|
Are there any good books or websites that examine 'contemplated but not executed' operations in World War 2? Not looking for an alt-history story, but something more historical that looks at things like plans and briefings from the time and compares estimates with records of what was actually available to see whether they were being over- or -under optimistic. For example, Germany was worried enough about an invasion of Norway to launch one, then garrison it with as many as half a million men. The US pushed to invade France as early as 1942, and in 1943 wanted to land in France instead of Italy, while Churchill wanted to land in the Balkans (and a ton of other places). I'm sure there was research done at the time to examine the feasibility of these, and I think it would be an interesting read if anyone has put that information together somewhere.
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
The oddest critique of SPR that I've heard is Brits complaining about the scene where American officers badmouth Montgomery - they really don't seem to get the idea that it's showing 'this is what a lot of US officers would have thought at the time' rather than 'this is objective truth about your national hero'. Jumping back to the earlier discussion about the Germans thinking that the Western Allies were just waiting for a chance to join them in destroying the communist horde, I think a lot of Germans fundamentally just didn't want to acknowledge how aggressive the country had been and how much others considered them at fault for the war. While in 1939 the UK and France were considering aid to Finland against the USSR, that was in a context where the USSR was just done working as a co-belligerent with Germany against Poland and was currently sending lots of military trade to Germany - and even then they elected not to. Germany was already considered a problem for their pre-war land grabs and treaty breaking, and streak of military aggression continued after that (half a dozen more small countries attacked), so once they launched an atrocity-filled invasion of the USSR and declared war on the US to ice the cake, virtually no one setting policy viewed them as a useful ally, they were seen as unreliable and dangerous. A lot of the non-Nazi higher-ups genuinely seemed not to realize just how much people objected to the raw aggression from Germany as a whole, and figured they could just brush that aside as all the fault of Hitler and Friends. This instructional film for US troops occupying Germany after the IMO gives a good picture of how Western governments thought about Germany by the end of the war - they're seen as a violent, destructive people who are going to keep starting new wars every 20-30 years unless 'we' come in and stop them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCHeFjADTTs Pantaloon Pontiff fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Sep 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Quackles posted:Oh. Turning every agent in the UK is impressive, but one of my favorite examples of clowning on the Nazi intelligence services is Operation Scherhorn, where the USSR invented a fake resistance pocket starting with one captured German, then captured or killed many attempts to rescue it and used the captured troops to lure in more Germans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Scherhorn
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2023 05:17
|
|
|
Greggster posted:Something I'm curious about is what the process was for Great Britain and France to go from century-long enemies to closest of allies? I can't imagine it could've been easy for the two nations to go from waging total wat in the Napoleonic era to relying deeply on each other a mere 100 years later during ww1 100 years is a long time. The US, UK, and France were allied with the USSR/Russia during WW1 and WW2 against Germany up to the 1940s. By the 1950s, Russia was the big enemy of the US, UK, and France, and by the 1960s the part of Germany not controlled by Russia was allied with their former enemies. And now while Russia is still generally opposed to the US interests, some of the factions in the US country that used to have 'better dead than red' bumper stickers now support Russia. Similarly, US, UK, and France were allied with China to help defend against Japan in the 1940s, sympathy for China was one of the main factors in the US opposing Japanese expansion. By the 1950s China was a significant enemy of the US, UK, and France while Japan was an ally, and then shifted to where it is today as 'major trading partner but also has significant conflicting interests'.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Err....? What? I said they were allied during WWI and WWII. World War I ran from 1914 to 1918, World War II ran from the tail end of 1939 to 1945. The 1920s is not during either war, and the vast majority of WW2 took place in the 1940s rather than the 1930s. "They were allied during these wars". "Err....? What? do you mean specifically during the war, or also during a time period that's not during either war you mentioned" doesn't make you look as clever as you seem to think it does.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I think you misunderstood my point. When you talk about e.g. 