Operation Felix, a German victory.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Sure, but it depends on when it falls. The British may free up resources, but so much depends on what they can actually do with them compared to the resources that are freed up by the Axis.

Consider this map of the BotA to the end of 1941:

That map is of the situation that existed OTL & would be deeply influenced by events after Spains entry. Consider the effect of British ASW bases on the Spanish & Portuguese islands. After some 18months its going to look a lot different.

The Canaries, if they could be turned into a base, nearly sit astride the SL-WS convoy transit point and let Type VIIs Uboats operate there, rather than just the longer range Type IXs. IOTL that was the 2nd richest hunting ground for the Uboats other than the upper Atlantic. Also the proximity means land base air units could be used to attack or at least spot for Uboats.

Can you describe how the Axis could do that??? In the end the Axis barely took Crete against a off balance Britain, they failed to secure Malta after multiple preparations. How are they to establish bases on the Canaries, or Maderia, let alone the Cape Verde or Azores? Politically it risks earlier US intervention in occupation of the Azores & Madeira. Opens another can of worms for the Axis.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Azores were Portuguese, not Spanish. Unless the Brits opt to declare war on Portugal, they aren't getting them...unless the Axis opts to attack Portugal too. French bases were great for some things, but Spain's geographical position was much more beneficial for cutting British contacts with the Empire than France; see the map I posted above.

Off to meet a customer. But on this point you are very far off. Salazar government was painfully aware of the Falangists attitude towards Portugal, knew of the Spanish plans for invading Portugal, and of German support for this. Salzar also unlike so many people understood the economic realities of the world then. For that and other reasons he was far more inclined to Britain than the train wreck he saw in the Facist Axis. He & his supporters saw there would be no neutrality for Portugal were Spain to drink the kool-aid.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That map is of the situation that existed OTL & would be deeply influenced by events after Spains entry. Consider the effect of British ASW bases on the Spanish & Portuguese islands. After some 18months its going to look a lot different.

Why are you assuming that the British would have access to anything Portuguese?
When would the British be able to seize anything Spanish, especially when Gibraltar is shut down on day 1 of Spanish entry and perhaps much of the British fleet their destroyed/damaged in the flight out? Would Britain be able to survive 18 months in that situation? Would Egypt and Malta?

Can you describe how the Axis could do that??? In the end the Axis barely took Crete against a off balance Britain, they failed to secure Malta after multiple preparations. How are they to establish bases on the Canaries, or Maderia, let alone the Cape Verde or Azores? Politically it risks earlier US intervention in occupation of the Azores & Madeira. Opens another can of worms for the Axis.

Crete was taken against massively superior numbers and much of the British fleet damaged in the process. Malta was never invaded for a variety of reason, some of which were strategically sound at the time. With Gibraltar out of the picture there is no threat the British could take the Canaries quickly and Gibraltar, even if holding out, would not be a naval base and would be shut down as a staging point to threaten Spain. Depending on when Spain enters, though per OTL it is in 1941, which means things get tough for Britain in North Africa, while the Germans have their Barbarossa resources to devote to Spain/North Africa. That was a LOT of material and men. The Spanish merchant fleet is now without things to import and could be used, perhaps things contracted from Vichy France to ship to French North Africa and transported then by Spain onwards by land rail or by sea. Things could be flown in too, given that the German transport fleet wouldn't be needed for Russia.

Again you keep mentioning neutral Portuguese territory, why do you think this TL would have Britain or the US taking that given that Portugal isn't mentioned as being attacked or in the war at all by OP?

Off to meet a customer. But on this point you are very far off. Salazar government was painfully aware of the Falangists attitude towards Portugal, knew of the Spanish plans for invading Portugal, and of German support for this. Salzar also unlike so many people understood the economic realities of the world then. For that and other reasons he was far more inclined to Britain than the train wreck he saw in the Facist Axis. He & his supporters saw there would be no neutrality for Portugal were Spain to drink the kool-aid.

The Germans didn't support the invasion of Portugal and were not happy about Franco's desire for that. Beside OP never mentioned Portugal, which directly leads to the logical assumption that they are neutral in this. I don't see Salazar suddenly abandoning neutrality until directly attacked; if anything he would appease until he couldn't and appeal to Britain for help if/when that happens. Question is when could the British actually do anything about that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal_during_World_War_II

Despite Portuguese neutrality, in December 1941, Portuguese Timor was occupied by Australian and Dutch forces, which were expecting a Japanese invasion. Salazar's reaction was violent. He protested, saying that the Allies had violated Portuguese sovereignty and jeopardized Portuguese neutrality.

