Why didn't Hitler invade Spain?

[PeterOT]

He disliked the pain of pulled teeth..

Quite

Franco was ever the skillful politician. He managed to negotiate himself into a position where he was on side with the winning side at each stage of the war without ever committing his crippled nation to anything significant. Even better, the 'Blue' Division allowed him to get rid of some of the more militant young men of the Falange who might have actually tried to follow in Jose Antonio's footsteps, rather than just erecting statues to him.

Franco didn't get where he got to & stay there for decades by being dumb enough to make himself the potential target of the Axis or the Allies. Had the Axis won the war Franco would have found a way to be on very good terms with Berlin. Despite this he was on relatively good terms with the Allies by the end of the war. Few men have walked a tightrope so successfully.

No wonder Hitler longed for the gentle hands of his dentist.

[estrategia]

Tanks would have a lot of barriers in the peninsula... as in many other countries. There is a very great difference between what you say now and the "useless" statement that you made previously. And you did not stated that tank predominance would have happened along the coast line; you only talked about the Mediterranean coast.
Anyway, just to clarify this point:

Well the Mediterranean is a coast line? Isn't?

1) Tanks were used everywhere during the SCW without many difficulties, as I have previously stated.
2) The Spanish Army retained a significative tank park after the war and tried to build many more, and when that failed tried to buy as many as possible. I do not think that they would have tried to have a "useless" weapon.
3) The German Army intended to use mechanized and tank forces in Operation Felix, and they had a good knowledge of the terrain from the SCW and studies made before the planning. I think they should have know whether they could use tanks or not...

Tanks are not the main cause of retaliation from the Rojos. Tanks might of been used, in some regions in Spain, but it must to been difficult to maneuver inside the Spanish Meseta.Once again, Tanks did little effect in Spain, as they they have little effect in Afghanistan. Air force is a different story. And by the way, where talking about guerrilla warfare, not army vs army. I highly doubt that the Spanish Guerillas would of encounter tanks, and suddenly attack them. Its seems quite stupid.

If no one knows how many people died, you should not make such bold statements as

Well if no one knows how many people dies, then you shouldn't give number ether!

Anyway, I'm well aware of some who say 300,000 and of others that talk about 1,000,000, but I'm still waiting for a serious source claiming 2,000,000 deaths in the SCW

When I was visiting, Madrid and I visited the Spanish Fuerza Aerea, their historical files point out more than 2.000.000 people died, the problems is there are mass graves that haven't been discover. Many of the officials who buried these dead people kept quiet or died. For them to not be arrested by Franco, el Generalismo. Then you still have the problem that many people in Spain during the early 19 hundreds, didn't have documentation. And thats a problem itself. Regardless of what you say.

Despite the glamorous image of the guerrilla, the fact is that guerrilla warfare played a very little, almost negligible, part in the SCW. And despite the glamorous view of the "maquis", it was almost equally ineffective after the SCW. Nothing comparable to Yugoslavia or Russia in World War II.

To state that Yugoslavia or Russia are nothing comparable with Spain is tangible. The whole point behind this argument is that there was never such a war. So to imply that Yugoslavia or Russia where more effective when compared with Spain, is very debatable. They never entered the war so how would you know this?

Russia fought in Afghanistan and lost the war when they where a super power, which where stronger than Hitlers Germany. So I could easily compare the Germans fighting in Spain and losing against Spanish Guerillas who by the way, had a quite remarkable civil war experience. This point is clear and understandable. I never said the Spanish Army was strong, but their guerrillas are a different story. And Spain is renown for being more individualist than united like in the case of the Germans. It would of been a different type of war. My suggestion is that the Germans would of killed many Spanish at first, till the point the population got tired and slowly starts responding with many fight backs. It would be a lost case for Hitler. Because when an organized army like Germany has to deal with 10.000 guerrillas who act independently from each other, without having any links, is a completely different style of war, my friend. Just looking at the separatist shows this point very clearly. So again its not all about tanks and planes. Its way more complex than that and you have to not only study the Geography, of the place, but the population and their history. Ants are different around the world.