'By the 1950s China was a significant enemy of the US, UK, and France while Japan was an ally, and then shifted to where it is today as 'major trading partner but also has significant conflicting interests'.' - that's a decades long alliance during peacetime, in Japan's case, similar to where France and Britain were getting to by 1914. My point is this is different to a temporary wartime alliance which doesn't necessarily have any long term effect on their relations after it. Point in example being, Russia was allied with France and Britain during World War 1, was promptly invaded by them right after with the regime change, then essentially frozen out of relations for most of the period from then until Barbarossa when suddenly the Soviet Union was good again. And then relations got frosty again pretty shortly after WW2. It's pretty clear that your point was to try to look clever by 'correcting' me about something that I didn't say with the old snarktastic "Err....? What?" opener (text like that adds nothing but obnoxiousness to a post) and that you were wrong in your 'correction'. I gave examples of countries that switched between being bitter enemies and allies in much shorter timeframe than a century for someone who found that unexpected, you seem to be supporting my argument by adding some more examples of countries switching between being allies and enemies in sub-century time while talking as if I'm wrong and acting like I'm supposed to welcome the wisdom of your generous correction. If you want to engage in real discussion, cutting out the snark and condescension would be a good first step. Yes there was an external threat that drove Russia into alliance with France and the UK during WW1 and WW2, but it was also the same threat that drove France and the UK into alliance with each other in the same time frame. The external threat that kept the UK and France into alliance after WW2 was Russia, and what really kept them as 'the closest of allies' (which is a debateable claim) was opposition to their much stronger ally, the US (the Suez Crisis is a good example of what drove that cooperation). Also during WW2 UK committed several gross offensives against France similar to the ones committed against 1920s Russia - attacking the French Navy without any declaration of war against what was unarguably the legitimate government of France (Mers-el-Kebir took place a week before the French Assembly was dissolved), and later occupying French territories like Madagascar, Syria, and Lebanon while the Vichy government was recognized by most of the world (including the United States), and exerting pressure over who was in charge of Free French forces (and thus who would lead the regime change against Vichy France). These offenses by the UK against France didn't stop them from working together after the war was done, however. International relationships are complicated, driven by a variety of pressures, and definitely change in time frames of less than 100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Partly because there were false alarms raised before, partly because the Red Army was at its weakest in years due to a massive reorganization and expansion* and couldn't afford to give in to German provocation and give them an excuse. Little did he know that they didn't need an excuse. Also it was obvious that the USSR joining the war would help the UK, and Stalin believed the UK would try rather strong measures to get the USSR in. So he discounted intelligence from the UK about German preparations as fabrications intended to provoke him into doing something against his own interest. Another part of the reorganization is that the USSR's western border moved significantly west from 1939 until early 1941. This also seems like it would be an advantage, but in practice it meant that the Russian armies moved from well-fortified and well-supplied defensive positions to new positions that were not fortified at all. And Stalin did worry that Hitler would jockey for position by 'accidentally' moving into any undefended border areas, so the Red army was deployed very far forward to forestall this, which is good at defending against minor border incidents but not defending against the largest land operation in human history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Arbite posted:Did the U.S. Civil War have any three way skirmishes or even encounters while Kentucky was neutral? No three-way battles. Union and Confederate armies mostly stayed out of the state, and when they did enter they had less than a week before Kentucky broke neutrality and didn't fight each other or engage Kentucky's forces. Early on the Union and Confederate armies jockeyed for position (building forts right on the border, setting up recruitment camps), and Union-favoring and Confederate-favoring portions of Kentucky's army almost had shots fired at a few points. As elections happened, Kentucky's legislature strongly favored the Union but the Governor favored the confederacy. Major General Leonidas Polk from the Confederacy tried to occupy Columbus on September 4 1861, and in response Grant moved union armies in from the north. Kentucky condemned both, then passed-vetoed-overuled a proclamation condemning only the Confederacy, and by September 7th declared that they were no longer neutral, so there was really only 3 days where there was a chance of significant forces running into each other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Which is to say that in 17th century France a duel with your political opponent might look like you and three of your mates jumping your enemies on the street after a pub crawl, and in 19th century France it means asking the editor to please put in the newspaper you got mad. Depending on the time and the place, people would consider "proper conduct" literally worth dying for, and would expect their kids to do so. It also depends on social class - in the 18th and 19th century upper-class dueling in the US tended towards 'show up on the field and fire a shot that won't hit, then consider honor satisfied' before it died out, similar disputes in poorer areas would be settled in 'rough and tumble fighting' where "The emphasis on maximum disfigurement, on severing bodily parts, made this fighting style unique. Amid the general mayhem, however, gouging out an opponent's eye became the sine qua non of rough-and-tumble fighting, much like the knockout punch in modern boxing. The best gougers, of course, were adept at other fighting skills. Some allegedly filed their teeth to bite off an enemy's appendages more efficiently. Still, liberating an