Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.
ORIGINAL: Klydon
(The state of the army was underestimated by Stalin anyway).
warspite1ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.
Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.
Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.
Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.
The Germans operated a blockade running operation from Bordeaux; 50% of the ships got through from the Far East, though only something like 16 of 32. They were in some need of natural rubber - more natural rubber meant less oil diverted to making synthetic rubber, I believe. They stockpiled before the war and also got some from the Russians in 1940 but more would have still helped. A fall of Gibraltar leading to a fall of Suez could have possibly further improved that situation, particularly after the loss of Malaya. Some rubber was produced in South America as well.
They also had good economic connections to Central and South America, before the war. Opening sea connections to those countries during the war would have probably improved German imports of raw materials such as strategic minerals and foodstuffs. Though of course they would have to fight their own Battle of the South Atlantic with the Royal Navy attempting to maintain such imports, and access to Spanish and Portuguese colonies would have been very helpful to them in such a campaign.
How significant such connections would have been, I can't say. But the war would have been very, very different without Gibraltar in Allied hands in many ways, including the political dynamics in South America.
warspite1ORIGINAL: Centuur
The Kaiser was mentioned. The Kaiser had one problem during WW I, which the Führer didn't have. The last one defeated France. The Kaiser always had to think about the army first. Also, during WW I the situation in the air was very different...
Let's forget about Spain for the moment. Let's look at the end of the French campaign, from a pure military point of view, without any political influence by Hitler.
Let's assume that during july, the Luftwaffe would seriously start attacking the airfields in England and stick to that tactic, even with Berlin bombed by Bomber Command. It is a known fact that during the battle of Britain, Fighter Command was seriously thinking it had to abandon the airfields in Southeast England...
If that would have happened (and it would have) the British would have lost command of the Southern North Sea and the Channel. Air power is everything in WW II. If you don't command the skies, your navy and soldiers are having a huge disadvantage (as was shown by the Japanese in Singapore). Stuka's are just as good as killing ships as the Japanese planes were. Just look at the British losses in the Med around Malta...
There wasn't a large and good equiped army in the UK at that time. There weren't enough heavy weapons available.
I believe that Germany, if they had invaded England somewhere during August with FTR Command not in Southeast England, they would have been able to get ashore in that area. And once they were ashore, there wasn't any serious army to stop them from marching to London.
To me, the fact that Hitler hesitated for more than a month after the fall of France, made sure that the UK survived the war
warspite1ORIGINAL: brian brian
It is all hard to say really. The Royal Navy kept England in the war but it was a very serious struggle all the way until the first quarter of 1943. Axis access to the remainder of the European coast and the NW African coast would have been a dramatic difference and there would have likely been an entirely un-historical theater of ground war - could a Rommel have taken Dakar? The CW was stretched extremely thin as it was, and the South Atlantic becomes quite a bit more narrow than the North Atlantic. Possibly the French Empire staying in the fight could have kept the overall balance the same, who knows?
warspite1ORIGINAL: Centuur
I don't agree totally about Vichy, Mr. Warspite. The attacks on the French fleet by the British in July 1940 is something which pops up in my mind...
Let's assume Hitler would have given in to Franco's demands about the gains of territory and they would be able to get something of a deal (which I doubt would ever have happened, because Franco would never have changed his demands since he was leading a totally destroyed country at that time, which had problems feeding his own people).
Now, it's just after those horrendous attacks on the French Fleet. So Vichy gets persuaded to accept Spanish troops as extra garrison forces in North Africa to prevent any more British involvement in those area's. And about a year later a Vichy collapse happens and Spain takes Algeria and French Morocco. Something of a "Suner-Ribbentrop" pact.
The French fleet? Their wasn't any fighting spirit left in the French navy commanders after the British attacked those ships. That was proven in 1942, when the French, even with the ships having enough fuel to sail to North Africa, decided to stay in port after Petain got sacked in Vichy. Even when the Germans decided to try to grab the ships in Toulon, the French scuttled the ships. I believe only a couple of SUB's and a cruiser sailed for North Africa...
I think the Battle of the Atlantic would have changed a lot as more Axis coastline would have increased U-Boat effectiveness, and Ferrol is a port outside of range for Allied air to attack U-Boats as was so devastating in the northern reaches of the Bay of Biscay…….A severing of the African convoy route would be a very real possibility.
As I said, taking Gibraltar is only the start. I repeat, on its own it achieves nothing. Now, if the taking of Gibraltar gives Hitler the inclination to really ramp up U-boat construction then yes, things will get tougher. But this is all getting ahead of ourselves. The building, the crew training – these take time.
The point of the Mediterranean strategy is to kick the British out of Egypt, fuel supplies in the near east etc etc. So…. How does this happen? You mention Malta, but with Gibraltar captured, Malta is probably gone anyway. But all this is of secondary importance. How do the Axis take out Egypt?
warspite1ORIGINAL: Orm
....
Petain steels himself and, despite his frail frame, stands as tall as he can, looks his tormentor firmly in the eye and strangles AH.
[;)]