History tells us otherwise. The Romans conquered Spain and there they remained, never expelled; they were simply conquered by newcomers. The Moors remained about seven centuries in control of parts of Spain, so I do not think that Hitler was to be worried by their example (not even going into deeper considerations)

There was no such thing as Spain, lol. And the moors are Beri-Beries who come from the Northen Regions of the Subsajarian Dessert. Spain is never been trully conquern. Beri Beri tribes, Sepharadies mixed with Ostrogods, Visigods and Celts, and some Dorians which are the actual race romans descent from makes the Spanish race. The Romans got expelled by the moors because they where under the Catholic Imperio. So they did get thrown out because they where under the Catholic predominance, which was settle in Italy. Many escaped.

. And Napoleon, despite the novelesque picture of the Independence War that some have, was not defeated by the guerrilla; Spanish field armies, Wellington and his British and Portuguese forces, and the need to withdraw forces for his main armies were much more important in the French defeat in Spain. Guerrilla certainly helped, but it was far from being the main cause

.

Im sorry but napoleons ulcer wasn't caused by the British forces, nether the Portuguese. It was caused by the Spanish population revolting (Guerrillas). Regardless of what you say thats what napoleon wrote in a letter directed to his brother who,he put as a high official in Madrid to crown him king of Spain.

First, I suppose you are talking about Algiers, not about Algeciras, because if you are really talking about Algeciras then you are really at a lost. In that case, it has nothing to do with Spain. Algiers was a French colony.
Second, it is doubtful whether the Lybian oil could have been exploited during the war; see, for example,

I think you are lost. Algeciras, is in the tip of the Spanish south. Then Algeria, not Algiers, lol. Is located in the Northen Magreb boarding Morocco. By the way smarty, Franco wanted to take Algeria, which infuriated the French in particular De Charles De Gaulle. So this idea was part of Franco's plan to enter WW2.

Code: Select all

[url]http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2181&hilit=oil+lybia[/url]
[url]http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=521&p=1937&hilit=oil+lybia#p1937[/url]
[url]http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59630[/url]
Third, even if the Lybian oil could be obtained, transporting it from Lybia to Germany by going through Spain is simply stupid. Simpler, quicker and safer to go directly across the Mediterraneum. It will always be far easier to take Malta than to take Spain.
In terms of strategic plans, as Hitler's attention was fixed on the Soviet Union, Spain was of little importance.

Hitlers strategy changed radically when he saw the threat of England and USA. So Spain did become in the end a real strategical point. He maintained a check point in Russia, because he like competing with staling in the war of Stalingrad. But in the end he needed the West of Europe to create check points, so he could deal with England and a possible threat called USA. He wanted the Canaries, but Franco wouldn't allow him. From the Northern tip of Africa, you can connect easily with the Mediterranean sea, this means oil trough boats to refuel tanks and other military forms of hardware around Europe. Then the other options is trough land. By using land Hitler could of refuel military hardware through Spain, in order to fight England and USA. Algeciras, and Morroco would of connected Europe with Africa. which would of been a huge advantage, to supply his machinery. its not to hard to understand. : /

Spain could have been important to fight Great Britain, but would have been of no consecuence for an invasion of England

.

Churchill apparently disagrees with you. "Winston Churchill authorised millions of dollars in bribes to stop General Franco from entering the Second World War on the side of Germany" This is in a history book, called the Hitler paradigm.

And that without considering that the Germans had no means to invade England, and the USA could not have been safer even if on another planet. But anyway, Hitler's attention was fixed in the Soviet Union. He had no interest in delaying the invasion of the Soviet Union to defeat Great Britain first, and Spain would have added nothing of interest for an Eastern campaing. So why would have he invade Spain?

There is no reason why to invade Spain, but rather join Forces. Thats the point. However where talking about a possible war between the two, which looks like is more in topic than the historical argument.

[Ironmachine]

Well the Mediterranean is a coast line? Isn't?

Well, in fact, no. It is a sea. But this has nothing to do with my statement. You said that tanks would have useless in Spain unless in the Mediterranean coast. I have proved that this was not the case.

Tanks are not the main cause of retaliation from the Rojos. Tanks might of been used, in some regions in Spain, but it must to been difficult to maneuver inside the Spanish Meseta.