eyeball quickly became a fighter's surest route to victory and his most prestigious accomplishment." The amount of social pressure needed to get someone to be willing to engage in an eye-gouging match in an era before modern medicine or disability payments had to be immense. I don't think two guys grappling until one gouges the other's eyes out or bites off his ear films quite as nicely as two guys sparring with rapiers until one lands a fatal blow with a little bit of blood around the wound, so I can see why rough and tumble doesn't get as much film as more refined dueling 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Isn't the 'charge move that's exactly as long as a fast/forced march' a quirk of GW games and imitators? I don't remember that exact rules quirk as common in historical miniatures games, but I've mostly only watched historical minis, never really been into them. InAndOutBrennan posted:There are definitely instances recorded of people charging too much and being very gassed when arriving. Not sure why I'm thinking about Anatolia but... I'd recommend using a different slang word for 'tired' when there's a discussion of chemical weapons on the same page, this actually confused me for a minute!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I can sort of see the logic but the argument seems to lean on some pretty heavy assumptions on how "the average soldier" feels about killing and dying. It seems to take our modern sedentary mindset and transplant it across eras, and that seems wrong to me. I genuinely do think that when historical people wrote about stuff like "chivalry" or "honour", they actually believed that, and consequently felt a real pressure to not be "cowards". If you look at the conversation about dueling a couple of pages back, it's pretty clear that an awful lot of historical people really did think that 'severe injury or death' is a better outcome than 'coward' in a lot of cases. Voluntarily going into a one-on-one duel where injury, deliberate maiming, or death is an almost certain consequence for at least one party was very widespread across different times, locations, and social classes. Almost no soldiers would want to just run straight into a spear, but that's different than not wanting to get to grips with the enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Lemony posted:I think if I was going to extend that argument, I'd also say that all the historical sources that talk about proper warrior behaviour (honour, chivalry, etc.) wouldn't be doing so if there wasn't a concern that many people would behave as "cowards". Societal ideals on bravery are a lot easier to hold when some bastard isn't standing in front of you with a pointy stick he's trying to murder you with. In a duel, societal pressure can make you commit to the fight because people have their eyes on you specifically. If you act in a "cowardly " fashion, it will be obvious. In a general charge though, people might notice and remember if you cut and run. They might not notice if you accidentally-on-purpose stumble slightly so that you're not one of the first to make contact with the enemy. Oh, I see that the comment I was replying to was replying to a discussion of an 'everyone runs at the enemy' charge. I don't think those were actually anywhere near as common as movies would lead people to believe. If you're infantry charging in formation, your buddies beside you and the line of guys behind you certainly have their eyes on you, if you 'fake stumble' and mess up your formation then it's going to be hard for them not to notice. And these are either people from your home area or people you've campaigned with for a long time, so you care a lot about their opinion. Is there even much information on 'everyone run at the enemy' charges? They seem more like a desperation move than a military tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
MikeC posted:An analog I like think of as a reasonable fascilime of what ancient warfare might have looked like is modern-day riot police doing crowd control. A slow deliberate pace to close in on the mass of protesters with small groups breaking into a run to capture small groups of rioters before retreating back to safety of their own lines. I "pulse" theory of combat and riot cops seem to practice that type of movement a lot. That reminds me of a video I think people here will like - it's a comparison of modern riot police armor with medieval armor. Jason, the presenter here, does a lot of videos reenacting medieval stuff (some milhist like armor and horseback riding, some social like food and day-to-day tools). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5drjdFuo7k
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
US Foreign Policy posted:I guess I also wonder how captures on that large of a scale would practically play out. I hate to use movies as some kind of resource here but often they portray captures as spontaneous, usually small level actions sometimes carried out because the attacker didn't feel like they should kill a surrendering unit. That makes it feel like sometimes battlefield prisoners are entirely spontaneous. I guess thats where I breakdown on the mental picture from 'You're leading a dozen guys back to the rear' to 'The entire city of Hot Springs, Arkansas in the form of angry men just shwed up and need somewhere to go" Movies typically show small unit actions because they want a small cast of characters on screen that you can relate to, plus some extras. Even if a movie shows a larger battle, they're not going to film massive amounts of logistical stuff like building and maintaining camps for thousands of people, though they might show some guys behind a fence. For example, during the 1944 Battle of the Bulge the German offensive surrounded Bastogne which was defended by around 22,000 American troops, and after two days of the defenders being cut off sent a message demanding surrender of the entire