more ambitious naval operations and can take full advantage of the Soviet Black Sea ports.

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

Battleships get much of the attention, but sometimes the coastal (and even riverine!) operations have their role too.

It's not about the size of the units commitment, but the geography that matters.

A larger Axis naval commitment to the Black Sea likely means a quicker surrender in the Crimea, and massively simplifies the logistical situation for units along the coast.

The importance of the Axis being able to use riverine traffic on the Dnieper and Don is diminished by the fact that they'll inevitably freeze in winter, but for the critical summer months that's a key transportation route in a very low infrastructure area.

Again I ask - what units? Small ships and river craft were shipped to the Black Sea by rail/road. Don't need the straights to get those there. Not sure where the larger naval commit is coming from.....