Given his OTL response to having the Allies occupy territory despite being neutral, he would be extra scared to allow it ITTL unless invaded.

Portugal managed to remain neutral despite extraordinary pressures from both sides. Both the Allies and the Axis sought to control the strategically located Azores islands during World War II. Dictator Salazar was especially worried about a possible German invasion through Spain and did not want to provoke Hitler; nor did he want to give Spain an excuse to take side with the Axis and invade Portugal due to the strategic importance of the Canary Islands. Both Great Britain and the United States devised several plans to set up air bases in the Azores regardless of Portugal's disapproval. The plans were never put into operation.

Interestingly Spain and Portugal had a non-aggression pact too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Pact

 

[Gudestein]

About Japan and the USSR. ITTL the rationale Japan followed IOTL is at least different. If SU attacks Germany in 1941, Japan is bound by treaty to intervene. If in 1942 which seems more likely (I imagine the Germans struggling to project power beyond the med, but trying for middle east and arab peninsula, then we have to guess what the Japanese is thinking. Maybe they dont dare attack the US alone. They would become an obvious SU target.
If they dont, I dont see the US in the war.
An SU attack while Japan has to intervene is the obvious Way if turning the pod into a war winner. Germany bogged down in the middle east while trying to open a flank against the SU would be the Way to make Stalin go for a preemptive strike

 

[burgoynewulfe]

Fine, let's say the Germans take Gibraltar and don't go to war with the Soviet Union. And...? How does this become a successful German Med strategy? How does the Axis end up on Suez, let alone in the Iraqi oilfields? Let alone to advance from the South through the Caucasus?
You do know that the supplies for the 8th British Army didn't go through Gibraltar. You will also remember that if Germany doesn't invade the Soviet Union in 1941, then the Germans have to begin paying the supplies they are receiving, starting that spring. I could mention a dozen other issues, but I'm sure you are aware of them. So could you explain how the Axis succeeds in solving them?

My thinking is that through Gibralter, the Germans can launch an invasion of NA and into the middle east, to cripple Britain's oil supplies. Taking Gibralter cuts off allied shipping in Mediterranean so supplies can be shipped to the German army in the middle east. The shipment of raw goods from the Soviet Union ended in August of 1941 and this Mediterranean offensive would begin even earlier than operation Barbarossa because there would not be a need to wait until spring, perhaps the agreement is extended as the Soviets would have been more than happy to wait until the Germans are weak to strike. Once the Germans break through the Suez they will face little resistance from French Syria and the British mandates, they were very underdefended and on top of all that the Arab nationalists would rise up and help the Nazis overthrow the British and French. From this position, they can invade the Soviet Union from Poland and the Caucuses.

Why does the US make peace when they know that in a couple of years they should have nukes? And that Germany can't invade Britain, the Uboots are manageable if costly, And the RAF with USAAF reinforcement can defend the British skies even if with no eastern front they would switch to night bombing.

Furthermore why does the USSR surrender? Without the Germans coming as far as they did they have more factories, more people to recruit from, and the reforms that the USSR were in the middle of in 1941 would have been completed meaning a much more competent red army with more modern tanks and equipment.

And if both the USSR and the USA had made peace, then why does Britain keep fighting? Since their Atomic bomb program is already subsumed into the manhattan project that route is gone and they are left with no way to defeat Germany. So why are they not making peace? This is not comparable to the situation after the fall of France as then both the USSR and the US were at peace and the hope was that at least the US might become involved in the war at a later date.

And of course everything that @Michele said.

The USSR surrenders (not unconditionally) because the war on the eastern front would inevitably end in a stalemate, seeing as the Soviets are the aggressors they would be more willing to make a deal with the Germans. Perhaps Stalin and Hitler die before war's end and the new governments decide to make peace with each other rather than sacrifice more and more lives. And the US would drop out of the war in Europe as soon as the Soviets did, leaving only Britain left. I will concede that realistically they would surrender at this point but I at least wanted to consider them to still fight on.