Tanks would have had no difficulty maneuvering in the Meseta. In fact, Spanish tank units have usually been quartered in the Meseta. And as I said before, tanks have been used in Spain almost everywhere without problems.

Tanks did little effect in Spain...

Provide a source.

Well if no one knows how many people dies, then you shouldn't give number ether!

I have not given numbers. I have said that I have seen references to different numbers of deaths, but never to 2,000,000 of them.

When I was visiting, Madrid and I visited the Spanish Fuerza Aerea, their historical files point out more than 2.000.000 people died, the problems is there are mass graves that haven't been discover. Many of the officials who buried these dead people kept quiet or died. For them to not be arrested by Franco, el Generalismo. Then you still have the problem that many people in Spain during the early 19 hundreds, didn't have documentation. And thats a problem itself. Regardless of what you say.

1) Can you please explain what do you mean by "I visited the Spanish Fuerza Aerea"? That simply means that you visited the Spanish Air Force, which in itself means nothing.
2) I'm still waiting for a creditable source that states there were 2,000,000 deaths during the SCW. Your reference to some "historical files" (of the Air Force, no less) is worthless.

To state that Yugoslavia or Russia are nothing comparable with Spain is tangible. The whole point behind this argument is that there was never such a war. So to imply that Yugoslavia or Russia where more effective when compared with Spain, is very debatable. They never entered the war so how would you know this?

The point is just the opposite. Germany did not lost to guerrilla warfare neither in Yugoslavia nor in Russia. Why would that happen in Spain?

So I could easily compare the Germans fighting in Spain and losing against Spanish Guerillas who by the way, had a quite remarkable civil war experience.

The experience in guerrilla warfare from the SCW was quite limited, as there was very little of what is called guerrilla warfare. Even after the war, when only guerrilla warfare was available for the Republican forces, they were remarkably ineffective. I can't see why they would have been more effective against the German Army that agaisnt the Spanish Army. Maybe they would have more popular support, but on the other hand they would face much stronger opposition.

There was no such thing as Spain, lol. And the moors are Beri-Beries who come from the Northen Regions of the Subsajarian Dessert. Spain is never been trully conquern. Beri Beri tribes, Sepharadies mixed with Ostrogods, Visigods and Celts, and some Dorians which are the actual race romans descent from makes the Spanish race. The Romans got expelled by the moors because they where under the Catholic Imperio. So they did get thrown out because they where under the Catholic predominance, which was settle in Italy. Many escaped.

You have no (as in zero) knowledge about Spanish history, that's clear.

Im sorry but napoleons ulcer wasn't caused by the British forces, nether the Portuguese. It was caused by the Spanish population revolting (Guerrillas). Regardless of what you say thats what napoleon wrote in a letter directed to his brother who,he put as a high official in Madrid to crown him king of Spain.

But AFAIK (perhaps you are better informed) you do not die from ulcer. Now, seriously, it was not Spanish guerrillas what forced Soult out of Spain. It was not Spanish guerrillas the forces that took Paris in 1814 and forced Napoleon's abdication.

Hitlers strategy changed radically when he saw the threat of England and USA. So Spain did become in the end a real strategical point. He maintained a check point in Russia, because he like competing with staling in the war of Stalingrad. But in the end he needed the West of Europe to create check points, so he could deal with England and a possible threat called USA. He wanted the Canaries, but Franco wouldn't allow him. From the Northern tip of Africa, you can connect easily with the Mediterranean sea, this means oil trough boats to refuel tanks and other military forms of hardware around Europe. Then the other options is trough land. By using land Hitler could of refuel military hardware through Spain, in order to fight England and USA. Algeciras, and Morroco would of connected Europe with Africa. which would of been a huge advantage, to supply his machinery. its not to hard to understand. : /

Go and study some history and some geography, and then perhaps you can begin talking with some sense.

Churchill apparently disagrees with you. "Winston Churchill authorised millions of dollars in bribes to stop General Franco from entering the Second World War on the side of Germany" This is in a history book, called the Hitler paradigm.

And exactly where did Churchill disagreed with my statement that "Spain could have been important to fight Great Britain..."