force, which famously got the response "NUTS". There have been multiple movies made about it, but none of them try to show arrangements for holding 22,000 prisoners, and even if they had surrendered the movie would not really show the boring preparation part. Making arrangements to house a city's worth of men something armies that are taking prisoners in this quantity do constantly, they've moving multiple-cities-of-men across the landscape in fairly tight groups generally not staying in one place for long and keeping them supplied and protected from the elements. Initially POWs will be held in the kind of camp soldiers set up for themselves but with some kind of perimeter to keep them in, or even just some fences with rapidly erected guard towers. Your own army doesn't even have to do all of the work, POWs can be made to do work like digging ditches for latrines or assembling shelter, and they have experience at it since they're in an army, guards are either MPs or soldiers detached for the duty. It's not always easy and an army can get overwhelmed, either when they don't care about keeping prisoners in good shape (like Germany in WW2) or they get prisoners much faster than expected (like the US during Desert Storm), but suddenly housing tens of thousands of men is a thing an army has to do constantly and continuously in order to operate, so they have a lot of practice at it and procedures for how to handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Also, you know that your conduct has a direct impact on your comrades who have been taken prisoner. If your nations prisoners get a reputation for being violent and attempting to escape at every turn you're increasing the chances you or your mates just get shot out of hand. Another way to think of it is that if your city-sized contingent of guys couldn't break through the enemy forces in the area and get back to friendly lines starting from a prepared position and holding guns, vehicles, and ammunition, how well do you think they're going to do after leaving their positions and stockpiled supplies, surrendering all of their communication gear, all heavy weapons, most of their personal weapons, all fighting vehicles, and all or most transport vehicles, especially since friendly lines have probably moved even further back than they were when you surrendered.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Today I learned about cycloramas, which could be considered an early form of VR. They're giant paintings (the one in the link is roughly 40 feet by 400 feet) that were painted to be hung in a dome where people would look at them from an observation platform in the center, giving a view like you're in the middle of a frozen scene of action. The perspective was done to fit the expected shape of the room, and the floor would often have some shrubbery, rocks, tents, guns, and mannequin bodies near the edges to enhance the 3d effect. Battle scenes were a popular subject, and they came into vogue in the US at the right time for a lot of Civil war battle scenes. The particular one that came up is interesting for US military history, because it depicted what was a Union victory originally, then was modified first to depict the Confederates more gallantly, then to present the fight as a confederate victory, then to use the modern 'Confederate Flag' instead of historically correct ones, and eventually even to tie-in with Gone With the Wind (they made one of the 'body on the ground' mannequins look like Rhett Butler). It's now been restored to its original state and has an exhibit on the history of how it was modified over time. I hadn't seen this in any of the Milhist thread versions (though I haven't read all of the old ones), and I thought people here would find it interesting. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/atlanta-famed-cyclorama-tell-truth-civil-war-once-again-180970715/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The Germans invaded French North Africa (modern Tunisia) in response to the Torch landings, basically just flying divisions in unopposed. They invaded the Vichy areas of Southern France at the same time. The UK invaded Madagascar because they were worried that Vichy would let Japan enter unopposed and use it for a Naval base deep in the Indian Ocean. If they expected Vichy to just be fiercely independent, they would have not scraped together the forces needed for a large amphibious operation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:IIRC there were a handful of USMC observers at D-Day. Whether there to advise or take notes I can't remember. I think one or two were KIA during the landings. Can't google anything on that now, but it's a little nugget of something I have rattling around at the back of my head. Take it as that until I can figure out where I got that from, though. The figures I can find say just over 300, including some observers and detachments serving on Navy ships. Marine detachments actually accepted the surrender of German units on a few islands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Quackles posted:Everyone complains about Wikipedia, but no one actually does anything about it. "This site has an issue, so you should dedicate something between 'most of your free time' to 'a full time job' to working on the site for free, and even then that might not be enough to defeat the entrenched boss-level editors" is not really a sensible response. Maybe someone could casually edit back when Wikipedia was new, but for years now you have to fight massively leveled-up editors who's hobby is keeping pages they like how they like them without regard to accuracy, and from what Cyrano4848 and Slothful Cobra are saying it's only gotten worse since I last seriously looked at it. If it was just a matter of writing a decent article and meeting an objective standard for sources I think a pretty good number of people would provide edits, but having to engage in what's