 

[burgoynewulfe]

About Japan and the USSR. ITTL the rationale Japan followed IOTL is at least different. If SU attacks Germany in 1941, Japan is bound by treaty to intervene. If in 1942 which seems more likely (I imagine the Germans struggling to project power beyond the med, but trying for middle east and arab peninsula, then we have to guess what the Japanese is thinking. Maybe they dont dare attack the US alone. They would become an obvious SU target.
If they dont, I dont see the US in the war.
An SU attack while Japan has to intervene is the obvious Way if turning the pod into a war winner. Germany bogged down in the middle east while trying to open a flank against the SU would be the Way to make Stalin go for a preemptive strike

I imagine the Soviets invading in early 1942 after Japan has already brought America into the war. This would only serve to embolden the idea of a Soviet pre-emptive strike. At this point, Britain would be crippled and Hitler would intend to initiate operation Barbarossa in the spring or summer of 42 anyways. The ultimate goal was the defeat Russia so Hitler wouldn't have delayed more than a year and the Mediterranean campaign would conclude before 42 most likely.

 

[matlef]

My thinking is that through Gibralter, the Germans can launch an invasion of NA and into the middle east, to cripple Britain's oil supplies. Taking Gibralter cuts off allied shipping in Mediterranean so supplies can be shipped to the German army in the middle east. The shipment of raw goods from the Soviet Union ended in August of 1941 and this Mediterranean offensive would begin even earlier than operation Barbarossa because there would not be a need to wait until spring, perhaps the agreement is extended as the Soviets would have been more than happy to wait until the Germans are weak to strike. Once the Germans break through the Suez they will face little resistance from French Syria and the British mandates, they were very underdefended and on top of all that the Arab nationalists would rise up and help the Nazis overthrow the British and French. From this position, they can invade the Soviet Union from Poland and the Caucuses.

As have already been mentioned the vast majority of convoys went around the Cape in OTL, at worst Malta might, and i stress on might fall. Which does not solve the issues of not having the needed infrastructure in NA to be able to succeed. With the British having a better supply line and good defensive terrain in El-Alamein they would still be able to halt and eventually turn back the Axis forces. It could very possibly take longer however. Your post also seem to indicate that they would use Gibraltar as a springboard into NA but that would not help, since the only part of NA they can invade from Gibraltar would be French Marocco and Algeria. Which means war with Vichy France and bogs the Axis down in a campaign over territory that is meaningless. When they instead can just ship troops over to Italian Libya and invade Egypt directly.

The USSR surrenders (not unconditionally) because the war on the eastern front would inevitably end in a stalemate, seeing as the Soviets are the aggressors they would be more willing to make a deal with the Germans. Perhaps Stalin and Hitler die before war's end and the new governments decide to make peace with each other rather than sacrifice more and more lives. And the US would drop out of the war in Europe as soon as the Soviets did, leaving only Britain left. I will concede that realistically they would surrender at this point but I at least wanted to consider them to still fight on.

But if the Soviets are going to invade because the Germans are busy in the mediterranean would they not then first slow down and then stop shipments of supplies to Germany? So that when they do invade the Germans lack the resources to fight a prolonged war against them. Or if they keep sending the resources (without payment as Germany wasn't really able to pay without starting to give away some really juicy technology like the Buna process) It's either to extort the Germans of said goodies or because they want to placate them while building up for a future confrontation.

You still just state that the US would drop out of the war just because the USSR did but give no arguments for this. And if the USSR did not surrender when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow why would they do that when they have been stopped far from the industrial centres of the USSR? They also have a fully built up Molotov-line that they can retreat to if their offensive into Poland fails (Even if i don't see Stalin as the kind to launch a very reckless attack unless Germany is weak enough that it's pretty much a walkover. Which they certainly can do just shut of the tap so to speak). And this assumes that the red army is still the incompetent force of the winter war and 1941, in which case there is no chance of Stalin attacking.


And what's preventing Spain from going into anarchy as they are no longer able to import food or resources from overseas (and no Germany does not have the ability to replace that) while having allied intelligence supporting all those who are a bit miffed at the facist regime?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

(without payment as Germany wasn't really able to pay without starting to give away some really juicy technology like the Buna process)

The Soviets had their own version of the Buna process since 1932, before the Buna process was invented actually, to make a similar end product. Thing is Germany could pay, but chose not to, because they were going to invade anyway (why pay when you're going to be fighting them in 6 months?) and they were using the resources they would have used to pay to prepare for Barbarossa. You don't need to double the number of Panzer divisions or increase the army by dozens of divisions if you're not going to invade the USSR.

 

[matlef]

The Soviets had their own version of the Buna process since 1932, before the Buna process was invented actually, to make a similar end product. Thing is Germany could pay, but chose not to, because they were going to invade anyway (why pay when you're going to be fighting them in 6 months?) and they were using the resources they would have used to pay to prepare for Barbarossa. You don't need to double the number of Panzer divisions or increase the army by dozens of divisions if you're not going to invade the USSR.