There is no reason why to invade Spain, but rather join Forces. Thats the point. However where talking about a possible war between the two, which looks like is more in topic than the historical argument.

In simple words, the problem is that Hitler wanted to invade the Soviet Union, not the United Kingdom. And in that estrategical scenario, Spain was of no interest, so there was no reason for neither an invasion nor a cooperation, unless the cooperation was offered for free and without further burdens for Germany's economy and military power, which was not the case. It is as simple as that.

[Ironmachine]

Let's take a closer look at this statement:

Hitlers strategy changed radically when he saw the threat of England and USA. So Spain did become
in the end a real strategical point. He maintained a check point in Russia, because he like competing with staling in the war of Stalingrad. But in the end he needed the West of Europe to create check points, so he could deal with England and a possible threat called USA. He wanted the Canaries, but Franco wouldn't allow him. From the Northern tip of Africa, you can connect easily with the Mediterranean sea, this means oil trough boats to refuel tanks and other military forms of hardware around Europe. Then the other options is trough land. By using land Hitler could of refuel military hardware through Spain, in order to fight England and USA. Algeciras, and Morroco would of connected Europe with Africa. which would of been a huge advantage, to supply his machinery. its not to hard to understand. : /

Now, step by step:

Hitlers strategy changed radically when he saw the threat of England and USA.

Changed when and in what sense? When he left Great Britain undefeated and unconquered to launch an invasion of the Soviet Union? When he declared war on the United States? When he left the Mediterraneam as a secondary front, providing just enough resources to keep it stabilized while keeping the bulk of his strength against the Soviet Union? When he launched the last German offensives of the war in Hungary against the Soviets?...

So Spain did become in the end a real strategical point.

In the end? Like in 1945, with the Soviets knocking at the door? Like in 1944, when the Allies where already in France and the Eastern Front was collapsing? Like in 1943, when Africa was lost and the Allies landed in Italy? Like in 1942, whith the Germans trying to get the Caucasus petrol? Like in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union?...
As I have said before, Spain could have had importance in the war if Hitler had decided to fight Great Britain before attacking the Soviet Union. Once Barbarrosa was launched, the decision was to be made in the East, and Spain lost any possible interest for Hitler.

He maintained a check point in Russia, because he like competing with staling in the war of Stalingrad.

Here http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288 you have the number of German divisions by front in a monthly scale from September 1939 to May 1945. When Hitler consistently deployed the bulk of his army against the Soviets, you can not say that he maintained a "check point" in Russia. You don't invade a country to maintain a check point. You do not lauch major offensives in 1942 and 1943 to maintain a check point. The truth is that the East was the main theater of the war, it's as simply as that. And when you are fighting for you life in the East, Spain is of no value.
By the way, "the war of Stalingrad"? Do you know what you are talking about?

But in the end he needed the West of Europe to create check points, so he could deal with England and a possible threat called USA.

Wasn't your opinion that Russia was the check point? Anyway, Spain would have been of no value as a check point against Great Britain and the USA. And on the other hand, keeping the bulk of the German Army in the East seems a rather extrange way to deal with Great Britain and the USA.

He wanted the Canaries, but Franco wouldn't allow him.

Can you provide a source to support your statement that Hitler wanted the Canaries? And can you explain how could the Germans keep the Canaries against the British?

From the Northern tip of Africa, you can connect easily with the Mediterranean sea, this means oil trough boats to refuel tanks and other military forms of hardware around Europe.

If you are talking about the Lybian oil, remember that you have still not provided a source about its availability or about whether Hitler was aware of it. But in any case, even supposing that the oil could be exploited, you can much more easily carry it through boats directly from Lybia to Italy. There is no need to go through Spanish Morroco.

Then the other options is trough land. By using land Hitler could of refuel military hardware through Spain, in order to fight England and USA.

If by land you mean from Lybia through French North Africa, through Spanish Morroco, through Spain, through France to Germany, then you have no idea at all of the transportation problems involved. In any case, if you have to obtain Vichy France approval to go through its territory, it would have been far simpler, easier and more secure to go from Lybia to Tunisia and then by sea to Sicily.