essentially a PVP game won by grinding time at Wikipedia against no-lifers who's chosen obsession is editing Wikipedia is a big turn off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:1) it's from 1939... That was fun to watch, and relevant-to-this-thread note that if it was made 3 years later, he wouldn't be complaining about butcher prices, but about meat rationing since prices were fixed but ration cards were in place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In Japanese Destroyer Captain Hara describes sending a letter back to the girl who sent his package but I don't know if it actually made it back. It's hard to imagine the logistics making that possible but maybe they made an exception for senior officers. The IJN and IJA both had mail services, I don't know a lot of details about them but would be really surprised if this was something only a senior officer could do or even considered especially difficult. They wouldn't take an individual envelope and courier it directly to the girl, but would take the letter addressed to someone in Japan, put it in with other letters back home, and transfer all of the letters to other ships, which would eventually get it to the home islands where it would then be delivered by regular mail services. Soldiers and sailors sent and received letters all the time, at least until the end of the war when supply lines mostly collapsed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Random kind-of-specific milhist question that I've always wondered but never seen mentioned anywhere: What was the deal with German army group names during WW2? At times they used geographic names (like Army Group North, Africa, or Group South Ukraine) and at other times they used A, B, C... and there doesn't seem any particular reason for the switch. For the invasion of Poland there were Army Groups North and South, then for the battle of France there were B, A, C from north to south, then for Barbarossa there was North, Center, and South, but South later split into A and B. Was there any real reason for this naming, or was it just 'whatever seemed good at the time'? It makes sense to me that they wouldn't follow the WW1 tradition of naming army groups after their commanders, since Hitler was often at odds with commanders and would replace them, but the geographic vs letter designations always struck me as odd.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Considering how often they got renamed, I think it was simple convenience: The specific thing that I find odd isn't renaming them, it's switching between generic letter designations and geographic designations. I don't see that on the Soviet side, Soviet Fronts were named for the area where they operated (and the one "Reserve Front) and changed names as the area of operations changed and they got split, merged, or disbanded. For example, the Northern Front split into the Leningrad and Karelia Fronts, but it didn't split into front A and front B. It's the thing where German Army Group South split into AG A and AG B, the later those turned to AG South Ukraine and AG South that doesn't make sense to me - If they were always A, B, C, D (or numbers, like the Western Allies army groups) or always geographic (like the Soviet fronts) I wouldn't have the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_(military_formation)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:A and B show up because for Case Blue, the Germans wanted to split the two divergent objectives of the offensive into different army groups. C actually existed from the beginning of the war to cover the Western defenses during the invasion of Poland. And then the other letters kinda show up as they want army group commands for broad theaters. There are some intelligence functions to being weird about it, but mostly, army groups in the German army were more administrative units than anything else. Right, I get why they went from one Army Group in the area to two. What I wonder about is why did it start as Army group 'South' for Poland, then become 'A' for the battle of France, then become 'South' again for Barbarossa, then split with part named 'A' and part 'B', then 'B' turned into 'South' and later 'North Ukraine' then 'A' again then ended on 'Center' while the 'A' part became 'South Ukraine', then 'South', then 'Ostmark'. It's not the reorganization into two parts that I wonder about, it's why there were multiple switches between arbitrary (A, B, A again) and positional (South, Center, South Ukraine) naming conventions, and I don't know if it's just 'no reason they just did it' or if there was a reason. As far as I know other armies didn't do this, they had one naming convention of either arbitrary (numbers for the western allies) or positional names (Leningrad Front, Stalingrad Front, 1st-4th Ukranian Fronts) and stuck to it. I'm guessing there was no real reason for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:My impression from The Sleepwalkers was that A-H's demand was "You've been stirring up poo poo in the region for years, actively funding and supporting guerrilla movements outside your borders, ethnic cleansing minorities everywhere you've claimed, and we know you almost certainly had something to do with this. Bring us the people who did this or else." I quoted from Wikipedia the demands in the Ultimatum below. They're a lot more than "bring us the people who did this", they're much closer to insisting that Serbia cease being a sovereign country. Points 1 and 3 say that Austria-Hungary dictate what publications are allowed, including schoolbooks and public documents. Point 4 let's AH veto any officers and functionaries, point 5 and 6 allow AH to operate police in Serbia, Point 9 requires Serbia to offer explanation of any officials critical of AH. quote:1. Suppress all publications that "incite hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy" and are "directed against its territorial integrity".