But they are still planning to invade the USSR just postponing it until they have conquered all the way up to the caucasus. And by using the resources to pay the Soviets to support this mediterranean strategy they would make them stronger and give them more time to prepare for a later conflict.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

But they are still planning to invade the USSR just postponing it until they have conquered all the way up to the caucasus. And by using the resources to pay the Soviets to support this mediterranean strategy they would make them stronger and give them more time to prepare for a later conflict.

If they have to put it off they'd keep up payments and make the spending more gradual, rather than rush it all at once. Plus once Britain is out of the war, then they could import globally and from the conquered empires of Europe. Until then they'd need to keep the USSR happy.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

My thinking is that through Gibralter, the Germans can launch an invasion of NA and into the middle east, to cripple Britain's oil supplies. Taking Gibralter cuts off allied shipping in Mediterranean so supplies can be shipped to the German army in the middle east. The shipment of raw goods from the Soviet Union ended in August of 1941 and this Mediterranean offensive would begin even earlier than operation Barbarossa because there would not be a need to wait until spring, perhaps the agreement is extended as the Soviets would have been more than happy to wait until the Germans are weak to strike. Once the Germans break through the Suez they will face little resistance from French Syria and the British mandates, they were very underdefended and on top of all that the Arab nationalists would rise up and help the Nazis overthrow the British and French. From this position, they can invade the Soviet Union from Poland and the Caucuses.



The USSR surrenders (not unconditionally) because the war on the eastern front would inevitably end in a stalemate, seeing as the Soviets are the aggressors they would be more willing to make a deal with the Germans. Perhaps Stalin and Hitler die before war's end and the new governments decide to make peace with each other rather than sacrifice more and more lives. And the US would drop out of the war in Europe as soon as the Soviets did, leaving only Britain left. I will concede that realistically they would surrender at this point but I at least wanted to consider them to still fight on.

If the Axis could not reach Alex from a starting position in Libya - how does holding Gib change things?

Once the Germans Break through the Suez? We would still be waiting today for that to happen. The Majority of the Allied supplies in Africa either went across the continent or around it once Italy entered the war. The Tiger Convoy is the only convoy that I can see being impacted here ands it now goes the long way around

Malta won't fall right away (if it does fall) that might take a year or so from Jan-March 41 which is when I think the earliest moment that Felix can be launched - unless Germany drop whatever FJs they have not long afterwards - in which case, successful or not they wont be able to take crete as the FJs will have been ruined and not fit for purpose.

The DAK arrives in Libya effectively beginning 41, they would have to achieve all of this taking Egypt and conquering half of the Middle east before mid 42 as that is when the Allied war machine has gathered enough steam to start overcoming the shortfalls that impacted the Allied forces in 1940 and 1941.

I know they were good...but not that good eh?

And Britain 'surrenders' when the Swastika flies over Whitehall and jackboot march down the Mall. Losing Gib in 41 does not allow that to happen.

So ultimately the Axis gain the basket case that is Spain as a net drain Ally (think Italy but worse) - Im sure that Blue division will come in useful somewhere - certainly the remnants fought well in Berlin - cut off the Western End of the Med and possibly reduce Malta by the end of 41

They however lose the North Atlantic Islands, whether or not the Axis preemptively reinforce/stage forces on them - the Axis cannot maintain a base in the Atlantic anymore than Britain could maintain a base in the Baltic and the British will do what they must. Salazar might rage away in public but he was a smart cookie - he would understand. This has implications for the BoA and possibly has it being won by the allies before May 43. An in this scenario maybe Torch and Husky do not take place where they did and Normandy comes early?

With Felix I doubt very much that the British would send a corps to Greece and would instead not lose a Division worth of men and 5 divisions worth of equipment between Sonnenbaum, Greece and Crete.

Crete is held by the Allies as instead of knackered units with incomplete ToE being dumped on the place after being evacuated following the fall of Greece - fresh units garrison the place and the FJs cannot answer the phone at the moment as they are busy filling wargraves on Malta or Hospitals in Italy (and possibly POW camps elsewhere if Little Hercules went south).

Sonnenbaum or its equivalent here - has a steeper cliff to climb - as the best Allied units are not skimmed off to fight in Greece they are instead sitting in Egypt!

This also means that further forces can beat the snot out of any pro axis Arab uprising even more than they managed OTL.