Algeciras, and Morroco would of connected Europe with Africa. which would of been a huge advantage, to supply his machinery.

It would have been a great advantage if the Lybian oil was available, something of which you have provided no proof. And in any case, I have already shown that there were at least two other options to connect Europe with Africa without involving Spain, so Spain was far from being a place of upmost strategic importance.

its not to hard to understand. : /

Then try to understand it.

[Tim Smith]

The Canaries are only useful to a strong naval power. Like Britain.

Germany's navy was too weak to keep the Canaries adequately supplied, and without adequate supplies, the Canaries are not only useless, they are a liability, because the enemy will take them from you and use them to far better effect than you ever did.

Hitler, if he'd had any sense, should have gone down on his hands and knees, kissed Franco's boots, and begged him to stay neutral and never, ever enter the war! Luckily for Germany, Franco did that anyway. Shame Mussolini didn't do likewise.

[Blasus]

This looks like delicious tank territory to me.

A more pressing problem would be transporting German tanks through the Pyrénées.

[Zebedee]

This looks like delicious tank territory to me.

A more pressing problem would be transporting German tanks through the Pyrénées.

Getting tanks through the Pyrenees is child's play compared to then having to supply them overland.

Pro-axis neutrality was a far better option than attempting something as time consuming and resource draining as invading Spain.

[webmill]

After the Fall of France in June 1940, I assess Hitler as giving top priority to the Luftwaffe ability to achieve dominace over the English Air Forces or any future Anglo-American Airforce.
To do this, I speculate, that Hitler had as a goal to achieve a kill ratio superiority over British single engine high performance fighters of at least 2.5 to 1 or better 3 to 1 kill/loss ratio.
Note that German production of fighters in 1939 is only 605 fighter aircraft which increases to 2,746 fighter aircraft in 1940. In the next year another thousand fighters are added to production for a total of 3,744 fighters in 1941, but the decision to avoid invading Spain is past for the final months of German build-up to invade the Soviet Union planned for May 1941.
German intelligence has to extrapolate the British fighter production capacity, and extrapolation has to replace sure knowledge in this area, I would speculate.
The British Spitfire is not completely known to the Germans, and thus, I would think, the Germans are going to test it.
The Italian Air Force adds 1,155 fighters made in 1940, and I would think the Germans would rate the Italian Airforce as proficient enough for a 1 to 1 or at best barring surprises in favor of the Axis, 1.3 kill/loss ratio against the British air superiority fighters. The German luftwaffe needs to be higher in kill/loss ratio than this 1.3 ratio.
I would put forward that Hitler believed that Luftwaffe Air Supremacy would solve all problems caused by a more serious two front war developing coming from the British and their US allies after the Wehrmacht invades the Soviet Union in 1941.
As the Spanish add no fighter production to the Axis regardless of a German over run or no over run of Spain by German forces in 1940.
Hitler describes the German position on German Air power to the Spanish ambassador Suner as follows and this supports the contention I put forward above:

"in this respect on the basis of landing experiences (British assault against Norway 1940) with landings in Norway where indeed the entire population had been on the side of the English, and the latter, (the English),in spite of that, could achieve no success.
In Norway it had also been shown that coast artillery was not suitable for repelling an attack, but instead that air defense brought the most favorable results.
If a group of Stukas and a group of heavy pursuit planes were made available for the conquest of Gibraltar, then within eight days no enemy ship would any longer dare to venture into these Spanish areas within a radius of 350 kilometers for the heavy bombs of 1,800 kilograms which these machines (Stukas) carried could perhaps not completely destroy a ship but with a direct hit render it so incapable of battle that a repair of several months would be necessary.
The English, however, would not want to run such a risk. In Norway, we had forced the English to retreat only through the use of Stukas."
I would add that that Hitler is leading to a extrapolation that a group of Stukas and fighters can be applied in Luftwaffe air defense anywhere on the coasts of France or Spain added. Particulary if German fighters are proven superior to the necessary degree in the Battle of Britain.

[webmill]

If closing off the Mediterranean and seizing Gibraltar really would have been so vital to the German war effort, why didn't Hitler simply give Franco an ultimatum: either become an active participant in the war, or suffer the same fate was everyone else on continental Europe. There is no way that Spain could have resisted a German invasion...