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Arbite posted:Rereading some of the fall of France details and more recent works seem less reluctant to discuss all the meth the Germans were taking to keep going. Methamphetamine wasn't made generally illegal until the 1970s (in both the US and Germany from a quick double-check), before that it was available in readily-prescribed pills and non-prescription inhalers, and it wasn't until the injectible form became popular in the 1960s that there was really concern about it. Anyone addicted to meth after the war would just stop by a doctor to get a script for it to treat overeating or tiredness or depression or any one of the many things it was prescribed for, it wasn't a tightly controlled substance for a couple of decades after the war.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
two fish posted:On the subject of fascists: why didn't Franco join the Axis? Was it just that Spain was too drained from the civil war? Or was it something else? Spain didn't have much to gain from joining the war and a lot to lose. Notably they needed to import food and oil, and their rail system was pretty bad so they relied on coastal shipping a lot. This meant that getting blockaded by UK/US fleets would be a complete disaster for the country even without factoring in that Germany would want to move (and supply) significant land and air forces to take Gibraltar. Franco did say he was willing to join if Hitler would ship him food, oil, and give him big chunks of Vichy France's colonial holdings, but Hitler couldn't afford to deliver the first two, and early in the war wanted Vichy as an ally. By the time Hitler gave up on keeping Vichy France as an ally and ordered them occupied, Western Allied troops had landed in France's colonies and it was obvious Germany couldn't offer them to Spain. It's not really clear whether this was a genuine offer from Franco either, he might have just been asking for something he knew Germany would be unable or unwilling to supply as a way of saying 'no' without directly 'no'. Joining the Axis would probably have been a disaster for Franco - the food and fuel issues would be an economic disaster and could well reignite the civil war. The Allies could land forces and equipment to support any revolts that broke out and could shut down any Spanish shipping in the Atlantic (including coastal shipping), and while taking Gibraltar is a big deal in board games, it's not clear that it would have done much for the Axis in real life. Pantaloon Pontiff fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Forget Torch. Resupplying Malta now becomes that much harder, and any efforts to help the Desert Rats/troops in North Africa against the Italians has to go around Africa first. Troops in North Africa were supplied and deployed from the far side of Africa without the hypothetical, it was only Malta convoys that went from Gibraltar.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2024 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Exactly. Losing Gibraltar likely means losing Malta, which would have made things harder on the British in North Africa, but probably not fatally so. The thing with the scenario is that it's vague. When are you thinking of Spain joining the Axis and what does Germany do differently to entice them, how does Portugal respond, how does Vichy France (including the fleet) respond to Germany giving Spain French territory? Does Spain join before or after Barbarossa, or are you postulating Gay Black Hitler who doesn't invade the USSR? How do the massive diversions of resources to Spain (food and oil to bribe Franco, plus German military units for operations) affect other developments? It's possible that Torch becomes something like 'landing troops to support formerly-Vichy colonies fighting against the Axis and Portugal, aided by the formerly neutral French fleet, and landing equipment to supply the Second Spanish Civil War that is drawing German forces away from the middle east and Russia', but I think the whole thing veers into wild speculation.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2024 06:49
|
|