Another thing to consider here - Franco might have been mates with the Fascist leaders but many of his Spanish peers in Government were also good mates with the British! And all knew, unlike Benito, that the only winning move is not to play.

 

[matlef]

If they have to put it off they'd keep up payments and make the spending more gradual, rather than rush it all at once. Plus once Britain is out of the war, then they could import globally and from the conquered empires of Europe. Until then they'd need to keep the USSR happy.

Who has said that Britain is leaving the war? The logistical situation in NA isn't improved and the points @Cryhavoc101 makes about the British quite possibly having more troops in Egypt would indicate that it might even be worse than OTL for the Axis.

 

[burgoynewulfe]

Perhaps Gibralter isn't the best choice for launching a Mediterranean operation but there are alternatives. Plus without a huge dedication of troops on the eastern front, a lot of divisions will be sent to NA for this invasion. It wouldn't be the number of soldiers in NA as in OTL.

 

[matlef]

Perhaps Gibralter isn't the best choice for launching a Mediterranean operation but there are alternatives. Plus without a huge dedication of troops on the eastern front, a lot of divisions will be sent to NA for this invasion. It wouldn't be the number of soldiers in NA as in OTL.

But more troops doesn't help if they can't supply them. And the Libyan infrastructure was an issue in OTL.

 

[burgoynewulfe]

From Crete the Germans could stage an airborne invasion of Cyprus. Only a small British garisson exists with little equipment in 1941. Cyprus could be used to stage airborne operations into Syria and Palestine, Germany would would then be able to surround the British in Egypt. A Luftwafe base in Cyprus would help tremendously. And Cyrpus could be a staging spot for suppies coming from Vichy and the rest of occupied Europe.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Who has said that Britain is leaving the war? The logistical situation in NA isn't improved and the points @Cryhavoc101 makes about the British quite possibly having more troops in Egypt would indicate that it might even be worse than OTL for the Axis.

OP? There is only so many imperial losses the Brits can take, coupled with the shipping issues in the Atlantic stemming from Spain as a naval base, that would make them consider ousting Churchill and consider peace.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

But more troops doesn't help if they can't supply them. And the Libyan infrastructure was an issue in OTL.

The biggest issue was shipping interdiction.


As an aside, could the Brits be dragged into a Pennisular War to support Portugal and potentially get sucked into a conflict they couldn't win? I could see Churchill, being the history nut he was, would try and think he could play Wellington and get his army wrecked.

 

[Zheng He]

OP? There is only so many imperial losses the Brits can take, coupled with the shipping issues in the Atlantic stemming from Spain as a naval base, that would make them consider ousting Churchill and consider peace.

The problem I have with this argument is that for most of the first three years of the war the British knew nothing but defeat. They won the Battle of Britain, had some successes here and there like sinking the Bismarck, and had some victories in North Africa but those were balanced out by plenty of losses (Tobruk) but seriously - Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malaya & Singapore, the DEI, Burma. Heck, one of their biggest successes in the first half of the war was Dunkirk - an evacuation. So Spain entering the war and the potential defeats associated with that are going to bring them to their knees? Sorry, that doesn't work.

 

[Zheng He]

IMO, if Hitler is really going to push hard for the Spanish to join the war, it is because things have gone differently and he sees a vulnerability to the Axis position that did not exist OTL. Like Vichy France doesn't exist. Germany has been forced to occupy the whole country while the colonies (including the French Fleet) decide to fight on from the start. This creates a sense of vulnerability in the Mediterranean. Italy is suddenly badly exposed and the Italian position in Africa is surrounded on all sides. Hitler then decides he needs the Spanish to help balance out this equation and part of the way he buys off Franco is with grandiose promises of French territory in North Africa.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The problem I have with this argument is that for most of the first three years of the war the British knew nothing but defeat. They won the Battle of Britain, had some successes here and there like sinking the Bismarck, and had some victories in North Africa but those were balanced out by plenty of losses (Tobruk) but seriously - Norway, France, Greece, Crete, Malaya & Singapore, the DEI, Burma. Heck, one of their biggest successes in the first half of the war was Dunkirk - an evacuation. So Spain entering the war and the potential defeats associated with that are going to bring them to their knees? Sorry, that doesn't work.

Those successes were critical to morale because of all the defeat. Tobruk didn't fall until 1942 and triggered a vote of no confidence against Churchill. What do you think the loss of Gibraltar would do? Malta after that? Crete in that context? Maybe the Bismarck sinking is butterflied and there would be no boost due to Soviet entry and successes. More defeats on top of OTL plus no alliance with the Soviets does not look good.