Continuing my post above in response to the above quote that starts this thread, I would question why can't Hitler and Wehrmacht do both, fight the Airwar for the Battle of Britain and invade Spain while the Nazi-Soviet pact holds.

In 1939 the German submarine force starts outs with 57 Uboats, of which 9 subs are lost that year.1939 adds 18 Uboats in production. In 1940 Uboat production is increased to 50 Uboats while 24 subs are lost- for an average of 2 Uboats lost per month.
The major increase in production in the Submarine force is in 1941 with Uboat production increased to basically 4 times as many at 199 Uboats made to 50 in 1940.

First while Hitler has the Ploesti Oilfields, these Oilfields are exposed in Romania to a Russian Communist invasion if the Nazi-Soviet pact is broken--the situation in the second half of 1940 and the beginning of 1941, the time of a decision for Germany to invade Spain.
Thus German Oil needs to saved for the Uboat war in addition to other operations, but if the luftwaffe falls to attrition because German air to air combat is not successful enough in preventing crippling attrition in an AirWar, and this is a closer call in 1940 with the Luftwaffe coming from behind in aircraft production then the Uboat war also fails one day in the future. Otherwise the Uboat war buys valuable time for Germany at its increased pace, and when the US eventually enters the war as the Germans believed they would, the Uboats may be called back to German and occupied ports to allow Luftwaffe supremacy to handle all Allied invasion possibilities

Note that the Battle of Britain ends in October 1940, but Uboat success greatly increases in Sept 1940, using the major convoys Uboat attacks as the measure, British convoy HX-72 dramtically increases in tonnage sunk to 72,727 tons from the previous Allied convoy HX-65A where only 23,151 tons are sunk. For three convoys after HX-72 the high tonnage sunk remains at approx over 73,000 tons.
The United States has not entered the war so far, Spain remains uninvaded and is evidence, I would assess, showing that this strategy helps keep the US out from early anti Uboat combat operations against Germany in the form of a US Declaration of War or no formal US Declaration of War, but instead defacto increased US Navy attacks against Uboats to counter potential Spanish facist manpower additions against an already stressed Russia in defense in the future. The Italian eighth Army although destroyed by Russian armor in 1942 may be replaced by a large reserve of Spanish facist troops which become stronger if Britain is starved by sea and British aircraft production can not achieve the attrition results neccessary by the British alone.
If Spanish facist troops become stronger with Luftwaffe protection so can any county joining the Axis-this, I believe, would be a priority concern for the US starting early in 1940. But the Luftwaffe has to preserve it production accumulation during the war and become stronger with more and more effectiveness in all areas of the modern war-to the degree the Luftwaffe can do this. I estimate the Spitfire in square off air battles with the Me-109 had a kill/ratio in favor of the Spitfire, possibly around 1.6 to 1 for the Spitfire.

A major discussion on this thread is how Spanish Axis troops can become stronger without heavy Anti tank guns or Panzer faust weapons delivered to late to change the course of the war. Interestingly the US had the bazooka in the works early and may have speculated the Axis troops are very close to their own bazooka if the US can do this so can Europe,and a reason for US alarm.

the US observes no bazooka in Axis troops and thus no formal US Declaration of War yet,-except for a US war at Sea against Germany which supercedes the Axis bazooka if it ever arrives- until the Japanese attack Pearl harbour. The Russian Communists were Nazi collusionists at a time.and the US remembers.
The US assessment is the US Airforce and Navy can reverse the course of the war and come to the rescue of occupied Europe in due time which is close. The US plans to ship over a medium tank and a less frontal armor tank destroyer which can be knocked out by a portable hand held HEAT rocket weapon by the Axis troops

Early US success if US permitted against Uboats in a close contest in 1940 where every Uboat counts, can be reported to the Soviet Union by the US to encourage a Russian Communist double cross of the Nazi-Soviet pact before May 1941-and thus the Germans are taking risks

If the Luftwaffe fighters are totally successful in late 1940 then adding an anti tank gun unarmed and militarily weaker Spanish ally past this time is much less important in terms of adding liability to the German war effort.
Luftwaffe fighter success can be combined with effective Luftwaffe counterair strikes against Allied airfields in North Africa or aircraft carriers of the future.
Hitler calls off the Battle of Britain in October 1940 as momentum from Uboat success for one major reason will stymie the US entry into the European War anytime the US decides to do this.

[LWD]

Historically the Germans very much underestimated British AC production in particular fighter production. This probably stems at least in part from their abysmal intelligence system in Britain. As for the Bazooka my understanding is that the Germans started work on their equivalent after capturing US built ones.

[webmill]

As for the Bazooka my understanding is that the Germans started work on their equivalent after capturing US built ones.

yes, the German bazooka Panzershreck, was a copy of the US bazooka captured in N. Africa after the US landed there in Operation Torch, November 1942. I believe reports of the Germans capturing a US lend lease bazooka on the East Front in 1942 are claims.
In June 1940, the US was aware the Germans had a HEAT shell, and the Germans can make a rocket such as the 150mm Wgr.41. The German HEAT shell can lead to a HEAT grenade, thus the US I speculate wondered when the Germans or any Axis ally was going to combine the two, as the US did, and as far back as the end of WWI.
As history shows the Germans introduced their first produced HEAT shell the 75mm Gr.38 for the 75mm Kwk gun of their PzIV and assault guns in the summer of 1940. Did the US know this? and that summer of 1940?
Since 1937 the Germans had been working on a recoiless artillery weapon and in 1940 made the 75mm Leichgerschutz 40 specifically for the Fallschirmjager. 450 75mm recoiless guns were produced and the 75mm recoiless gun was fired in the battle for Crete. Its range was 6,000m and a 8 rounds per minute fire rate.
The Heat grenade which was also made by the Germans for the Fallschirmjager shortly after the 75mm Gr.38.

In 1940 a nuetral US still assess a Spain not joining the Axis and thus no over land attack on Gibraltar.
Again as history shows, the US worry over an early rocket HEAT weapon for the Axis did not materialise as it was not until Aug 1943 Panzerfaust made its appearance.

At this point speculations can be made, not historical facts, about the potential of a Spanish Army larger than the Blue division, armed more dangerously to the Western Allies with anti tank weapons.

Interestingly, more bazooka for the US Army was stopped in May 1943, as the bazooka did not seem powerful enough. (the Germans corrected this with the 88mm Panzershrack). Thus US worry is over exaggerated for bazooka weapons for a potential facist Spanish Army. I do not entirely estimate that this conclusion based on the extrapolation I made, is totally right-that is U.S. concern is not on the mark.

For example, I speculate Spanish facist troops armed with early bazooka weapons can be used exclusively for city defense or attacks on cities or enemy fortress and the Romanian troops were effectively used in the battle of Crimera,1942. The same would apply, I speculate for Spanish mountain troops or parachutists making a surprise combat drop in the rear, supported by an effective 1940/41 Luftwaffe air wing. Spanish manpower can make Spanish replacements for combat Spanish divisions a problem in a attritional war, however,to what extent?

And German ammunition is almost totally consumed on the East Front, as the Wehrmacht was destined for a heavy attritional war there starting in June 1941, leaving a Spanish ally behind except for what is set aside in terms of ammo for the Axis Spanish Army

[Ironmachine]

For example, I speculate Spanish facist troops armed with early bazooka weapons can be used exclusively for city defense or attacks on cities or enemy fortress and the Romanian troops were effectively used in the battle of Crimera,1942. The same would apply, I speculate for Spanish mountain troops or parachutists making a surprise combat drop in the rear, supported by an effective 1940/41 Luftwaffe air wing. Spanish manpower can make Spanish replacements for combat Spanish divisions a problem in a attritional war, however,to what extent?
And German ammunition is almost totally consumed on the East Front, as the Wehrmacht was destined for a heavy attritional war there starting in June 1941, leaving a Spanish ally behind except for what is set aside in terms of ammo for the Axis Spanish Army

Too much speculation, I'm afraid. Much more than just bazooka weapons would have been necessary for the Spanish troops to be effective in combat. Warm bodies were not a problem, the winning side fielded near a million troops at the end of the Civil War without problem... but the material situation in 1940-1941 was not good: there were not enough weapons and what there was was both worn out and of such miscelanous origins as to make supply considerations a nightmare. Unless Germany could provide the needed material, and this would be massive quantities of almost everything (from food to aircraft, from medical equipment to machine-guns...) there is no way that the Spanish Army could fight effectively.
By the way, there were no parachutist troops in Spain during World War II, and the mountain troops, AFAIK, were not very much specially trained or equipped, so if anything they could have been even less effective than regular troops.

[webmill]

Much more than just bazooka weapons would have been necessary for the Spanish troops to be effective in combat. ... the winning side fielded near a million troops at the end of the Civil War without problem...

...there is no way that the Spanish Army could fight effectively.

By the way, there were no parachutist troops in Spain during World War II, and the mountain troops, AFAIK, were not very much specially trained or equipped, so if anything they could have been even less effective than regular troops.

The angle or perspective I am putting forward is how the US would assess potential bazooka in use by Axis troops in 1940, as a way to predict US response to any Wehrmacht invasion of Spain in 1940.
I do not consider myself arguing potential formations of Axis troops as part of an argument for eventual Nazi victory, as the founder of this excellent military site states on the home page "This is not a Nazi site and I am not a Nazi" by Marcus Wendel.
However debating the potential of Axis troops in WWII always gets close to a pro Nazi military victory argument, rather than only a military discussion. Thus the discussion about Axis troops needs to be handled carefully

Thus for a discussion on the potential of Axis troops to be effective in several WWII combat situations, an analogy almost always goes to the Italian 8th Army and its destruction on the Don in 1942 (along with the destruction of the Romainia and Hungarian Axis troops also). If Spanish Axis troops cannot be better equipped than the Italian 8th Army, then Spanish effectiveness is limited to ineffective defense of the line when attacked by a tank force spearhead.
The tank force can either be the UK-USA or Soviet

[webmill]

While there were no parachutist units formed in the Spanish Army during WWII, I put forward the US might see this differently in 1940. The reason why is that if Spanish facist troops are fanatical enough to join up with a SS formation then the next step is to join a fallschirmjager unit from the SS Spanish unit.

History shows that that in Oct. 1943 Franco called back the Spanish Blue division from the East Front, but not all Spanish troops cooperated with Franco on this and some Spanish troops stayed on in the East Front and formed up in the 101 SS Company. From the 101 SS unit Spanish volunteers would be available for the fallschirmjager divisions or any airlifted re-inforcement division being formed in 1944, although these fallschirmjager or airborne divisions did not combat jump. Any US assessment about this Spanish Axis troop potential, that I speculate may have been made by the US, is not completely off the mark.

The next question is how much difference in the course of the war would Axis Spanish parachutist potential be?
While the US may have predicted Axis Spanish parachutists were possible, the US Air Force intended to interfer

[webmill]

Much more than just bazooka weapons would have been necessary for the Spanish troops to be effective in combat... . Unless Germany could provide the needed material, and this would be massive quantities of almost everything (from food to aircraft, from medical equipment to machine-guns...)

However, the US might assess that all the Spanish Axis troops would need if any HEAT weapons were available, either of Panzerfaust type,bazooka or HEAT shells for an old infantry gun, is a trench.
Although the Axis trench should be deep and extensive..
and protected by an effective operating Luftwaffe air wing

If the Russian Army came up against such a combination of deep trenches and the Luftwaffe still operating,the Russian attack would be a methodical destruction of the Axis trenches by masses of Soviet artillery.
and the Wehrmacht-Axis counter to Soviet artillery in mass would be to pull back in time before it hits and start the game over--in terms of trading space for time the Wehrmacht way and attritioning Soviet troops along the way.

As history shows the British artillery at El Alamein starting with an opening barrage in mass, switched to the methodical destruction of Axis gun positions to ensure victory without higher cost to the British infantry.
I estimate that Axis forces in the desert apparently found it difficult to dig in an artillery piece deep enough to avoid artillery destruction. I speculate Axis infantry trench slits did better.